@article{deVogel2023,

title = {Simply the best? Determinants of achieving the highest grade in a doctoral degree in Germany},

author = {Susanne de Vogel},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00883-z},

doi = {10.1007/s10734-022-00883-z},

issn = {1573-174X},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-05-01},

journal = {Higher Education},

volume = {85},

issue = {5},

pages = {1161–1180},

abstract = {In Germany, the final grade of a doctorate is significant for careers inside and outside the academic labor market. Particularly important is the highest grade—summa cum laude. At the same time, doctoral grades are constantly subject to criticism. Thus far, however, neither German nor international studies have examined the determinants of doctoral grades. Drawing on Hu’s model of college grades, this study develops a conceptual framework for explaining doctoral grades and investigates the impact of doctorate holders’, reviewers’, and environmental context characteristics on the probability of doctoral candidates graduating with the highest grade, summa cum laude. Using logistic regression analyses on data from the German PhD Panel Study, the study confirms that high-performing individuals are more likely to achieve the highest doctoral grade. A learning environment that is characterized by supervision security, high expectations to participate in scientific discourse, and strong support in network integration also increases the chances of graduating with a summa cum laude degree. In contrast, being female, having a highly respected reviewer, studying natural sciences, medical studies or engineering, completing an external doctorate, and studying within a learning environment characterized by rigid time constraints are negatively related to the probability of receiving a summa cum laude grade. This study is the first to lend empirical evidence to the critical discussion of doctoral grades and offers insights to ensure the validity of doctoral grades.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Blackler2016,

title = {Life Is Too Short to RTFM: How Users Relate to Documentation and Excess Features in Consumer Products},

author = {Alethea L. Blackler and Rafael Gomez and Vesna Popovic and Helen M. Thompson},

url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu023},

doi = {10.1093/iwc/iwu023},

issn = {0953-5438},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-01-01},

urldate = {2018-10-20},

journal = {Interacting with Computers},

volume = {28},

number = {1},

pages = {27–46},

abstract = {This paper addresses two common problems that users of various products and interfaces encounter—over-featured interfaces and product documentation. Over-featured interfaces are seen as a problem as they can confuse and over-complicate everyday interactions. Researchers also often claim that users do not read product documentation, although they are often exhorted to ‘RTFM’ (read the field manual). We conducted two sets of studies with users which looked at the issues of both manuals and excess features with common domestic and personal products. The quantitative set was a series of questionnaires administered to 170 people over 7 years. The qualitative set consisted of two 6-month longitudinal studies based on diaries and interviews with a total of 15 participants. We found that manuals are not read by the majority of people, and most do not use all the features of the products that they own and use regularly. Men are more likely to do both than women, and younger people are less likely to use manuals than middle-aged and older ones. More educated people are also less likely to read manuals. Over-featuring and being forced to consult manuals also appears to cause negative emotional experiences. Implications of these findings are discussed.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}