CESSDA Data Catalogue OAI-PMH Repository
Not a member yet
32838 research outputs found
Sort by
Transatlantic Privacy Perceptions (TAPP), Wave 4 (Spring 2024)
No full textTAPP is an interdisciplinary research project conducted at the Universities of Maryland (UMD) and Munich (LMU). The privacy landscape is shaped by diverse actors from academia, policy, law, technology, journalism, and civil society, making it challenging to unify perspectives across sectors, regions, and cultural contexts. The Transatlantic Privacy Perceptions (TAPP) Panel addresses this by surveying influential privacy experts across jurisdictions with differing regulations. This survey captures stakeholders´ attitudes toward digital privacy, focusing on current and future challenges in privacy policies and practices. The focus of Wave 4 of the Transatlantic Privacy Perceptions (TAPP) Panel is on the use and governance of artificial intelligence (AI). This survey explores innovative applications of AI across various sectors and enhanced operational efficiencies. Additionally, significant emphasis is placed on capturing stakeholder knowledge and use of robust governance frameworks to ensure ethical use, transparency, and accountability in AI deployment. This approach aims to harness AI´s potential while mitigating risks and addressing societal concerns about bias, privacy, and the impact on employment. During the survey period from 17 April 2024 to 15 May 2024 privacy experts who deal with privacy in the United States and/or Europe were interviewed in online interviews (CAWI). Respondents were selected through a deliberate selection process based on their visibility, recognizability and influence in the field.Professional interest in privacy-related topics or both a personal and a professional interest in privacy-related topics; privacy as part of work; use of AI tools or systems as part of work; how much do privacy concerns affect respondent’s use of AI tools or systems in work; organization hast a framework or guidelines for using AI in the workplace; kind of organization’s frameworks and guidelines for AI use (internal, external, mixture of different frameworks); development of framework or guidelines by the organization or by another organization; organization plans the implementation of a framework or guidelines for future AI use; involvement in drafting the framework or guidelines; how does/ will the organization ensure that everyone complies with framework/ guidelines (individuals/ teams will be responsible for any necessary compliance, existing privacy work has/ will expand to include AI, a new role or team focused on AI, external consultants will monitor/ audit, do not know); feeling of confidence that the respondent/ the organization will be able to address privacy challenges that may arise when using AI tools or systems in work; how does the respondent/ the organization plan to address such challenges (no need to use AI systems, reviewing process, conducting assessment and defining necessary tools, use existing privacy tools (not adjusting for AI), use a mixture of external consultation and internal resources, using or creating AI framework); most important key aspects of practices centered around AI privacy (documentation and traceability of data sources, human involvement and/or oversight of AI decision-making, human-centered design (e.g., usability, explainability), technical privacy safeguards (e.g., encryption), privacy by design (e.g., default settings), data minimization, control over own data (e.g., access, correct, delete data), copyright protections, other, prefer not to answer); familiarity with Responsible AI principles; paid or voluntary privacy work (respondent performs privacy-related activities as part of his paid job vs. as a volunteer or activist); years of experience on privacy issues; sector for privacy work (academia, government, journalism, law, non-profit/NGO/ Think Tank, Tech industry, non-Tech industry, volunteer/ activist); region of expertise: policy context the respondent is most familiar with when it comes to privacy issues (United States, Europe, other). Additionally coded: Respondent ID, response ID, wave; returning respondent (individuals who have participated in at least one wave of TAPP); response status; willingness to participate in future waves of the TAPP Panel; date in which the survey was finished and recorded; duration to complete the survey (in seconds); country of expertise.TAPP ist ein interdisziplinäres Forschungsprojekt, das an den Universitäten von Maryland (UMD) und München (LMU) durchgeführt wird. Die Datenschutzlandschaft wird von verschiedenen Akteuren aus Wissenschaft, Politik, Recht, Technologie, Journalismus und Zivilgesellschaft geprägt, was es schwierig macht, Perspektiven über Sektoren, Regionen und kulturelle Kontexte hinweg zu vereinheitlichen. Das Transatlantic Privacy Perceptions (TAPP) Panel geht dieser Herausforderung an, indem es einflussreiche Datenschutzexperten aus verschiedenen Rechtsordnungen mit unterschiedlichen Vorschriften befragt. Diese Umfrage erfasst die Einstellungen der Interessengruppen zum digitalen Datenschutz und konzentriert sich dabei auf aktuelle und zukünftige Herausforderungen in der Datenschutzpolitik und -praxis. Der Schwerpunkt der vierten Welle des Transatlantic Privacy Perceptions (TAPP) Panels liegt auf der Nutzung und Steuerung künstlicher Intelligenz (KI). Diese Umfrage untersucht innovative Anwendungen von KI in verschiedenen Sektoren und verbesserte betriebliche Effizienz. Darüber hinaus wird großer Wert darauf gelegt, das Wissen der Interessengruppen und die Nutzung robuster Governance-Rahmenwerke zu erfassen, um eine ethische Nutzung, Transparenz und Rechenschaftspflicht beim Einsatz von KI sicherzustellen. Dieser Ansatz zielt darauf ab, das Potenzial der KI zu nutzen und gleichzeitig Risiken zu mindern und gesellschaftliche Bedenken hinsichtlich Voreingenommenheit, Datenschutz und Auswirkungen auf die Beschäftigung auszuräumen. Während des Erhebungszeitraums vom 17. April 2024 bis zum 15. Mai 2024 wurden Datenschutzexperten, die sich mit Datenschutz in den Vereinigten Staaten und/oder Europa befassen, in Online-Interviews (CAWI) befragt. Die Befragten wurden in einem sorgfältigen Auswahlverfahren auf der Grundlage ihrer Sichtbarkeit, Bekanntheit und ihres Einflusses in diesem Bereich ausgewählt.Berufliches Interesse an datenschutzrelevanten Themen oder sowohl persönliches als auch berufliches Interesse an datenschutzrelevanten Themen; Datenschutz als Teil der Arbeit; Einsatz von KI-Tools oder -Systemen als Teil der Arbeit; inwieweit beeinflussen Datenschutzbedenken die Nutzung von KI-Tools oder -Systemen durch die Befragten bei der Arbeit; verfügt die Organisation über einen Rahmen oder Richtlinien für den Einsatz von KI am Arbeitsplatz; Art der Rahmenbedingungen und Richtlinien der Organisation für den Einsatz von KI (intern, extern, Mischung aus verschiedenen Rahmenbedingungen); Entwicklung von Rahmenwerken oder Richtlinien durch die Organisation oder durch eine andere Organisation; Organisation plant die Umsetzung eines Rahmenwerks oder von Richtlinien für die zukünftige Nutzung von KI; Beteiligung an der Ausarbeitung des Rahmenwerks oder der Richtlinien; wie stellt die Organisation sicher, dass alle das Rahmenwerk/die Richtlinien einhalten (Einzelpersonen/Teams sind für die Einhaltung verantwortlich, bestehende Datenschutzmaßnahmen wurden/werden auf KI ausgeweitet, eine neue Rolle oder ein neues Team mit Schwerpunkt auf KI, externe Berater überwachen/prüfen, weiß nicht); Vertrauen, dass der Befragte/die Organisation in der Lage sein wird, Datenschutzprobleme zu lösen, die bei der Verwendung von KI-Tools oder -Systemen bei der Arbeit auftreten können; wie plant der Befragte/die Organisation, solche Herausforderungen anzugehen (keine Notwendigkeit, KI-Systeme einzusetzen, Überprüfung des Prozesses, Durchführung von Bewertungen und Definition der erforderlichen Tools, Nutzung bestehender Datenschutz-Tools (ohne Anpassung für KI), Nutzung einer Kombination aus externer Beratung und internen Ressourcen, Nutzung oder Erstellung eines KI-Rahmenwerks); wichtigste Aspekte der Praktiken im Zusammenhang mit dem Datenschutz bei KI (Dokumentation und Rückverfolgbarkeit von Datenquellen, menschliche Beteiligung und/oder Überwachung der KI-Entscheidungsfindung, menschenzentriertes Design (z. B. Benutzerfreundlichkeit, Erklärbarkeit), technische Datenschutzmaßnahmen (z. B. Verschlüsselung), Privacy by Design (z. B. Standardeinstellungen), Datenminimierung, Kontrolle über eigene Daten (z. B. Zugriff, Korrektur, Löschung von Daten), Urheberrechtsschutz, Sonstiges, keine Angabe); Vertrautheit mit den Grundsätzen der verantwortungsvollen KI; bezahlte oder freiwillige Datenschutzarbeit (der Befragte übt datenschutzbezogene Tätigkeiten im Rahmen seiner bezahlten Arbeit aus vs. als Freiwilliger oder Aktivist); Jahre Erfahrung mit Datenschutzfragen; Sektor für Datenschutzarbeit (Wissenschaft, Regierung, Journalismus, Recht, gemeinnützige Organisationen/NGOs/Think Tanks, Technologiebranche, Nicht-Technologiebranche, Freiwilliger/Aktivist); Kompetenzgebiet: politischer Kontext, mit dem der Befragte in Bezug auf Datenschutzfragen am besten vertraut ist (Vereinigte Staaten, Europa, Sonstiges). Zusätzlich verkodet: Befragten-ID, Antwort-ID, Welle; wiederkehrender Befragter (Personen, die an mindestens einer Welle von TAPP teilgenommen haben); Antwortstatus; Bereitschaft zur Teilnahme an zukünftigen Wellen des TAPP-Panels; Datum, an dem die Umfrage abgeschlossen und aufgezeichnet wurde; Dauer zum Ausfüllen der Umfrage (in Sekunden); Land der Expertise
Europolity - The politicization of European integration in the Greek public discourse, 1974-2019
No full textThe project analyzes the public discourse regarding the European integration process in Greece from 1974 until 2019. Using a political claims approach that combines political discourse with an analysis of attribution of responsibility and by using media data as the main source, the project will trace the politicization of European integration in Greece. The politicization of European integration that until some years ago was seen as absent is now widely accepted. Thus, EU politicization is mainly used in the relevant literature to describe more recent phenomena that indicate a change in patterns of support and opposition for European integration. Aiming to distinguish and compare the several styles of political debates on European integration in a national case study, we analyze these patterns of support and opposition from a long-term perspective. The analysis focuses and evolves around key events and critical thresholds (Treaties and agreements, European elections etc.) in the evolution of Greece’s accession to the European Economic Community (EEC) and later the country’s embedding in the European Union (EU). The claims-making approach brings to surface the actors (politicians, opinion-makers, civil society actors etc.) who appear in media reports and thoroughly analyzes their views. It also highlights the degree of Europeanization/transnationalization of the Greek public discourse since it shows to whom and at which spatial level the relevant claims are addressed each time. The overarching research question of the project is: What political claims are made and by whom in the Greek public sphere regarding the European integration process? However, the project does not limit itself to description but also explains the patterns of political claims-making in general and the attribution of responsibility in particular. Accordingly, the second set of research questions are: How and to what extent has public claim-making changed over the 1974-2019 period? How can we explain the different political claims-making by different actors? Our explanations refer to the structural position of the actors, the strategic interaction among them, and the political dynamic in Greece and Europe. Our findings relate to the ongoing debates on EU politicization, the debates on the Europeanization of the public sphere, and the Europeanization of contention, in light especially of the recent economic and refugee crises, the rise of negative critiques for the EU project, and the possible secession of member states. The project: combines the quantitative research method of political claim analysis in its special form of discursive attribution of responsibility analysis on media data with the qualitative research method of conducting semi-structured interviews with important actors in the public debate, complements the discursive approach with content analysis of selected parliamentary minutes over the 1975-2017 period, offers a policy analysis report of key EU related issues for Greece to enrich our understanding of the positioning of actors in the debate, the structure of available each time political opportunities and threats, and of the broader political and economic context. The project was initially hosted in the Department of Sociology and the Center for Research and Studies (KEME) at the University of Crete and then at the National Centre for Social Research – EKKE in Athens. Research conducted in close collaboration with the Center of Modern European Studies (CEMES) at the University of Copenhagen. The Principal Investigator was Dr. Kostas Kanellopoulos, and members of the research team were Dr. Angelos Loukakis, Dr. Stavros Protopapas, Mr. Konstantinos Kostopoulos (PhD candidate), Ms. Argyro Psychi-Fili (postgraduate student), and as non-salaried research associates: Prof. Maria Kousis (director of KEME), Dr. Giorgos Tsiolis and Mr. Nikos Kapelonis (all at the University of Crete) and Prof. Hans-Jӧrg Trenz (co-chair of CEMES at the University of Copenhagen and later Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy). The project received funding from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (H.F.R.I Research Grant: 408)
rEUsilience - Family Dynamics and Labour Market Risks (tssq25_1)
No full textThis module captures intra-household dynamics in care responsibilities, paid work, access to resources and sharing of resources. It contains questions on household composition, use of childcare services, care responsibilities for a person in need of support due to age, illness or disability, access to resources, resource sharing, and material deprivation
Den västsvenska SOM-undersökningen 2023
No full textThe Regional Western Sweden SOM Survey has been conducted yearly since 1992, but was initially limited to residents of Gothenburg and its surrounding municipalities. In 1998, the survey was extended to include the entire Västra Götaland County plus the municipality of Kungsbacka. The purpose of the regional surveys is to enable SOM researchers to study attitudes and behaviour linked to local and regional issues. They emphasise public services and media, although many of the questions are identical with those used in National SOM in order to make the answers comparable both between the regions and with Sweden at large. The dataset has changed somewhat in relation to the codebook, in order to reduce the risk of re-identification. The following changes have been made: Variables removed: mtidn1, komprob_txt, regprob_txt, anparti, angrupp, ankom, ansex, kommun, f71, so, sdn, mellanomr20, mellanomr Variables added: samhällsgrupp Variables aggregated: f63cDen västsvenska SOM-undersökningen har genomförts varje höst sedan 1992. Fram till 1997 omfattade studien Göteborg med kranskommuner. Undersökningen utökades sedan till att omfatta hela Västra Götalands län samt Kungsbacka kommun. Studien genomförs i samverkan med Västra Götalandsregionen och är en del av regionens långsiktiga utvärderingsarbete. Flertalet frågor har ställts i många år och svaren bidrar till att bibehålla tidsserier som sträcker sig från undersökningens början 1992. Frågorna har tonvikt på attityder och beteenden inom områdena offentlig service och medier. Många av frågorna är identiska med frågor i den nationella SOM-undersökningen vilket ger möjlighet att jämföra data både på regional och på nationell nivå. Datasetet har förändrats något i förhållande till kodboken, för att minska risken för bakvägsidentifiering. Följande förändringar har gjorts: Borttagna variabler: mtidn1, komprob_txt, regprob_txt, anparti, angrupp, ankom, ansex, kommun, f71, so, sdn, mellanomr20, mellanomr Tillagda variabler: samhällsgrupp Aggregerade variabler: f63
Institutionella nätverk och självorganiserande anpassning: Att spåra den demokratiska arkitekturen för klimatrespons
No full textThis project, “Institutional Networks and Self-organized Adaptation”, examines the role of rural institutions and public support systems in shaping responses to shocks and stressors in rural India & Nepal during 2020-21. We include stressors related to COVID-19, climate, health, and other challenges identified by rural households. The data includes: - Village information on demographics, infrastructure, and natural resources - Village level institutions involved in livelihood support and adaptive responses - Networks of interaction between these institutions - Household information on demographics, livelihoods, interaction with institutions, shocks & stressors, and responses to these stressors Household level data includes high-frequency repeat visits (approximately monthly) to gather detailed information about stressors and responses over the calendar year. This dataset contains 480 households nested within 16 local governmental units in the Himalayan region. This includes 8 villages in the Kangra District of India’s northern state of Himachal Pradesh and the Dhulikhel and Ramechhap Districts of east central Nepal. Through repeated visits during the calendar year, we have captured 8694 self-observed shocks and stressors, i.e. "threats" (3550 in India & 5144 in Nepal), and 5859 responses to cope or adapt to these threats (2553 in India, 3306 in Nepal)
National Survey of Children, their Parents and Adults regarding Online Safety (NSCPAOS), 2020
No full textThe research consisted of three nationally representative surveys, one of children (9- 17 years-old), one of their parents, and a separate survey of adults (from 18 years-old). The objectives of the research were to: Determine how adults and children in Ireland use and access the internet and the level of their digital skills Estimate the prevalence of online risks experienced by internet users Identify opportunities and benefits obtained using the internet Identify safety practices of adults and children when using the internet Identify how parents and carers mediate in the use of internet by their children Overall, this research provides an overview of how people in Ireland, particularly children, access and use the internet, including their digital literacy and exposure to risks. The research also examines how children and parents work together to deal with any risks. The research with children and parents is based primarily on the EU Kids Online questionnaire previously undertaken in Ireland in 2011 and 2014. The questionnaires were adapted and updated to take account of changing patterns of use and technological trends. A new short survey of adults’ experiences of risks and safety online was also undertaken adapting with permission an equivalent survey undertaken by the eSafety Commissioner in Australia
Healthy Ireland Survey, 2021
No full textThe annual Healthy Ireland Survey provides an up-to-date picture of the nation’s health along with a robust and credible baseline set of data on a range of health behaviours which have significant impact on individual health outcomes. These data are being used by the Department of Health to inform current and future policy direction and programme development and implementation. The Survey reports on many lifestyle behaviours such as smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, active travel, weight management, diet and nutrition, health service utilization patterns, dental health, chronic disease incidence, mental health, sleep patterns,dementia awareness, caring responsibilities, women’s health and sexual health. Some modules are repeated every year (e.g. smoking, demographics, chronic conditions), however, the majority of modules are being repeated on a 2-4 year cycle, allowing the Survey to ask a wider variety of questions. The Questionnaire for each year therefore varies substantially (but not completely) from the year before; researchers should be aware of that. Since 2014, the Healthy Ireland Survey has been administered on an annual basis by Ipsos- MRBI on behalf of the Department of Health. Please note that the mode of data collection was different in 2021 to previous years. This introduces the potential of what is known as mode effect (data not being fully comparable due to a change between two data collection approaches – in this case from in-person to over the telephone). While it is important to note this caution, it is the considered opinion of the researchers that any impact is minimal, unless clearly stated within the 2021 report
Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) Cohort ’98 (Child Cohort) Wave 2 - 13 years, 2012
No full textGrowing Up in Ireland - the National Longitudinal Study of Children, is the first survey of its kind ever undertaken in Ireland and, as such, aims to explore the many and varied factors that contribute to or undermine the wellbeing of children currently living there. A two age cohort longitudinal design was adopted with one cohort of 11,134 infants (aged nine months) and the other of 8,568 nine-year olds, with a view to improving and understanding of children’s development across a range of domains. Since the survey is longitudinal in nature respondents in both cohorts are interviewed on a number of occasions over the folowing few years. The 8,568 children representing the nine-year cohort were born between 1st November 1997 and 31st October 1998. The nine year cohort and their parents/guardians were interviewed for a second time at thirteen years of age. Data collection for the second wave at 13 years took place between August 2011 and March 2012 and resulted in a completed datafile of 7,525 cases
Healthy Ireland Survey, 2017
No full textThe annual Healthy Ireland Survey provides an up-to-date picture of the nation’s health along with a robust and credible baseline set of data on a range of health behaviours which have significant impact on individual health outcomes. These data are being used by the Department of Health to inform current and future policy direction and programme development and implementation. The Survey reports on many lifestyle behaviours such as smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, active travel, weight management, diet and nutrition, health service utilization patterns, dental health, chronic disease incidence, mental health, sleep patterns, dementia awareness, caring responsibilities and sexual health. Some modules are repeated every year (e.g. smoking, demographics, chronic conditions), however, the majority of modules are being repeated on a 2-4 year cycle, allowing the Survey to ask a wider variety of questions. The Questionnaire for each year therefore varies substantially (but not completely) from the year before; researchers should be aware of that. Since 2014, the Healthy Ireland Survey has been administered on an annual basis by Ipsos-MRBI on behalf of the Department of Health
Food for Justice: Power, Politics, and Food Inequalities in a Bioeconomy (Marcha das Margaridas 2019)
No full textThe research project "Food for Justice" investigates socio-ecological transformations of food and agricultural systems from an intersectional perspective, as reflected in mobilizations against the food system's inequalities. The project focuses on those social mobilizations and innovations committed to food justice by way of a comparative analysis of food movements in Brazil and Germany. To this end, the project employs a multi-method approach, utilizing both the qualitative methods of document analysis, participant observation and qualitative interviews, along with surveys. The Brazilian protest "Marcha das Margaridas," organized by the union syndicate CONTAG, was surveyed over the course of studying food movements in Brazil. This march, comprised of rural women advocating for social rights, has been held every four years since 2000. The corresponding survey is based on the “caught in the act” concept found in Klandermanns (2011), and adapted for the Brazilian context. "Caught in the act" ensures the randomization of selected participants for a given protest event. Questions drawn from a core questionnaire are used, so as to guarantee their compatibility with other surveys. Additional, specific questions were also developed by the "Food for Justice" research project. The following two research questions in particular guide the survey: • What are the main justice-related claims mobilizing citizens and consumers in the denunciation of food inequalities and in the demands for alternative food politics across different world regions? • What type of knowledge and technology do food movements use in their aims of overcoming food inequalities and shaping an ecologically sound, fair and democratic food politics? Surveys tracked the socio-demographic characteristics of the protesters, their political practices, their demands and their practices. Following the concept of food systems (Goody 1982), such practices include those located in the household, as well as those related to the production of food, either in its personal or farm-based cultivation, in marketing, and in practices concerning food waste. The survey was conducted using the online survey tool LimeSurvey face-to-face interviews (CAPI).The research project "Food for Justice" investigates socio-ecological transformations of food and agricultural systems from an intersectional perspective, as reflected in mobilizations against the food system's inequalities. The project focuses on those social mobilizations and innovations committed to food justice by way of a comparative analysis of food movements in Brazil and Germany. To this end, the project employs a multi-method approach, utilizing both the qualitative methods of document analysis, participant observation and qualitative interviews, along with surveys. The Brazilian protest "Marcha das Margaridas," organized by the union syndicate CONTAG, was surveyed over the course of studying food movements in Brazil. This march, comprised of rural women advocating for social rights, has been held every four years since 2000. The corresponding survey is based on the “caught in the act” concept found in Klandermanns (2011), and adapted for the Brazilian context. "Caught in the act" ensures the randomization of selected participants for a given protest event. Questions drawn from a core questionnaire are used, so as to guarantee their compatibility with other surveys. Additional, specific questions were also developed by the "Food for Justice" research project. The following two research questions in particular guide the survey: • What are the main justice-related claims mobilizing citizens and consumers in the denunciation of food inequalities and in the demands for alternative food politics across different world regions? • What type of knowledge and technology do food movements use in their aims of overcoming food inequalities and shaping an ecologically sound, fair and democratic food politics? Surveys tracked the socio-demographic characteristics of the protesters, their political practices, their demands and their practices. Following the concept of food systems (Goody 1982), such practices include those located in the household, as well as those related to the production of food, either in its personal or farm-based cultivation, in marketing, and in practices concerning food waste. The survey was conducted using the online survey tool LimeSurvey face-to-face interviews (CAPI)