Question data banks – towards greater integration?
Lausanne, October 20-22, 2011
The growing importance of question data banks as a key service of social science data archives is already reflected in the increasing number of impressive solutions at individual institutions. However, the goals of the new CESSDA-ERIC imply greater integration and coordination of such services and tools that are made available to the international research community. The 2011 CESSDA expert seminar focused on the strategic, conceptual, and technical challenges of implementing a cross-national question databank. How far will we be able to go toward integration?
The first day of the seminar included presentations of existing solutions across different CESSDA institutions, with discussion of key issues and challenges. The second day included presentations that addressed the future of question databanks in Europe.
The third day (Saturday) was dedicated to discovering some of the sights and pleasures of the region around Lausanne.
Click here for the programme.
Click here for the meeting report.
See below for the presentations.
Click here for the list of participants.
And click here to see photos from the event.
For information: brian.kleiner@fors.unil.ch.
Day 1 — QDB presentations:
Nanna Floor Clausen, DDA
Sanda Ionescu, ICPSR
Anne-Sophie Cousteaux, Réseau Quetelet
Johan Fihn and Olof Olsson, SND
Maurice Martens, CentERdata
Jack Kneeshaw, UKDA
Marion Wittenberg, DANS
Day 2: Discussion papers:
Sanda Ionescu, ICPSR: "QDBs—A review of differences and similarities across QDBs"
Jack Kneeshaw, UKDA: "What would the perfect QDB look like"
Taina Jääskeläinen, FSD: "The needs of questionnaire translators regarding question banks"
Alexia Katsanidou, GESIS: "Variable overview project and strategic steps on data harmonisation"
Marion Wittenberg, DANS: "Results from the CESSDA PPP task on QDBs - some reflections"
Terje Marøy, NSD: "NSD tools/integration of data collection and data documentation as a practical procedure"
Adrian Dusa, RODA: "Variables, questions and conceptual equivalence"
