Template 
4.1.1.1		
for a Final Report under the
Research Impulses Programme 	

Disclaimer: The English translation of this document is provided for informational purposes. In the event of a discrepancy between the English and the German versions, the German text takes precedence.

Preliminary Note
The objective of the funding programme Research Impulses is to more effectively mobilise the potential of particularly research-oriented universities of applied sciences (Hochschulen für Angewandte Wissenschaften and Fachhochschulen, hereinafter referred to as HAW/FH) in the German research system. Therefore, the programme is aimed at further strengthening them in their knowledge-driven research and at supporting them in the development of their academic profile. By funding such Research Impulses of high quality, the goal is to increase scientific competitiveness and sustainably advance the establishment of research structures and priority areas of the HAW/FH. The programme aims to further develop research opportunities at the HAW/FH and attract highly qualified researchers at all qualification levels, as well as strengthening research collaborations with institutions of higher education both nationally and internationally.
All funding recipients are required to submit a final report at the end of the project. In this way, they enable the DFG to perform an audit of the use of funds in accordance with the programme guidelines and report on the results of the funding to its funding bodies. The report also serves to assess the success of funding and provides a basis for evaluating the funding programme. It should take stock of the main research results and the structural impact of a Research Impulse. In principle, reports must cover the entire funding period, even if individual project phases have already been reported on in connection with renewal proposals. The report must be understandable without referring to additional literature. The text of the report is the sole basis for evaluation. 
Deadline, Form and Scope
The final report must be submitted to the DFG within three months of the end of the funding period. 
The final report comprises a public part (sections 1-4) and a non-public part (sections 5-6). Sections 1-4 are to be published by the authors of the report in a suitable repository of their choice. The DFG provides report authors with detailed publication instructions once the report has been approved. See here for details:
www.dfg.de/final_reports_publication

The aim of publishing the report is to make the (scientific) results of the project freely available to the research communities and the public outside the usual publication channels. The non-public part of the report (sections 5-6) is intended solely for the reviewers and the DFG’s Head Office and statutory bodies. 
The final report must be submitted as one PDF file via the elan portal without any password protection or access restrictions.
elan.dfg.de
It is to be written in German or English (whichever was used for the proposal). A4 format, Arial 11 point font and 1.5 line spacing are recommended. The public part of the report should not exceed 35 pages and the non-public part should not exceed 15 pages.

If, in preparing your report, you used artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of generative models for text and image creation, please disclose this in a way which is in accordance with good research practice. For more information, see the “Research Integrity” portal.
Final Report in the Case of Non-8-Year Funding
Research Impulses that do not reach the maximum 8-year funding period due to rejection of the renewal proposal are required to submit a reduced final report three months after the end of completion funding. The shortened final report comprises only Sections 1 (General information), 2 (Summary), 3.3 (Project results), 5 (Structural impact) and 6 (Comments for the DFG). Any further reporting obligation is deemed fulfilled through the submission of a progress report in connection with the renewal proposal. 
Research Impulses that have not submitted a renewal proposal must prepare a complete final report on the first funding period.
Process
The entire report undergoes a formal check and is then externally reviewed. Along with the result of the review, the report is subsequently made available to the DFG Senate as the statutory body responsible. Subsequently, feedback is sent to the spokesperson and the applicant HAW/FH with detailed instructions on how to publish the public part (sections 1-4) of the report. Comments from the review are also shared.
Sections 2 (summary) and 3.3 (project results) of the final report are also made available on the internet by the DFG via the GEPRIS information system. It is possible to object to the publication of extracts in GEPRIS by submitting a written statement to the DFG Head Office (Excellence Strategy and Research Impulses division) along with the final report.
Data Protection
If you will be transmitting the personal data of third parties as part of your final report, you ensure that doing so is in compliance with data protection laws. Please note the DFG’s Data Protection Notice on research funding, which can be viewed and downloaded at www.dfg.de/privacy_policy. If necessary, please also forward this information to those individuals whose data will be processed by the DFG due to their involvement in your project.
www.dfg.de/privacy_policy
Template
The following template is intended to support you in preparing the final report. The sections printed in black provide the structure of the report, while sections in grey provide explanations and placeholders for the information required and should be deleted. When compiling the information, feel free to use the data available to you from the DFG's annual survey (monitoring).

<PUBLIC PART>
<COVER PAGE>
<This section is addressed to the research community and the interested public. It is intended for publication.>
FINAL REPORT
1	General Information
1.1	General data
DFG reference number: <Your DFG reference number, e.g. FIP 789>
Project number: <You will find this in the letter of approval.>
Title of the Research Impulse:
Applicant HAW/FH:
Spokesperson:
Official address of the spokesperson: 
Reporting period (entire funding period):
1.2	Principal investigators
<Using the table below, please list all principal investigators involved in the Research Impulse throughout the funding period, indicating their affiliation and the period during which they participated. Cooperation partners should not be listed here.>
Last name, first name, academic title	Affiliation (institution, department, position)	Period of involvement	

			

			

1.3	Number of staff
<Using the table below, please indicate the number of professors, doctoral researchers, postdoctoral researchers, student assistants and other staff funded through the Research Impulse. If applicable, please also indicate below any additional staff funded from the HAW/FH's core support who contributed to the Research Impulse.>
Staff	Number of 
individuals	
Individuals funded through the Research Impulse		
Professors		
Postdoctoral researchers 		
Doctoral researchers		
Student/research assistants		
Other personnel		

2	Summary
<Provide a generally understandable summary in German and English (maximum 3,000 characters each) in which you present the topic and describe the relevance of the findings of the Research Impulse to the interested public.>
3	Scientific Progress Report
3.1	Achievements of the Research Impulse
<Based on the principal overarching objectives set out in the proposal, please provide an overview of whether and to what extent the objectives pursued through the Research Impulse were achieved. These can include research objectives as well as objectives with regard to the structural development of the HAW/FH. Please ensure the presentation is concise and comprehensible. Further details should be provided in Sections 3.2–3.5.>
3.2	Report on the Research Impulse
<Address the following points in your report as applicable: 
•	Initial research questions, objectives and overall structure of the Research Impulse
•	Development of the Research Impulse over the funding period (deviations from the original concept; findings that contradict the initial hypothesis; new or unresolved research questions)
•	Description of the project-specific results and findings from the funding period. How were the intended research objectives achieved? How was the central research concept pursued, and how were the individual research units within the Research Impulse thematically integrated? What further research questions and potential fields of application emerged from the project, if any? Results that are already generally accessible in published form can be briefly summarised with reference to the publication. Unpublished results are to be described in more detail. 
•	Activities and approaches to quality-enhancing measures through which the validity or verifiability of your research results was ensured
•	Description of the handling of research data generated in the project and the data infrastructures used, if any (use the following checklist as a guide: www.dfg.de/research_data/checklist)
•	Description of any research data, methods, standards, software or infrastructures generated in the project that are reusable and openly accessible to others.>
3.3	Project results of the Research Impulse
<List the 20 most important published results that have emerged from the work of the Research Impulse over its total duration. Only papers that are directly related to the content of the funded Research Impulse are to be listed. Please include the DOI (Digital Object Identifier), ISBN or other persistent identification number wherever possible. If this is not available, please provide the direct link. Structure the published results according to the following categories:>
3.3.1	Publications with scientific quality assurance
<In this category, please enter articles in peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed contributions to conferences or anthology volumes, and book publications. Open access publications should be designated accordingly.>
3.3.2	Other publications and published results
<Please list here any other form of published research results and findings. This might include non-peer-reviewed contributions to conferences or anthology volumes, articles on preprint servers, data sets, protocols of clinical trials, software packages, patents applied for and granted, blog contributions. You may also indicate other forms of academic output here, such as contributions to the (technical) infrastructure of an academic community and contributions to science communication.>

3.4	National and international collaboration
<List essential collaborations with research partners in Germany and abroad. Please indicate, for example, which institutions participated in the Research Impulse, which institutional and individual cooperation partners were involved and, where applicable, which visiting researchers spent time at the HAW/FH in connection with the Research Impulse. In each case, please specify the contribution made to the Research Impulse’s work programme.>
3.5	Research profile development, strategic focus and visibility
<Please describe how the Research Impulse has been embedded within, and has contributed to, the development of the HAW/FH’s research profile. To what extent has the Research Impulse helped sharpen the HAW/FH’s research profile? Have any measures or structures been established that will contribute to the long-term consolidation of the research focus beyond the funding period and, where applicable, sustainably improve the conditions for knowledge-driven research at the HAW/FH? What impact has the Research Impulse had on the HAW/FH’s future strategic planning?
To what extent has it strengthened the HAW/FH’s national/international visibility and competitiveness in this field of research? How and where have the results of the Research Impulse been presented nationally and internationally? Were any major research events organised or co-organised? Have any national or international collaborations and networks been established that will continue beyond the funding period?>

4	Structural and Strategic Development of the Research Impulse
<The following points refer to the development of the applicant HAW/FH.>
4.1	Research infrastructures and research data management
<Did the Research Impulse require investing in major research equipment or buildings? Were any research data management structures established that go beyond those already in place at the HAW/FH?>
4.2	Gender equality, compatibility of career and family, promotion of diversity
<What measures were implemented in the Research Impulse to promote gender equality for researchers, support the compatibility of research and family and promote other dimensions of diversity? What results were obtained?> To what extent did these measures make use of central services provided by the HAW/FH?>
4.3	Promotion of early career researchers
<Which forms of mentoring and support have you found beneficial to researchers in early career phases and why? Which existing HAW/FH services were used, and which measures were newly developed in connection with the Research Impulse? Please describe the opportunities for doctoral supervision at the HAW/FH and, where applicable, explain what impact the Research Impulse had on the HAW/FH’s ability to award doctoral degrees.>
4.4	Teaching
<How were the contents of the Research Impulse integrated into teaching? For example, were the results incorporated in existing teaching formats or used in the development of new modules within existing degree programmes, or did they form the basis for new degree programmes?>
4.5	Knowledge transfer and science communication
<What consortium-specific steps were taken to transfer research findings to industry, business or society? Did research results lead to the foundation of spin-off companies or long-term collaboration with business or non-academic partners (e.g. museums, schools, government bodies)?
What science communication measures have been implemented? What target groups were addressed? Describe the resonance of the measures and cooperation with the HAW/FH’s communications office.>

<NON-PUBLIC PART>
<This section is only intended for reviewers, for the DFG’s Head Office and for the DFG’s statutory bodies responsible for the funding programme; it is not intended for publication.>
5	Structural Impact of the Research Impulse
<The following points refer to the development of the applicant HAW/FH>.
5.1	Staffing
<Outline the hiring policies of all applicant and participating institutions in this field of research and at relevant institutes. Were any (new) professorships or junior research groups implemented or discontinued? Have there been further developments with regard to the staffing structure of the Research Impulse? To what extent has the funding programme enhanced the HAW/FH’s attractiveness in recruiting external research staff?
Please indicate whether, and if so to what extent, the principal investigators were able to reduce their teaching loads in order to participate appropriately in research activities and, where applicable, whether this reduction will continue beyond the funding period.
In table format, please list all individuals who were newly recruited to the HAW/FH, sorted according to funding period, type of position (e.g. postdoctoral researcher, research group leader, junior professor, W2 professor), gender and number of researchers.>
5.2	Early career researchers
<Please describe your recruitment strategies for researchers in early career phases. In table format, list all doctoral degrees completed, sorted according to funding period and gender. In a second table, please describe the subsequent career development of the doctoral researchers and postdoctoral researchers.>
5.3	Gender equality, compatibility of career and family, promotion of diversity
<Please describe how the participation of female and male researchers developed over the course of the funding period(s). Which measures were implemented to promote gender equality among researchers and to improve the compatibility of a career in research with family life? What outcomes did these measures produce?>
5.4	Governance
<Please outline and evaluate cooperation and academic exchange within the Research Impulse. What were the principal lessons learned? How was the internal organisation of the Research Impulse structured? How were funds allocated within the consortium? What organisational and management challenges did the consortium have to overcome? How, if at all, were external organisations involved?>
5.5	Structural impact with regard to DFG participation 
<Please indicate whether and to what extent the Research Impulse has strengthened knowledge-driven research at the HAW/FH by enabling participants in, or individuals associated with, the Research Impulse to become involved in DFG procedures. Such involvement may include the following: 
•	submitting proposals under individual, personal and coordinated funding programmes (e.g. the DFG Research Grants Programme, the Walter Benjamin Programme, Priority Programmes, Research Units, etc.), as well as institutional funding (e.g. Research Training Groups) and infrastructure funding (e.g. Major Research Instrumentation);
•	participating as reviewers in the written and oral DFG review process; 
•	serving on DFG statutory bodies (e.g. review boards) or on commissions and committees appointed by them (e.g. the Committee on Scientific Instrumentation and Information Technology); 
•	establishing DFG-related positions within the HAW/FH, such as DFG liaison officers or comparable roles.
6	Comments for the DFG
<Your assessment of the proposal submission procedure and the design of the funding programme is of great importance to reviewers, the DFG Head Office and the DFG’s statutory bodies. Criticism, comments and recommendations provide valuable input for the evaluation, further development and refinement of the Research Impulses programme. Your comments may relate to any aspect of the funding programme, such as the information and advice provided before submission of the proposal, the review process itself and the support provided by the DFG Head Office during the funding period.>