IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v6y2018i3p29-d156372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research

Author

Listed:
  • Karin Langenkamp

    (Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung—BIBB), Robert-Schuman-Platz 3, 53175 Bonn, Germany)

  • Bodo Rödel

    (Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung—BIBB), Robert-Schuman-Platz 3, 53175 Bonn, Germany)

  • Kerstin Taufenbach

    (Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung—BIBB), Robert-Schuman-Platz 3, 53175 Bonn, Germany)

  • Meike Weiland

    (Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung—BIBB), Robert-Schuman-Platz 3, 53175 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

The article presents a research project at the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training in Germany and reflects the perspective of researchers in the field of vocational education and training (VET). It investigates the technical and structural, policy-related, and normative and inherent academic research conditions exerting an influence on the acceptance, dissemination, and use of Open Access (OA). The research project focuses on the German-speaking countries. VET research represents an interlinking of various related academic research areas, rather than comprising a stand-alone discipline. Therefore, the assumption must be that the results of the project will be at least partially transferable to other fields within the social sciences and the humanities and will thus contribute towards findings with regard to OA across the whole of the latter domain. The background to the project is underpinned by science communication and by media theory. The empirical basis of the study has its foundations in a Sequential Mixed Method Design with a qualitative strand, followed by a quantitative strand. The qualitative exploration via focus groups will lead to hypotheses for the online survey. The online survey will be aimed at academic researchers from various disciplines who share common ground in that they address topics that are related to VET research. The realisation of the research project is planned for 2018–2020.

Suggested Citation

  • Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:29-:d:156372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/3/29/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/3/29/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Jeffrey Beall, 2012. "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 179-179, September.
    3. Ewen Callaway, 2016. "Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric," Nature, Nature, vol. 535(7611), pages 210-211, July.
    4. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anja Oberländer & Torsten Reimer, 2019. "Open Access and the Library," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-2, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working and Discussion Papers WP 5/2020, Research Department, National Bank of Slovakia.
    2. Christian Heise & Joshua M. Pearce, 2020. "From Open Access to Open Science: The Path From Scientific Reality to Open Scientific Communication," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    3. Oliver Braganza, 2020. "A simple model suggesting economically rational sample-size choice drives irreproducibility," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Martin Grančay & Jolita Vveinhardt & Ērika Šumilo, 2017. "Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1813-1837, June.
    5. Pierre J C Chuard & Milan Vrtílek & Megan L Head & Michael D Jennions, 2019. "Evidence that nonsignificant results are sometimes preferred: Reverse P-hacking or selective reporting?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-7, January.
    6. Megan L Head & Luke Holman & Rob Lanfear & Andrew T Kahn & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Mark D Lindner & Richard K Nakamura, 2015. "Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
    8. van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria, 2018. "Dissertation R.C.M. van Aert," MetaArXiv eqhjd, Center for Open Science.
    9. Hannah Fraser & Tim Parker & Shinichi Nakagawa & Ashley Barnett & Fiona Fidler, 2018. "Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.
    10. Piotr Bialowolski & Dorota Weziak-Bialowolska & Eileen McNeely, 2021. "The Role of Financial Fragility and Financial Control for Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 1137-1157, June.
    11. Daniele Fanelli & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-11, June.
    12. Aguinis, Herman & Banks, George C. & Rogelberg, Steven G. & Cascio, Wayne F., 2020. "Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 27-35.
    13. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    15. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    16. Solomon, David J. & Laakso, Mikael & Björk, Bo-Christer, 2013. "A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among open access journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 642-650.
    17. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    19. Jelte M Wicherts & Marjan Bakker & Dylan Molenaar, 2011. "Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
    20. Valentine, Kathrene D & Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Scofield, John E. & Beauchamp, Marshall T., 2017. "Beyond p-values: Utilizing Multiple Estimates to Evaluate Evidence," OSF Preprints 9hp7y, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:29-:d:156372. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.