GESIS - DBK - ZA7640

ZA7640: Science Barometer 2021

Downloads and Data Access

On this page you find the complete metadata and an overview of all available data sets and documents for the requested study. The download of all files is possible from our central search page under the following link:
ZA7640 Downloads and Data Access

List of Files

List of Files


  • ZA7640_fb.pdf (Questionnaire) 212 KBytes


  • ZA7640_cod.pdf (Codebook) 168 KBytes

Other Documents

  • ZA6944_mb.pdf (Method Report) 236 KBytes
Availability Availability C - Data and documents are only released for academic research and teaching after the data depositor’s written authorization. For this purpose the Data Archive obtains a written permission with specification of the user and the analysis intention.
Download of Data and Documents Download of Data and Documents All downloads from this catalogue are free of charge. Data-sets available under access categories B and C must be ordered via the shopping cart with a few exceptions. Charges apply! Please respect our Terms of use.

Bibliographic Citation

Citation Citation Weißkopf, Markus; Ziegler, Ricarda; Kremer, Bastian (2022): Science Barometer 2021. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7640 Data file Version 1.0.0,
Study No.ZA7640
TitleScience Barometer 2021
Current Version1.0.0, 2022-1-11,
Date of Collection07.09.2021 - 08.09.2021
Principal Investigator/ Authoring Entity, Institution
  • Weißkopf, Markus - Wissenschaft im Dialog, Berlin
  • Ziegler, Ricarda - Wissenschaft im Dialog, Berlin
  • Kremer, Bastian - Wissenschaft im Dialog, Berlin


Abstract1. Interest and information behaviour on topics from science and research: interest in the topics of politics, science and research, local affairs as well as economics and finance; information behaviour on topics from science and research: frequency of use of different sources of information (talking to friends or family, attending events, lectures or discussions, reading articles on scientific topics in printed newspapers or magazines, television programmes, radio programmes as well as frequency of information on the internet about science and research; frequency of use of different channels of information about science and research on the internet (Facebook, Twitter or other social networks, blog or online forums, Wikipedia, YouTube or similar video platforms, web presences of scientific institutions or organisations, websites or media libraries of news media such as newspapers, magazines or television channels, podcasts); trust in science and research; reasons for trust in scientists (are experts, work according to rules and standards, research in the interest of the public); reasons for distrust of scientists (often make mistakes, adjust results to their own expectations, are highly dependent on their funders). 2. Social role of research: agreement with statements about the relationship between science and society (scientists work for the good of society, scientists are aware of the social impact of their work, scientists make too little effort to inform the public about their work, science and research do more harm than good, I personally benefit from science and research, people trust science too much and not enough their feelings and faith, science and research have so little relevance to everyday life that they are not relevant to me, when scientists contradict each other it is difficult for me to judge which information is the right one, controversies between scientists are helpful because they help the right research results to prevail, even if there is no immediate benefit, research that provides new knowledge should be publicly funded); opinion on spending on research with reduced government spending (research should be one of the first areas for savings, spending on research should be cut in the same proportion as spending in other areas, should not be cut if possible); mutual influence of science, business and politics (of science on politics, of politics on science and of business on science); agreement with statements on the relationship between science and politics (political decisions should be based on scientific findings, it is not the task of scientists to interfere in politics, it is right for scientists to speak out publicly when political decisions do not take research findings into account). 3. Corona pandemic: Opinion on Corona: Current Corona measures are appropriate; great knowledge about the Corona virus; trust in statements of different actors in the context of the pandemic situation (scientists, doctors and medical staff, politicians, representatives of authorities and offices, journalists, relatives, acquaintances and friends); expectations towards the role of scientists in political decision-making processes on Corona (scientists should recommend certain decisions to politicians based on scientific findings, scientists should explain decision-making options and their consequences to politicians but not make recommendations, scientists should limit themselves to informing politicians about scientific findings); perception of the role of scientists in political decision-making processes on Corona (scientists recommend certain decisions to politicians based on scientific findings, scientists explain decision-making options and their consequences to politicians but do not make recommendations, scientists only inform politicians about scientific findings); perception about selection of scientists and advice by scientists (I have a perception of the influence of advice from scientists on political decisions, I have a perception of how scientists are selected to advise politicians); agreement with statements about science and research and general statements in the context of Corona (we should rely more on common sense when dealing with Corona and we don´t need scientific studies for that, scientists don´t tell us everything they know about the Corona virus, there is no clear evidence that the Corona virus really exists, the Corona pandemic is being made into a bigger deal than it actually is). 4. Personal relation to science and research: job in science and research; personal acquaintance with a scientist. Demography: sex; age; education; occupation; occupation in detail; household size; children under 14 in household; net household income; party preference. Additionally coded were: Interview no.; interview duration (in seconds); weight; city size (BIK); federal state; region.
Categories Categories
  • Society, Culture
  • University, Research, the Sciences
  • Communication, Public Opinion, Media
  • Medicine
  • Information society
  • Public health


Geographic Coverage
  • Germany (DE)
UniverseGerman-speaking resident population aged 14 and over in private households
Sampling Procedure Sampling Procedure
Sampling according to ADM (Arbeitskreise Deutscher Marktforschungsinstitute) based on the Gabler-Häder method; telephone numbers not listed were also taken into account; within the selected households of the fixed network sample, a random sample of the target person was made. For the mobile phone sample, the systematic target person selection was omitted, since mobile phones are almost exclusively used by one person. Combined fixed-network and mobile phone sample (dual-frame approach) Ratio of fixed network to mobile telephony 80:20 in the context of a multi-topic survey by Kantar
Data CollectorKantar, Bielefeld
Date of Collection
  • 07.09.2021 - 08.09.2021

Errata & Versions

VersionDate, Name, DOI
1.0.0 (current version)2022-1-11 first archive edition
Errata in current version
Version changes

Further Remarks

Number of Units: 1002
Number of Variables: 77
Analysis System(s): SPSS, Stata


  • Wissenschaft im Dialog: Wissenschaftsbarometer 2021 Berlin: 2021
  • Kantar: Wissenschaftsbarometer 2021 : Ergebnisse nach Subgruppen. Tabellenband. Bielefeld: 2021
  • Wissenschaft im Dialog: Wissenschaftsbarometer 2014 – 2021 : Repräsentative Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Wissenschaft und Forschung in Deutschland. Methodenbericht
Relevant full texts
from SSOAR (automatically assigned)