infobrief
Research Funding –Facts and Figures

1.23

Staying in Research
Research funding and career paths: an update
The DFG offers specific funding programmes for researchers in early career phases. This Infobrief
examines to what extent those who submitted a proposal under these programmes a few years
ago have since remained attached to the German research system on a long-term basis. There are
two dimensions involved here. Firstly, we look at whether and to what extent this group of people
is currently active in terms of DFG proposals, reviews and committees. Secondly, we determine
whether they have obtained the title of professor or private lecturer in pursuing their activities,
since this indicates whether or not they have remained in the German research system.
The monitoring approach presented here, based on DFG data, was first used for the DFG study“Forschungsförderung und Karrierewege” published in 2017. As such, this Infobrief is particularly
dedicated to a comparison over time, allowing conclusions to be drawn as to whether different
cohorts of applicants remain in the German research system to varying degrees. In addition todescribing changes over time, these analyses also distinguish between gender, scientific discipline
and the individual DFG programmes.

1

Question

The DFG offers various funding programmes
that, in addition to pure project funding, also
aim to support applicants’ career development. These include the Walter Benjamin Programme, which has since absorbed the former
research fellowship, the Emmy Noether Programme and the Heisenberg Programme. In
addition, within the context of project-related
funding, Temporary Positions for Principal Investigators are used in particular as a module
under the Research Grants Programme, Priority Programmes and Research Units to further
raise applicants’ research profile in early career
phases.
To what extent and under which general conditions applicants remain in the Ger-

man research system in the long term was
first described in detail by the DFG in its study
Forschungsförderung und Karrierewege (DFG
2017). One key finding of that study was thatfunding recipients have stronger links with research, and in particular research in Germany,
than those who do not. But is this still the case?
In which disciplines do most funding recipientsremain in the research system? Are there differences between the genders? And in which
programmes does funding most often lead toindividuals pursuing a research career?
The DFG’s funding decision can be a key factor in career development in two ways. Firstly,
it may be the case that those researchers are
selected who demonstrate high career potential
anyway: even if this group of people had notreceived funding, they would probably have

2

DFG infobrief 1.23

achieved a better career position than the researchers whose proposals were rejected. Secondly, a person’s career can be given a boost by
the funding itself, i.e. the financial support received or the gain in reputation. Various studies indicate that both mechanisms are effective(Laudel 2017, Reimer et al. 2019, Schröder et
al. 2021, Habicht et al. 2021).
The 2017 study looked at career trajectories for the 2007 and 2008 cohort of applicants
based on a dataset of 1,133 individuals. Information from these individuals’ curriculum vitae
was processed and analysed. In addition, thisstudy was the first to test a monitoring system
based exclusively on structured information in
the DFG’s proposal database, e.g. information
on proposal submissions and review activities
as well as people’s registered titles.
This instrument appears to be well suited toobserving long-term integration in the German
research system:
1. essentially, anyone who has ever approached the DFG as an applicant undera funding programme for career support
can be included in the analysis. In termsof carrying out a more in-depth analysis of
biographies, however only a sample can betaken into account due to the amount ofwork this involves.
2. Since the rules for recording data in the
DFG proposal database have largely remained stable over time, the analysis canbe repeated at any time and focus on any(subsequent) year. Secondly, this means
the database also fulfils the requirement ofa monitoring instrument for use on a permanent basis.
On the one hand, it is possible to look atwhether applicants submitted proposals to the
DFG again after submitting their original proposal, and whether they were invited by the
DFG to carry out at least one review or participate in its decision-making bodies. In addition to this “DFG activity indicator”, the DFG
proposal database also yields information onwhether the academic status of former appli-

cants has changed. Here, reference is made to
the title rather than the academic degree (including doctoral degree). A distinction is drawn
between professor 1, private lecturer (Privatdozent) and no professor/private lecturer title.
All in all, this results in a typology that distinguishes four groups: professor, private lecturer,
DFG-active person (but no professor/private
lecturer title), and non-DFG-active person.
In this way, conclusions can be drawn as towhether a person is still active in the German
research system and whether they have since
taken a career step that can be gleaned fromtheir academic title.

2

Data basis and methodology

The starting point for the analysis is provided by all 32,334 proposals decided on in connection with the DFG funding instruments research fellowship 2, Emmy Noether Programmeand Heisenberg Programme, as well as the
Temporary Positions for Principal Investigators module in the years 2007 to 2021. Bothapproved and rejected proposals are included.
Proposals were submitted by 24,061 persons,which means that some researchers applied forfunding under different programmes or in thesame programme after being rejected, for example, so they are covered more than once inthe analyses.
The 19,518 proposals in the Temporary Positions for the Principal Investigators module
account for the largest share of the data base,followed by the research fellowship with 6,440
proposals, the Emmy Noether Programmewith 4,011 proposals and the Heisenberg Programme (including the Heisenberg professorship and, from 2017, the Heisenberg position
1

The title of professor does not differentiate between a professorshipand a junior professorship.

2

The last research fellowship grants were awarded in 2020. The
Walter Benjamin Programme was introduced in 2019 to replace theresearch fellowship, and proposals were received for it on a larger
scale for the first time in 2020: this programme is therefore not considered here because an insufficient period of time has lapsed since
2019.

Staying in research / Research funding and career paths: an update

or Heisenberg temporary substitute position forclinicians) with 2,365 proposals.
DFG activity and title are examined for all
those who submitted these proposals. In thefollowing analysis, individuals are considered
to still be DFG-active in 2022 if at least one of
the following three criteria applied to them in2020 and 2021:
1. After the original proposal was submitted,
decisions were issued on one or more other DFG proposals submitted by this person(either approved or rejected).
2. The person was active in an ongoing funding programme (various participatory roles
were included here, as were other programmes).
3. The person was involved in a review meeting (oral review), submitted a written review or was a member of a DFG statutory
body (including review boards).
The fact that DFG activity can be regarded
as a fairly good indicator of whether a person
remained attached to the research system results from the considerable breadth and coverage of DFG funding. If we compare the numberof people with the title of professor and a university address who were active as applicantsor reviewers over a five-year period with thenumber of professors reported to the Federal
Statistical Office for German universities, thisshows that 82 percent of them are DFG-active
individuals (DFG, 2022a, p. 5). This focus on
DFG-active individuals largely excludes thoseworking in research abroad, however. At best,
the latter will include researchers who havebeen requested by the DFG to submit a review.
The academic title of a researcher is recorded in the DFG database so that it can be used
to send automated letters to the individual inquestion. It is always adapted when a contact
occurs, e.g. if the person submits a proposal or
the DFG Head Office requests a review. This
analysis is based on the status of titles as recorded by the DFG in January 2022.
In the 2017 study, the quality of the title data
recorded in the DFG database was assessed forthe sample of 1,133 persons searched by CVanalysis. In terms of those applicants following DFG career support programmes whose
proposal was rejected, the current status in the
DFG proposal database was under-reported byabout 20 percent. In the case of persons who
did receive funding, there was a very high degree of correspondence between the titles listed
in the DFG database and those that appearedin the individuals’ current curricula vitae. Thisdifference should be taken into account wheninterpreting the following findings.

3

Findings

3.1

Integration in the German researchsystem by the year in which a decision
was issued

The extent to which DFG applicants for whose
original proposal a decision was issued in theyears 2007 to 2021 are currently integrated in
the German research system depends primarilyon the time that has lapsed since the submission of the proposal. If, for example, a person
only obtained a research fellowship or funding
under the Walter Benjamin Programme a few
years ago, it is unlikely that they will have attained a professorship, simply because it will
not have been possible in that time to gain the
research experience usually required for suchan appointment. A breakdown of applicant career status by the year in which the decision on
their original proposal was issued is shown for
the research fellowship programme in Figure 1.
In distinguishing between approved and rejected research fellowship proposals, this figure shows how the shares of the four different
groups shift with the time lapse since the original funding decision.
What is striking is the drop in DFG activity
among applicants whose funding decision was
issued about two to three years ago – a periodof time that corresponds to the duration of theresearch fellowship. This sudden decline indicates that many research fellowship holders are3

4

DFG infobrief 1.23

Figure 1: Title or DFG activity in 2022 of applicants of proposals approved under the research fellowship programme based on
the time lapse since the original funding decision (2007 to 2020)

Research fellowship approved
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Time lapse since funding decision in years
Professor

Private lecturer

DFG-active person (no title as professor/private lecturer)

Non-DFG active person

Figure 2: Title or DFG activity in 2022 of applicants whose proposals were rejected under the research fellowship programmeby time lapse since original funding decision (2007 to 2020)

Research fellowship rejected
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Time lapse since funding decision in years
Professor

Private lecturer

DFG-active person (no title as professor/private lecturer)

Non-DFG active person

Staying in research / Research funding and career paths: an update

no longer or will no longer be active in the DFG
once their funding expires. This applies evenmore clearly to applicants whose proposal was
rejected. For them, DFG activity is reduced at
an earlier stage.
Looking at the other end of these two graphs,
we see that over a quarter of those with approved research fellowships from the earliest
years, 2007 to 2009, are listed by the DFG as
holding a professorship. The fact that the shareof proposals with the longest time lapse since
fellowship funding does not increase further indicates that the maximum level may have beenreached.
A comparison shows that the greater the time
lapse since the funding decision, the greater theshare of professors among the rejected fellowship proposals. Here, an increase to a level ofover 10 percent only follows for the cohorts of2008 (15 percent) and 2007 (18 percent). On
the other hand, the share of private lecturers issomewhat higher among these individuals. For
persons with approved fellowships, the shareof private lecturers levels off at 5 to 7 percent
from the decision year 2012 onwards, and at 6
to 8 percent for rejected fellowships from thedecision year 2010 onwards. Finally, for between 57 and 65 percent of all applicants from2007 to 2011, the status remains “without DFG
activity”. This figure is significantly higher forrejected fellowships in the same cohorts, at 71
to 86 percent.

3.2

Integration in the German researchsystem by programme and funding
decision

In order to compare the level of attachment
to the research system between applicants todifferent career development programmes, thefollowing analyses offer a summary for those
who originally submitted proposals in the years
2007 to 2011. In the case of these cohorts, proposals were submitted at least ten years ago,so the analysis reflects longer-term attachment
and career status.

The summary analysis shown in Figure 2
compares the shares of the groups defined
above according to the four programmes,
distinguishing between approved and rejected proposals. There are differences between
the programmes that can be accounted for by
the logic of the programmes themselves: forthose who applied for research fellowships,
the share of professorships achieved 11 to 15
years later is the lowest among those funded, at 24 percent, followed by 28 percent in
the Temporary Positions for Principal Investigators module. The percentages are significantly higher for funding recipients under the
Emmy Noether and Heisenberg Programmes,
where 73 and 85 percent, respectively, aredocumented in the DFG database as holding a professorship after receiving their DFG
funding. For all four programmes, this title
is recorded significantly less frequently in thecase of those whose proposals were rejected.
This pattern is consistent with the findings ofthe 2017 study.
One interesting detail emerges with regard
to the status group of private lecturers. While
their share in most of the comparison groups
shown in Figure 2 ranges in a relatively narrow corridor of between 3 and 15 percent, thegroup of applicants with rejected proposals under the Heisenberg Programme stands out inparticular: of these, 38 percent still belong to
the group of private lecturers 11 to 15 years
after receiving funding, so their status is presumably the same as it was for the majority of
the researchers at the time of submitting their
Heisenberg proposal.
3.3

Integration in the German researchsystem by gender

As in the present analysis, the DFG study of2017 examined gender-specific differences inrelation to the German research system, however based on an analysis of curricula vitae.
There were notable differences only for the
Temporary Positions for Principal Investigators

5

DFG infobrief 1.23

27.8%
14.7%

14.8%

66.7%

7.4% 9.4%

8.4%

45.5%

84.8%

approved (N=369)

9.8%

49.0%

rejected (N=363)

10%

20%

30%

37.5%
40%

50%

60%

70%

DFG-active person (no title as professor/private lecturer)

In this analysis, 32 percent (men) and 22 percent (women) of funding recipients with a Temporary Position for Principal Investigators
attained a professorship by 2022. For the Heisenberg Programme,
the shares are roughly equal at 85 percent men and 86 percent
women.

16.4%

0.8%
4.6%

37.6%

and the research fellowships (cf. DFG 2017,p. 54 – 55), but not for the Emmy Noether
Programme and funding recipients under the
Heisenberg Programme.
Figure 4 below compares the results for the
research fellowship and the Emmy Noether
Programme 3. Once again, this confirms thatfewer women than men hold the title of professor or remain in contact with the DFG following a DFG research fellowship. This difference is evident for both rejected and approved
proposals. Female researchers who have applied for a research fellowship are also more
likely to leave the (German) research system
3

44.0%

72.7%

rejected (N=593)

Private lecturer

13.4%

11.1% 7.5%

approved (N=311)

0%Professor

78.5%

1.1%

rejected (N=2,604)

60.4%

4.5%

rejected (N=820) 10.9%

approved (N=1,390)

6.8% 9.3%

23.5%
6.1%

approved (N=1,628)

2.6%

Emmy Noether
Programme

Temporary Positions
for Principal Investigators

Research
fellowship

Figure 3: Title or DFG activity in 2022 among applicants who originally submitted proposals in 2007 to 2011, by programme
and funding decision

Heisenberg
Programme

6

80%

12.4%

90% 100%

Non-DFG active personthan men. Another partial finding that can behighlighted here is that a lower share of female researchers fall into the category of “private lecturer”.
The differences are smaller for Emmy
Noether funding recipients. Here, 74 percent of men and 70 percent of women whose
funding proposals were approved between
2007 and 2011 had obtained a professorshipby 2022. Among those whose funding proposals were rejected, 39 percent of men and
34 percent of women still went on to obtainthe title of professor. The difference is also
smaller in the “DFG-active” category than for
the research fellowship. Nonetheless, some
50 percent of women whose proposals were
rejected, but only 44 percent of men, are nolonger registered with the DFG as applicants,

Staying in research / Research funding and career paths: an update

8.0% 9.1%

18.5%

9.7%

67.2%

73.6%

Women (N=91)

70.3%

9.9%

15.9%
17.6%

85.1%

Men (N=438)

39.0%

Women (N=155)

33.5%
10%

7.7%

74.1%

3.6%
2.7%

12.4% 7.7% 5.7%

Women (N=329) 8.5%

Private lecturer

2.2%

Men (N=220)

Men (N=491)

56.7%

2.7%

4.5%

Women (N=577)

0%Professor

26.2%

Men (N=1,051)

20%

7.8% 9.4%
6.5%

Emmy Noether
Programme

Rejected

Research
fellowship

Emmy Noether
Programme

Approved

Research
fellowship

Figure 4: Title or DFG activity in 2022 among applicants who originally submitted proposals in 2007 to 2011, by gender,
programme and funding decision

30%

43.8%

9.7%

40%

50%

50.3%
60%

DFG-active person (no title as professor/private lecturer)

reviewers or in a committee function 11 to
15 years after submitting their original proposal.
Researchers of both genders leave the German research system even at this advanced
career stage, especially women. It is not possible here to determine whether or not they are
increasingly migrating to foreign research systems, as was found in the 2017 study.
3.4 Integration in the German researchsystem by scientific discipline
The share of researchers who leave the research system after completing their doctorate
varies considerably from one subject to another.
There are also varying degrees of competitive
pressure to obtain a professorship, depending

70%

80%

90% 100%

Non-DFG active personon the discipline (Wirth, 2019; Reimer, Witte,
Lenz & Banschbach, 2019).
Figure 5 shows the extent to which funding recipients of the cohorts 2007 to 2011 differ in terms of their attachment to the German
research system across the four funding programmes under review here, broken down according to the four major scientific disciplines 4.
What is striking here is first of all the slightdifference in the programmes aimed at researchers in the advanced postdoc phase: in the
Emmy Noether Programme, the shares of those
who later receive the title of professor is roughly equal in all four scientific disciplines, with aslight decline in the case of the natural sciences.
4

The scientific disciplines represent the highest level of the DFG
subject classification system, see: www.dfg.de/en/dfg_profile/statutory_bodies/review_boards/subject_areas

7

DFG infobrief 1.23

4.6%

10.2%

40.3%

44.9%

Life sciences (N=939)

19.8%

7.6% 10.8%

61.9%

Natural Sciences (N=409)

21.0%

4.2%

Humanities and social sciences (N=196)

65.5%

36.9%

Humanities and social sciences (N=485)

36.3%

Life sciences (N=379)
Natural Sciences (N=411)

16.1%

24.8%
20.0%
29.6%

56.0%

19.5%
10.9%

9.1%

38.6%

10.8%

44.9%

20.9%

48.2%

7.8% 13.0%

49.6%

75.0%

6.8%

18.2%

Life sciences (N=120)

74.2%

8.3%

15.0%

10.6%

15.4%

69.2%
74.4%

Engineering sciences (N=43)

79.3%

Humanities and social sciences (N=116)
Life sciences (N=124)

87.1%

Natural Sciences (N=101)

87.1%

Engineering sciences (N=28)

89.3%

0%
Private lecturer

20.9%

3.6% 5.9% 8.1%
1.0%
7.1% 5.9% 0.8% 3.4%
4.0%

Natural Sciences (N=104)

Professor

4.8%

Humanities and social sciences (N=44)

2.5%

Engineering sciences (N=115)

2.4%
4.8%

Engineering sciences (N=84)

9.3%

4.7%

Emmy Noether Programmeapproved

Temporary Position
for Principal Investigatorapproved

Research fellowshipapproved

Figure 5: Title or DFG activity in 2022 among applicants who originally submitted proposals in 2007 to 2011, by programmeand scientific discipline

Heisenberg Programmeapproved

817.2%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

DFG-active person (no title as professor/private lecturer)

In the Heisenberg Programme, the shares ofprofessors in the humanities and social sciences
are somewhat lower than in the other three scientific disciplines; for the other three there arealmost no differences.
For the two other programmes, a comparisonof the four scientific disciplines yields a somewhat more differentiated picture.
In the case of the research fellowship and the
Temporary Positions for Principal Investigators,

Non-DFG active person

the data are similar for the humanities and social sciences and for the engineering sciences.
Both have the highest shares of funding recipients who went on to obtain professorships.
The findings suggest that people who apply for
postdoctoral funding in this range of subjects
are more likely than those in the life and natural sciences to associate this decision with longterm career prospects in research.

Staying in research / Research funding and career paths: an update

3.5

Professor titles: comparison of thedecision years 2001 to 2015 and 2007
to 2021

Finally, a question is addressed which we can
now answer for the first time due to the monitoring system presented here: how do the findings change over time? To be specific: are there
differences to be seen in the shares of those
who attain a professorship if we compare thosefunding recipients in the cohorts analysed in
the 2017 DFG study for the first time and thosein later cohorts?
Figures 6 to 9 provide an answer to this question. The share of those who are registered with
the DFG with the title of professor is comparedbased on an equal time lapse since the year inwhich the decision on the proposal was submitted under these programmes. The blue columns indicate the percentage of professors at
the beginning of 2022 in the applicant years
2007 to 2021. The red columns contrast thecomparative figure six years ago (titles as of the
beginning of 2016 for the decision years 2001
to 2015). Here is an example to illustrate how
this works: of the former Emmy Noether funding recipients in 2007, 60.5 percent were listed
as holding the title of professor in the DFG database nine years later (2016). For the former
funding recipients of the year 2013, given thesame time lapse since the funding (after nine
years, i.e. in 2022), the share of those who
hold such a title is 61.2 percent. Even though
the pillars show differing characteristics in individual years, there is a very high degree ofcorrespondence overall. No clearly discernible
shortening of the columns is to be discerned inlater years. For the research fellowship there isa higher share of professors than there was in
the comparative analysis six years earlier, especially for applicants in the decision years 13 to
15 years ago. In the case of the Temporary Positions for Principal Investigators, on the other
hand, a higher share of applicants from the decision years 2011 to 2015 hold the title of professor (Figure 7) than from the decision years

2017 to 2021 in 2022. In the Emmy Noether
Programme, the columns for the cohort of 11
to 15 years ago are somewhat shorter today. In
the Heisenberg Programme, more people in themost recent cohorts in 2020 and 2021 hold thetitle of professor than was the case in earlier cohorts two years after the funding decision wasmade (Figure 6).

910

DFG infobrief 1.23

Figure 6: Title of professor in 2022 or 2016 among applicants whose proposals were approved under the Research Fellowship
programme by time lapse since the funding decision (2007 to 2021 / 2001 to 2015)

Research Fellowship
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Time lapse since funding decision in years
Decision years 2001 to 2015

Decision years 2007 to 2021

N=3,222 in 2016, N=4,333 in 2022. No more research fellowships were approved in 2021.

Figure 7: Title of professor in 2022 or 2016 among applicants whose proposals were approved for Temporary Positions
for Principal Investigators by time lapse since the funding decision (2007 to 2021 / 2001 to 2015)

Temporary Positions for Principal Investigators
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Time lapse since funding decision in years
Decision years 2001 to 2015
N=3,314 in 2016, N=5,809 in 2022.

Decision years 2007 to 2021

14

15

Staying in research / Research funding and career paths: an update

Figure 8: Title of professor in 2022 or 2016 among applicants whose proposals were approved under the Emmy Noether
Programme by time lapse since the funding decision (2007 to 2021 / 2001 to 2015)

Emmy Noether Programme
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Time lapse since funding decision in years
Decision years 2001 to 2015

Decision years 2007 to 2021

N=854 in 2016, N=931 in 2022.

Figure 9: Title of professor in 2022 or 2016 among applicants whose proposals were approved under the Heisenberg
Programme by time lapse since the funding decision (2007 to 2021 / 2001 to 2015)

Heisenberg Programme
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Time lapse since funding decision in years
Decision years 2001 to 2015
N=958 in 2016, N=1,065 in 2022.

Decision years 2007 to 2021

14

15

11

12

DFG infobrief 1.23

4

Conclusion andfuture perspectives

The available data was used to look at how
applicants under the four programmes mentioned showed changes in terms of their status
within the German research system. This wasmeasured based on DFG activity as well as onwhether or not they hold an academic title ofprofessor or private lecturer.
When compared to the findings of the 2017
study, where the far more complex method of
CV analysis was used, a largely consistent pattern emerges:• those whose proposals are rejected leave
the German research system earlier and inlarger numbers.
• Female researchers are less involved in
the German research system than male researchers, regardless of whether their proposals are approved or rejected.
• In the humanities and social sciences, aswell as in the engineering sciences, funding
under the research fellowship programme
is more strongly associated with an orientation towards a research career in Germany than is the case in the life and naturalsciences. A share of 40 percent (humanities and social sciences) and 37 percent(engineering sciences) of those who received funding under this programme holdthe title of professor 11 to 15 years after receiving funding. A comparable pattern canbe discerned in the case of the Temporary
Positions for Principal Investigators.
• When compared directly, the career prospects of former recipients of funding under the Emmy Noether and Heisenberg
Programmes have remained largely stable.
Among those who formerly received funding, many go on to obtain professorships,
but many also remain in the German research system in general and continue tobe involved with the DFG.
The DFG will continue to monitor to what
extent funding recipients remain in the Ger-

man research system in the long term. One
question to look at might be whether thechanges caused by the coronavirus pandemic(DFG, 2022b) have had an impact on research
careers. For those who completed their doctorate right in the middle or at the beginning of
the pandemic, as well as for funding recipients
under the Walter Benjamin Programme, it will
only be visible in a few years from now whether they have remained in the research system.
Similarly, the success of efforts to retain doctoral researchers in academia in the long term
can only be answered over time. The present
monitoring system creates the basis to further
investigate these issues in the future.

Staying in research / Research funding and career paths: an update

Literature
DFG (2017). Forschungsförderung und Karriere­
wege. Bonn: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
DFG (2022a). Pakt für Forschung und Innovation – Monitoring-Bericht 2022. Bonn: Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft.

infobrief

DFG (2022b). DFG Funding Activities in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Bonn: Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Legal information

Habicht, I. M., Lutter, M., & Schröder, M. (2021).
How Human Capital, Universities of Excellence,
Third Party Funding, Mobility and Gender Explain
Productivity in German Political Science. Scientometrics 126.

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft e. V.
Kennedyallee 40 · 53175 Bonn, Germany
Postal code: 53170 Bonn, Germany
Phone +49 228 885-1
Fax +49 228 885-2777
postmaster@dfg.de
www.dfg.de/en

Laudel, G. (2017). How do National Career Systems Promote or Hinder the Emergence of New
Research Lines? Minerva, S. 1 – 29.
Reimer, M., Witte, J., Lenz, T., & Banschbach,V. (2019). Fachkulturen und wissenschaftliche
Karrieren. München: Bayerisches Staatsinstitut
für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung(IHF).
Schröder, M., Lutter, M., & Habicht, I. M. (2021).
Publishing, signaling, social capital, and gender:
Determinants of becoming a tenured professor
in German political science. PLOS ONE.
Wirth, A. (2019). Positive Signale. Angebot undNachfrage – der Stellenmarkt für Professuren.
Forschung & Lehre 12|19.

(Last revised: 29.03.2023)

The text of this publication is licensed under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) Licence. For the full text ofthe licence, see:creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode

DFG infobrief, issue 1.23
The DFG Infobrief is published by the Information
Management Group of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation),
Bonn.
Contact:
Richard Heidler
Phone +49 228 885-2925
Contributors:
Jürgen Güdler
Anke Reinhardt
Judith Wagner
Ina von der Beck
Basic layout: besscom, Berlin; Tim Wübben, DFG
Typesetting and design: Olaf Herling, Warstein
Download adress:www.dfg.de/infobrief/en
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8036896

13