INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PROJECT FINAL REPORT

Final Report I-Projects October 2011 / of 24

INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PROJECT FINAL REPORT

Title of programme or call ESF EUROCORES Higher Education and Social Change (e.g. in the frame of ESF EUROCORES, ERA-Net Calls, Joint Projects based on Bi- multilat-eral Memoranda of Understanding) Title of collaborative research project title The Academic Profession in Europe: re-sponses to societal challenges (EUROAC) (if applicable) Title of national (sub)project Governance and the Academic Profession Project leader PECHAR Hans_________________________ Role of applicant Project Coordinator) Principal Investigator of (sub)project

Associated Partner Project duration 30+6 Months Project number Project website1 http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/wiho/euroac Part 1 of the project report is intended for interested members of the public; parts 2-4 are

addressed to reviewers and must be submitted in the language of the original application.

Part 5 provides an opportunity to report to the FWF on interactions with the administration

during the course of the project.

The complete report must be submitted in hardcopy and on electronic medium (CD or

floppy disc) in Word for Windows format. Guidelines and forms for the final report can be

downloaded from the FWF web site

http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/projects/transnationale-foerderungsaktivitaeten.html

1 Projects that started after 01.01.2009 are required to have a website

I 273-G17


1. Summary for public relations work

The project’s most important results (scientific advances) from the project leader’s point of

view should be presented on a single page (DIN A4, 11 pt type, line spacing 1.5) in a way

that is accessible to the general public. It is important to use as few technical terms as pos-

sible, so that the text is interesting and understandable to people not familiar with the field.

The main point should be placed at the start of the summary. Please keep descriptions of the

issues addressed and results obtained short and succinct. Please describe the integration of

the domestic (sub) project into the collaborative research project. Possible applications to or

implications for social, cultural, ecological, medical, economic or technological areas should

be briefly mentioned.

The summary should be submitted as hardcopy and also electronically both in German and

in English (in Word for Windows format, without special symbols). The summaries will be

made available via the FWF’s project database. The FWF will not edit the summaries, so the

authors bear full responsibility for the contents.


“The Academic Profession in Europe – Responses to Societal Challenges – EUROAC”

EUROAC is an international comparison of academics’ work situation at European universi-

ties and other higher education institutions relying on quantitative and qualitative research.

Based on the views of European academics, EUROAC provides information on academic

working conditions, activities and professional advancement in different stages of the aca-

demic career as well as perceptions of governance changes in an international perspective.

The project was conducted as a collaboration of eight research teams in the following Euro-

pean countries: Germany, Ireland, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Croatia and Roma-

nia. Each of those teams took a closer look at specific topics. The Austrian team focused on

academic career paths, employment conditions and salaries as well as academics’ percep-

tion of the impact of changing governance structures and quality management.

In recent years, major shifts in the internal governance of universities occurred as a corollary

of NPM inspired reforms. Whereas the academic profession traditionally had a strong role in

the internal steering of their institution, academic self-governance has been replaced by

more top-down management practices in many Higher Education systems. A comparative

look across Europe shows interesting variations, and Austria, particularly, emerges as a

country with among the highest perceptions of top-down management at universities but

simultaneously low levels of competition and performance orientation. Another result: a fair

quality assurance system may not be constrained by too strong hierarchies.

Academic career paths are still linked to varying national contexts. Nevertheless, in most

European countries, the road to permanent employment at a university is rocky. Young aca-

demics are faced with increasingly competitive environments as many aspiring academics

compete for few available posts. In general, the PhD is the first requirement to enter an aca-

demic career. The postdoctoral phase emerges as the most difficult and critical phase of an

academic career: a double bottleneck in most of the EUROAC countries: at the stage of en-

tering it after the PhD in trying to obtain a postdoctoral position and at the stage of leaving it

by securing permanent, tenured employment. Recent attempts to introduce a more clearly

defined career pathway, such as the tenure-track, were discussed.

The relationship between senior and junior academics and its influence on the latters’ career

advancement were also analysed. On the one hand, academics favour a formalised, more

egalitarian senior-junior relationship over a traditionally hierarchical one. On the other hand,

increasing self-responsibility of young researchers is appreciated as long as mentoring still

maintains its central importance in the relationship between senior and junior academics.

EUROAC is one of four collaboration projects in the EuroHESC Network (the others being

TRUE, CINHEKS and RHESI), which devote themselves to comparative studies of university

research. The Austrian contribution to EUROAC was financed by FWF.

INCHER-Kassel, Germany, conducted the international overall management of EUROAC.


2. Brief project report of the domestic (sub) project

to be written in the language of the original application

target group: peer reviewers

Length: not to exceed 16,000 characters in total

(approx. 2,400 words or 4 pages, 11 pt type, single-spaced,

no attachments apart from those mentioned in section 4)

2.1 Report on the scientific work 2.1.1 information on the development of the research work (2000 characters excl. spaces)

overall scientific concept and goals

The research project “The Academic Profession in Europe – Responses to Societal Chal-

lenges – EUROAC” was aimed at finding out how the academic profession views its working

conditions in different career phases and how it positions itself within the various institutional

structures of European higher education institutions. The international comparison factored in

the various changes European university systems are undergoing. The extent of changes

perceived by academics brought about by structural changes in university governance and

management and how much their job had changed overall, were two of the main questions

asked. A triangulation of three methods was used in this project. The initial approach con-

sisted of compiling literature reviews on the above-mentioned topics whereby the theoretical

and empirical current standard of knowledge was recapitulated. These reviews formed the

basis for the empirical parts of the project.

The second project phase focused on quantitative research. The questionnaire of the CAP-

Survey, which was used in 2007 in eight European countries, was adapted to the Austrian

situation; sixteen Austrian universities took part in the survey. 1154 Austrian data sets were

added to the international pool. The entire data set, which included the results of 12 coun-

tries (Austria, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Swit-

zerland and the United Kingdom), was merged by the project leader and analyzed in the

partner countries along the lines of specific research questions. The Austrian team focused

on the topics “academic career paths”, “employment conditions and salaries”, “governance

structures” and “quality management” at universities.

In the third part of the project 60 qualitative interviews with academics of different status

groups were conducted in each country, using interview guidelines developed by the interna-

tional research team. Hence, a pool of 480 interview protocols translated into English was

available to the team of every partner country for their specific questions. The Austrian team


analyzed these interviews focusing on the topics “career paths and career stages”, “tenure

track”, “cross-employment”, “mobility”, and “senior-junior relationship” in an international

comparison.

The results of all three project-phases were published.

was there a change of direction in the field between the start and the end of the pro-ject? – If so, what form did the change take and what effect did it have on the work?

In general, the intended schedule and work plan was adhered to. For the completion of the

last publication, the initially planned duration of the project of 30 months was extended to 36

months without incurring additional costs.

2.1.2 most important results and brief description of their significance (main points) with regard to (8000 characters excl. spaces)

contribution to the progress of the field (e.g. did the results contribute to an in-creased importance for the field and in what way?);

breaking of new scientific ground (i.e. to what extent and in what respect?);

most important development of hypotheses (what relevance did the project have for the development of scientific hypotheses, e.g. were new hypotheses developed or old hypotheses disproved?);

development of new methods; relevance for other (related) areas of science (transdisciplinary issues and meth-

ods); potential (probability) of a successful application in the future (only in case of appli-

cation oriented programmes/calls) added value of the international collaboration;

The significance of the project and its publications lies in an in-depth account of the variety

and the similarities of higher education across twelve European countries. With regard to the

perspective of European academics concerned, based on quantitative and qualitative re-

search, EUROAC gives unique information on academic working conditions, activities and

professional advancement in different stages of the academic career in an international com-

parison. For the first time ever, a CAP-equivalent survey for the Austrian university system

was designed, conducted and analysed by the Austrian team. As the most important results

of the Austrian part of the project (qualitative and quantitative) can be summarized as fol-

lows:

Results of quantitative research (CAP survey) by the Austrian team:

Ates and Brechelmacher found in their chapter on academic career paths that on average,

senior academics in most countries completed their doctorate aged around 30 years. Norwe-

gian, Croatian and Irish professors, however, report completing this step in their late thirties.

The median age for the completion of a Habilitation is around 40 years across all countries.


Academic mobility tends to increase during later career stages. Between 70% and 95% of

professors obtained their doctoral degree in the country of current employment, with the ex-

ception of Switzerland and Ireland, where mobility rates of around 50% partly reflect a high

proportion of academics coming from abroad. In Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands and

Italy mobility among postdoctoral degree holders is lower than mobility among those in the

doctoral phase. In contrast, in Croatia and Portugal academic mobility is common at the later

stage, with 87% of post-doctoral degree holders having obtained their highest degree in oth-

er countries.

According to the EUROAC survey, more academics in junior than in senior positions in al-

most all countries have been involved in research projects during their doctoral training, a

fact which highlights, on the one hand, the shift towards research-oriented doctoral training,

and on the other hand, the changing research conditions at universities relating to the rise of

external grants and soft-money financing. Hence, a considerably high proportion - half of the

doctoral degree holders on average across all countries and even three-quarters in the

Netherlands and Norway - reported having already been employed during this early career

phase.

The EUROAC study shows that three quarter of junior academics between 36 years and 45

years of age have fixed-term contracts in Switzerland, Germany, Norway and Portugal and

that this holds true as well for about half of junior academics of this age group in Austria.

Permanent or long-term contracts for junior academics are considerably more frequent in

Poland and to a certain extend also in Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

The salaries of full-time employed junior staff in most countries vary between one third and

half of that of university professors. In Norway, the income of senior and junior academics is

around one time higher than the national poverty level for a family of two adults and two chil-

dren below 14 years of age. The annual earnings of the bottom quarter of junior academics

in nearly all other countries are only slightly above the ‘at-risk-of-poverty’ level defined that

way.

As Park showed in her chapter the EuroAc/Cap survey also allowed for an empirical testing

of recent hypotheses by HE researchers regarding university governance, especially regard-

ing the relation between staff participation (academic self-governance), hierarchical differen-

tiation among academic staff and new executive styles of top down management which was

a central aspect of the Austrian sub-project.

The results by deBoers et al. – the authors created a hypothetical so-called “governance

equalizer”, an internationally comparative analytical tool to assess the degree or prevalence

of NPM- inspired structures in university governance - were largely confirmed by the Eu-

roAc findings. Both in the EuroAc survey as in the model by de Boer et al. Austria emerges

as a country with relatively high levels of top-down management and correspondingly low

levels of academic self-governance, but - interestingly - also lower levels of competition. The


UK represents the paradigmatic “NPM country” with high levels of top-down management

and little academic self-governance as well as correspondingly high levels of competition.

Germany, on the other hand still represents the traditional chair-university, with university

professors exerting considerable influence on university politics, thus a large degree of aca-

demic self-governance and a comparatively small influence of executive management.

However, Germany – and the EuroAc data empirically confirm this much reported fact – also

represents a highly hierarchical system, where a split between junior and senior faculty re-

garding perceived influence rates can clearly be observed. The Netherlands are possibly the

only country where both higher levels of top-down management as well as academic self-

governance coexist, possibly due to a strong tradition of network governance in this country.

Also, next to the UK, competition is strongest in the Netherlands.

Hans Pechar’s hypothesis that executive-style management structures favour flatter hierar-

chies among academic staff (all academics are treated as employees in this model), whereas

the traditionally strong influence and high levels of academic self-governance in the chair-

system come at the price of a stark hierarchical division among academic staff is confirmed

in astounding clarity by the EuroAc data: The difference in perceived personal influence be-

tween professors and lower ranking academic staff is most pronounced in Germany, where-

as the lowest difference in influence between juniors and seniors occurs in the UK and Ire-

land.

Campbell concludes in his article on Quality Assurance that evaluations should not be domi-

nated too much by top-down management structures. The data analysis suggests that “fair”

evaluations represent evaluation systems not over-steered by top-down governance ap-

proaches. The question then remains how can evaluation systems for research and teaching

be designed in (and for) higher education to avoid and to by-pass top-down management

attitudes?

He maintains that there does not exist only a single map for NPM governance in higher edu-

cation in Europe. This should be regarded as an observation, but also as an argument in

favour of the manifold opportunities of developing evaluation creatively further.

Results of qualitative research (480 interviews) by the Austrian team:

Across the researched European countries, the road to tenure or permanent employment at

a university is rocky. Young academics are faced with increasingly competitive environments

as many aspiring academics compete for few available posts. However, interviewees are

under the impression that the number of PhD-graduates has increased over the last years.

Many PhD-candidates who are employed as pre-doctoral assistants mention a high teaching

workload which delays the completion of their thesis. Also, they are faced with the dilemma

that teaching does not count equally in academic performance. Publications and conference

participation as well as international experience are valued more.


After completion of the PhD the most difficult and critical phase of an academic career be-

gins: The postdoctoral phase emerges as a double bottleneck in most of the EuroAC coun-

tries: at the stage of entering it after the PhD in trying to obtain a postdoctoral position and at

the stage of leaving it by securing permanent, tenured employment. It is in the postdoctoral

phase that precarious working conditions occur most frequently as postdoctoral positions are

mostly offered on a fixed-term basis. Further, many academics are under the impression that

there has been an increase of fixed-term employment contracts at universities in recent

years. In countries with a chair-system recent attempts to provide structure to the somewhat

chaotic and long postdoctoral phase have been introduced, most notably in the form of a

tenure-track. This model foresees a clearly outlined career path towards tenure based on the

fulfilment of previously defined criteria. The decision for or against an academic career is

ideally taken earlier in the new model, around the age of thirty and shortly after the comple-

tion of the PhD (as opposed to between 40 and 50 with professorial appointments). On the

one hand, the uncertainty and risky nature of the postdoctoral phase is thus mitigated as the

long phases of precarious fixed-term employment are cut short, however, it could be argued

that in this model the university closes its gates earlier as the decisive selection process

takes place at a younger age: “All others are temporalized staff”.

International mobility represents an increasingly expected qualification step during the post-

doctoral phase. Especially Swiss, but also Finnish, Austrian and Croatian academics stress

that longer-term stays abroad are vital requirements for career progress. Not least, the lack

of post-doctoral positions and the strong competition for tenured positions force young aca-

demics to enhance their profile by international experience. Often, post-doctoral mobility is

only intended temporarily to advance an academic career in the home country. As adverse

impacts of mobility-requirements academics mention a loss of time for completing a post-

doctoral degree, the neglect of job opportunities in the home country, and, especially for

women, difficulties in reconciling longer-term mobility and family.

In most EUROAC countries the lack of permanent positions for young academics leads to a

hybridisation of the academic profession whereby academics are employed part-time by mul-

tiple institution and/or in different sectors („cross-employment“). This phenomenon is espe-

cially visible in Finland and in Austria.

Taking account of the strongly hierarchical structures which generations of young academics

traditionally have been subjected to, the relationship between senior and junior academics

and its influence on the latters’ career advancement has to be mentioned as a last point. To

sum up, the tenor of interviewees’ statements favours a formalised, more egalitarian senior-

junior relationship over a traditionally hierarchical one. Several structural changes prospec-

tively favouring flatter hierarchies have been identified. A generation change of professors,

new career models, international experience in an early career stage and cross-generational


efforts for external project funding, little by little seem to even out older hierarchical struc-

tures. Increasing self-responsibility of young researchers is appreciated by many interview-

ees as long as mentoring still maintains its central importance in the relationship between

senior and junior academics.

2.1.3 information on the running of the project, use of the available funding and where ap-

propriate any changes to the original project plan relating to (2000 characters excl. spaces) duration; use of personnel; larger items of equipment purchased;

other significant deviation2

cooperation and division of labour with partners within the collaborative research and networking activities

1/Duration: October 2009 – June 2012 cost neutrally prolonged to September 2012

2/Use of personnel:

Angelika Brechelmacher (postdoc)

Oct. 2009 - March 2012: 17 weekly hours of work for a 30 months period

April 2012 - Sept. 2012: 4 weekly hours of work for a 6 months period

= 12,75 person months

David Campbell (postdoc)

Oct. 2009 - March 2012: 17 weekly hours of work for a 30 months period

April 2012 - Sept. 2012: 4 weekly hours of work for a 6 months period

= 12,75 person months

Gülay Ates (PhD)

Oct. 2009 – Oct 2010: 10 weekly hours of work for a 13 months period

Nov. 2010 – March 2012: maternity leave

April 2012 – Sept 2013: 5 weekly hours of work for a 6 months period

= 5,33 person months (à 30 weekly hours of work)

Elke Park (PhD)

Oct. 2009 – Oct 2010: 10 weekly hours of work for a 13 months period

Nov. 2010 – March 2012: 20 weekly hours of work for a 17 months period

April 2012 – Sept 2013: 5 weekly hours of work for a 6 months period

= 16,66 person months (à 30 weekly hours of work)

Elke Park and Gülay Ates conducted the literature review and published their results in in the

1st EUROAC Volume. All four team members were involved in the quantitative research and

published their results in in the 2nd EUROAC Volume. David Campbell was responsible for

the execution of the CAP survey. All four team members were involved in the qualitative re-

2 The assessment of what should be regarded as a “significant deviation” is the responsibility of the project leader. As a guide-line, any deviation of more than 25% from the original financial plan or work schedule should be accounted for.


search and published their results in in the 3rd EUROAC Volume. Angelika Brechelmacher

and Elke Park conducted the 60 national interviews. Angelika Brechelmacher coordinated

the qualitative part of the project.

3/Re-assignation of costs

In March 2012, € 12.600,00 were reassigned from material/travel costs to personal costs in

order to finance the on-going work on the third publication by the four team members. The

project duration was cost neutrally prolonged for 6 months.

No other significant deviation.

4/ Cooperation and division of labour with partners within the collaborative research

and networking activities

All parts of the project were coordinated by INCHER-Kassel.

A) Data collection – responsibility of the partner countries

Part 1 of the project consisted of an international literary review focused on the national

key subjects, the instalment and systematization of a literature data base, drafting texts

and their analysis for the first edited volume.

Part 2 of the project was concerned with adapting the CAP-Questionnaire, establishing an

online survey, contacting universities and executing the CAP-Survey.

Part 3 of the project conducted 60 interviews, each with a length of approximately 90

minutes, based on the guideline developed by the international team, logged the inter-

views, translated them into English and delivered them to INCHER-Kassel.

B) Intense phases of international cooperation

Part 1 of the project: international teams of authors drafted the chapters for the volume I.

Part 2 of the project: international harmonization of questions and agreement on specific

questions in respective nations, merging the national data sets to an overall data set and

data cleansing.

Part 3 of the project: Development of three topically varying guidelines for interviews, merg-

ing 480 interview protocols.

C) Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the international data set by national teams

according to national key topics, drafting internationally comparable articles for volumes II

and III.

D) Organizing international project meetings and conferences in collaboration of all

partners.


2.2. Personnel development – importance of the project for the scientific careers of those involved (including the project leader) (2000 characters excl. spaces)

brief comments on particular developments (perspectives) completed or anticipated special qualifications of project leader and/or any co-

workers (whether funded by the FWF or not) as a result of the project. special possibilities opened up by the project (e.g. high-risk topics, intensification of

transdisciplinary research etc.). importance (effect, success) of these new possibilities. effects of the project and of research performed in the framework of the project on

the international reputation of the project leader and co-workers. establishment or intensification of international collaborations.

Parts of the results of the EUROAC Project are entering the dissertations of Gülay Ates

(PhD) and Elke Park (tenure track). They both took part in the EUROHESC workshops for

doctoral students and early researchers. Both were able to publish their research results in

teams and independently and built a scientific profile. They were integrated firmly in the

community of Higher Education researchers across Europe.

All scientific collaborators used the opportunities offered by EUROAC to present their re-

search results on international conferences and to build international connections.

As a higher education expert Hans Pechar was included in the political discourse and func-

tioned as an advisor to the Austrian Ministry for Science and Research.

The project is positioned in social sciences; the international collaboration was interdiscipli-

nary. The Austrian team consisted of an educational scientist, a historian, a sociologist, a

political scientist, and a social anthropologist. All the diverse cultures of scientific research

form these fields have found their way into the project.

A number of peer-reviewed publications promoted the national and international reputation of

the members of the Austrian team.

2.3 effects of the project outside the scientific field (2000 characters excl. spaces)

brief comments on particular developments (perspectives); organization of symposiums and conferences; did the project have any particular relevance for developments in teaching and if so,

what (incorporation of project results in lectures, seminars etc.)? particular public relations activities for the general public did the project have particular relevance for other areas of society (cooperations

with economy, effects on society, widespread impact, adult education etc.)?

Important parts of the project were used in policy counselling. As an expert in higher educa-

tion Hans Pechar was invited to international discussion forums and presented the research

results to the German Council of Science and Humanities (Deutscher Wissenschaftsrat), the


Austrian Science Board (Österreichischer Wissenschaftsrat) and the Austrian Ministry for

Science and Research.

The Austrian Ministry for Science and Research has commissioned the follow-up project “Zur

Umsetzung des Kollektivvertrags an österreichischen Universitäten”. This project takes an in-

depth look at the progression of academic careers at Austrian universities. Angelika

Brechelmacher, Elke Park and Gülay Ates presented a research report on this project to the

Austrian Ministry for Science and Research in Spring 2013; project management Hans

Pechar.

Hans Pechar and Gülay Ates organized the 7th annual conference of the “Gesellschaft für

Hochschulforschung” (GfHf). The key topic of the conference was: Science as a job today –

prospects of new talent in the information society. In the course of this conference Gülay

Ates and Angelika Brechelmacher presented their research findings of “Academic Career

Paths in an international comparison”.

The research findings also make up a significant part of research oriented teaching at the

Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research. The EUROAC results

are also part of the seminars of Hans Pechar and Angelika Brechelmacher in the Doctoral

Study Program “Science and Universities in the information society” and in the teaching pro-

gram “Studium Integrale for post-graduate students”.

In numerous media reports (press and radio) Hans Pechar and Elke Park have contributed to

a public discussion on the risks in academic careers.

The research results of EUROAC are focused on the changes and developments in Europe-

an higher education institutions and universities in an international comparison. These

changes are having a widespread impact on other social areas. These influences, however,

were not a concern of the research project.


3. Information on domestic project participants

not funded by the FWF

funded by the FWF (project)

co-workers number Person-months

co-workers number Person -months

non-scientific

co-workers

1 2 non-scientific

co-workers

diploma students diploma students

PhD students PhD students 2 22

post-doctoral

co-workers

post-doctoral

co-workers

2 25,5

co-workers with

“Habilitation”

(professorial

qualifications)

1 3 co-workers with

“Habilitation”

(professorial

qualifications)

professors professors


4. Attachments

(lists may be as long as required)

List 1 1.a. scientific publications3 with an indication of the status (published, in press, submitted, in preparation)

Publications may only be listed if they relate directly to the project. Up to three of the most important publications should be indicated (e.g., printed in bold letters; for books, two originals should be supplied if the book has already been published, otherwise a brief description should be given together with the name of the publish-ing house). Please note that publication costs may be requested (under the original pro-ject number) for up to three years following completion of a project. A common format for citations should be followed. 1.a.1. Peer-reviewed publications (journals, contribution to anthologies, work-ing papers, proceedings etc.)

1) Goastellec, Gaële, Elke Park & Gülay Ates (2013): Academic Markets, Academic

Careers: Where Do We Stand? In: Kehm, Barbara M. & Ulrich Teichler (Ed.): The Academic Profession in Europe: New Tasks and New Challenges. Dortrecht: Springer http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/higher+education/book/978-94-007-4613-8

2) Ates, Gülay; Brechelmacher, Angelika (2013). Academic Career Paths. In: Ulrich

Teichler & Ester Ava Höhle (Ed.): The work Situation of the academic profes-sion: Findings of a survey in twelve european countries. Dortrecht: Springer. http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/book/978-94-007-5976-3

3) Campbell, David (2013): New University Governance: How the Academic Profes-

sion Perceives the Evaluation of Research and Teaching. In: Ulrich Teichler & Ester Ava Höhle (Ed.): The work Situation of the academic profession: Findings of a survey in twelve european countries. Dortrecht: Springer. http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/book/978-94-007-5976-3

4) Park, Elke (2013): From Academic Self Governance to Executive University

Management – Institutional Governance in the View of Academics in Europe. In: Ulrich Teichler & Ester Ava Höhle (Ed.): The work Situation of the academic pro-fession: Findings of a survey in twelve european countries. Dortrecht: Springer. http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/book/978-94-007-5976-3

5) Brechelmacher, Angelika; Park, Elke; Ates, Gülay, Campbell, David (2013): The

Rocky Road to Tenure. In: Fumasoli, Tatiana, Gaelle Goastellec & Barbara M. Kehm (Ed.) Academic careers in Europe: Trends, challenges, perspectives. Dortrecht: Springer (forthcoming)

6) Pechar, Hans and Park, Elke (2012): Academic Careers during the massification of Austrian Higher Education. Radical Change or Persistence of long-standing

3 The publication list must mention for each work: all authors; full title; series/journal title; year; volume; and page numbers.


Traditions In: Challenges and Options: The Academic Profession in Europe, ed-ited by Ulrich Teichler et. al. Heidelberg: Springer (forthcoming).

7) Dubina, Igor N. / Elias G. Carayannis / David F. J. Campbell (2012). Creativity Economy and a Crisis of the Economy? Coevolution of Knowledge, Innovation, and Creativity, and of the Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1), 1-24.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13132-011-0042-y

8) Campbell, David F. J. (2013). Comparison of Evaluation of Research and Teach-ing at Universities in Europe: Country Groups in Evaluation in Higher Education Systems? Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung 8 (2), 14-31. http://www.zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/520

9) Park, Elke (2012): The transformation of the academic profession: the erosion of tenure and the (e)state of the Professoriate. In: M. Vukasović, P. Maassen et al. (eds.): Effects of Higher Education Reforms: Change Dynamics. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers (forthcoming).

1.a.2. Non peer-reviewed publications (journals, contribution to anthologies research reports, working papers, proceedings, etc.) Pechar, Hans (2012), Karrierechancen für den akademischen Nachwuchs in Öster-reich. In: Wissenschaftliche Karriere und Partizipation – Wege und Irrwege, Ta-gungsband des Österreichischen Wissenschaftsrates 2011, 77-92. http://www.wissenschaftsrat.ac.at/news/Tagungsband_2011.pdf 1.a.3. Stand-alone publications (monographies, anthologies) 10) Campbell, David F. J. / Elias G. Carayannis (2013). Epistemic Governance in

Higher Education. Quality Enhancement of Universities for Development. (SpringerBriefs in Business.). New York, NY: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/organization/book/978-1-4614-4417-6

1.b. publications for the general public and other publications

such as films, exhibitions, preparation of a home page etc. with an indication of the status (published, submitted / in preparation) 1) Hans Pechar and Elke Park: Interview with Austrian Broadcasting Corporation

ORF, April 23rd 2012: “Uni Karrieren: Jeder kämpft gegen jeden”, http://science.orf.at/stories/1697586/

, 2) Hans Pechar and Elke Park: Radio broadcast in “Wissen aktuell”, oe1 radio, 23rd

April 2012 3) Hans Pechar and Elke Park, “Akademische Karrieren sind risikoreicher gewor-

den”, Interview with Austrian Newspaper “Der Standard”: May 30th 2012 “Akade-mische Karrieren sind risikoreicher geworden”

http://derstandard.at/1336698133942/Hochschulforscher-Akademische-Karrieren-sind-risikoreicher-geworden

4) Park, Elke, „Klettersteig in die akademische Karriere“, Unisono. Zeitschrift der

Universität Klagenfurt, Juni 2012.


List 2 project-related participation in international scientific conferences (with an indication of the conference date) – 4 subunits:

2.1. Conference participations - invited lectures 1) Hans Pechar, Was lehrt die Hochschulforschung? Akademische Karrieren in Ös-terreich aus vergleichender Perspektive. Presentation at 7. Tagung des Österrei-chischen Wissenschaftsrates "Wissenschaftliche Karriere und Partizipation - Wege und Irrwege", 11./12. November 2011 2.2. Conference participations - lectures 1) Université de Lausanne, presentations by David Campbell "Governance of

Higher Education: How Do the Discourses Relate to OECD (and Other) Indica-tors?" and Elke Park "The Professoriate"; 25.-27. 3. 2010

2) CHER Conference 2010 "Effects of Higher Education Reforms", Univ. Oslo. Lec-tures by Hans Pechar, Gülay Ates und Elke Park; 9.-10. 6. 2010.

3) EuroHESC networking event and case study workshop, Univ. Kassel. Participa-tion: Gülay Ates, Elke Park ; 16.-17. 6. 2010.

4) Workshop "Personalsituation an österr. Universitäten", BMWF, Presentation of

Interim Project Results by Hans Pechar ; 12.7.2010

5) EUROHESC Training Activity: Applications of organization theory in higher edu-cation research, University of Lugano, February 23-25, 2011 (Presentation by Elke Park)

6) EUROHESC Workshop Challenges in Comparative Higher Education Research -

Comparing Higher Education Systems, Organizations and Individual Academic Behavior. Participation: Elke Park Helsinki, 26.-27 January 2012

7) CIPES Seminar “Challenges and Options: The Academic Profession in Europe”,

Porto, Portugal; presentation by Hans Pechar and Elke Park: Academic Careers during the massification of Austrian Higher Education. Radical Change or Per-sistence of long-standing Traditions. 15-16/03/2012

8) "Akademische Karrieren im internationalen Vergleich", presentation by Gülay Ates and Angelika Brechelmacher, 7. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Hochschulforschung (GfHf) "Wissenschaft als Beruf – heute. Perspektiven des akademischen Nachwuchs in der Wissensgesellschaft", 9-11 May 2012

9) EUROHESC Final Conference, Berlin, August 2012; Presentations of project re-sults on Governance and Quality Assurance by David Campbell and Elke Park

10) „Karrierewege im Wissenschaftssystem“, presentation by Hans Pechar; Deut-scher Wissenschaftsrat in preparation of the hearing on 22-02-2013

2.3. Conference participations - posters _____ 2.4. Conference participations – other _____


List 3 Development of collaborations

Indication of the most important collaborations (maximum 8), that took place (initiat-ed or continued) in collaboration please give the name of the collaboration partner (name, title, institution) and a few words about the scientific content. Please also as-sign one of the following categories to each collaboration:

N Nature N (national);

E (European); I (other international cooperation)

E Extent E1 low (e.g. no joint publications but mention in acknowledgements or similar);

E2 medium (collaboration e.g. with occasional joint publications, exchange of materials or similar but no longer-term exchange of personnel); E3 high (extensive collaboration with mutual hosting of group members for research stays, regular joint publications etc.)

D Discipline D within the discipline T transdisciplinary

N

E

D

Collaboration partner / content of the collaboration

I 2 D 1) Name: Jasminka Ledić Title: Professor

Institution: Dept. of Education, University of Rijeka, Croatia

Content: project discussion, scientific exchange on academic careers

E 2 T 2) Name: Jonathan Drennan Title: Dr.

Institution: School of Nursing Midwifery & Health Systems, University College Dublin, Irland


E 2 T 3) Name: Luminita Moraru Title: Professor

Institution: Dept. of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Dunarea de Jos, Galati, Roma-

nia

Content: project discussion, scientific exchange on quality assurance, preparation of a joint

publication

I 2 D 4) Name: Gaële Goastellec Title: Dr.

Institution: OSPS, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, Switzer-

land

Content: joint publication in Volume I, project discussion, scientific exchange on academic

careers, possible further publications

E 2 D 5) Name: Timo Aarrevaara Title: Professor

Institution: HEINE, Higher Education Governance and Management

University of Helsinki, Finland

Content: joint publication in Volume II, project discussion, scientific exchange on governance

E 2 D 6) Name: Marek Kwiek Title: Professor

Institution: Center for Public Policy Studies, Poznan University, Poland


E 2 D 7) Name: Ulrich Teichler Title: Professor

Institution: INCHER Kassel, Germany

Content: joint publications, editor of Volume I and II

E 2 D 8) Name: Barbara Kehm Title: Professor

Institution: INCHER Kassel, Germany

Content: joint publications, editor of Volume I and III


List 4 “Habilitations” (professorial qualifications) / PhD theses / diploma theses with an indication of the status (in progress / completed)

Note: it will not be possible to assign a “Habilitation” to a single project; what is re-quired here is a mention of those “Habilitations” for which the project was im-portant. A similar caveat applies to PhD and diploma theses: the FWF does not support thesis work but rather funds the scientific work that forms the basis for theses.

4.1. Professorial Qualifications ___ 4.2. PhD Theses 1) Park, Elke: Akademische Karrieren in Österreich seit 1955 (in progress) 2) Ates, Gülay: Das Doktorat im internationalen Vergleich (in progress) 4.3. Diploma Theses ___


List 5 Effects of the project outside the scientific field (where appropriate)

Sections of the list: 5.1. Organization of scientific events

The listing should be ordered according to congresses, symposiums or workshops with participants from outside Austria congresses, symposiums or workshops with participants primarily from within

Austria meetings relevant to the project (e.g. with collaboration partners from science and industry, EU partners etc.) etc.

1) EuroAc Meeting Vienna, Mai 2011

2) 7. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Hochschulforschung (GfHf) "Wissenschaft als Beruf – heute. Perspektiven des akademischen Nachwuchs in der Wis-sensgesellschaft", 9-11 May 2012 (organised by Hans Pechar and Gülay Ates)

5.2. Particular honours, prizes etc. The listing should be divided into national and international honours, prizes etc.

5.3. Information on results relevant to commercial applications The listing should be divided into national and international patents (licenses etc.)

5.4. Other effects beyond the scientific field

Raising public awareness for problems of academic careers in Austria: several in-terviews and other media contributions

5.5. Relevance of the project in the organization of the relevant scientific discipline

Contributions to image building, establishment of “priority areas”, role in perfor-mance-related contracts or similar.

Contribution to the further establishment of the interdisciplinary research field Higher Educa-tion Research in Austria. The EUROAC data base represents a unique and valuable resource for future research in the field. It remains highly desirable that the data for Austria be exploited in more depth in further follow-up projects. List 6. Applications for follow-up projects with an indication of the status (submitted / approved) and the funding organization.

6.1 Applications for follow-up projects (FWF projects) (with an indication of the project type, e.g. stand-alone project, NFN, SFB, WK, fel-lowship, contribution to a stand-alone publication) ___ 6.2 Applications for follow-up projects (Other national projects) (e. g. FFG, CD Laboratory, a K-plus Centre, funding from the Austrian National Bank, the Federal Government, the provincial government or similar)


1) “Zur Umsetzung des Kollektivvertrags an österreichischen Universitäten”; project commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Science and Research, duration April-December 2012 6.3 Applications for follow-up projects (International projects) (eg. ERA project, ESF) ____


5. Zusammenarbeit mit internationalem Programmträger bzw. Programmmanagement Sie werden gebeten folgende Aspekte der Zusammenarbeit mit Programmträger bzw. Pro-

grammmanagement (z.B. ESF) im Rahmen Ihres internationalen Kooperationsprojekts zu

bewerten. Anmerkungen (Ausführungen) unter Verweis auf den entsprechenden Refe-

renzpunkt bitte auf Beiblatt.

Skala -2 sehr unzufriedenstellend, -1 unzufriedenstellend; 0 angemessen; +1 zufriedenstellend; +2 sehr zufriedenstellend. X nicht beansprucht

Regelwerk (Richtlinien für Programm, Antrag, Verwendung, Bericht) Wertung

Antragsrichtlinien Umfang 0

Übersichtlichkeit 0

Verständlichkeit 0

Verfahren (Einreichung, Begutachtung, Entscheidung)

Beratung +1

Dauer des Verfahrens 0

Transparenz 0

Projektbegleitung (falls vom Programmträger durchgeführt)

Beratung Verfügbarkeit +2

Ausführlichkeit +2

Verständlichkeit +2

Durchführung Finanzverkehr (falls zutreffend bzw. vom Programmträ-ger durchgeführt) (Überweisungen, Gerätebeschaffungen, Personalwesen)

x

Berichtswesen/ Prüfung/ Verwertung (falls vom Programmträger durchgeführt)

Aufwand x

Transparenz x

Unterstützung bei Öffent-lichkeitsarbeit/ Verwertung

x


Koordinations- und Netzwerkaktivitäten (falls vom Programmträger durchgeführt) Mehrwert Häufigkeit/Dauer Organisation

Workshops +1 +2 +2

Öffentlichkeitsarbeit 0 0 0

Sonstiges (bitte anführen)

x x x

Anmerkungen zur Zusammenarbeit mit dem Programmträger bzw. Programmma-nagement

Excellent coordination and support to EuroHESC by Ms. Sarah Moore, ESF.


6. Zusammenarbeit mit dem FWF Sie werden gebeten folgende Aspekte der Zusammenarbeit mit dem FWF zu bewerten. An-

merkungen (Ausführungen) unter Verweis auf den entsprechenden Referenzpunkt bitte

auf Beiblatt.

Skala -2 sehr unzufriedenstellend, -1 unzufriedenstellend; 0 angemessen; +1 zufriedenstellend; +2 sehr zufriedenstellend. X nicht beansprucht

Regelwerk (Richtlinien für Programm, Antrag, Verwendung, Bericht) Wertung

Antragsrichtlinien Umfang 0

Übersichtlichkeit +1


Verfahren (Einreichung, Begutachtung, Entscheidung)

Beratung +1

Dauer des Verfahrens -1

Transparenz 0

Projektbegleitung

Beratung Verfügbarkeit +1

Ausführlichkeit +1


Durchführung Finanzverkehr (Überweisungen, Gerätebeschaffungen, Personalwesen)

+2

Berichtswesen/ Prüfung/ Verwertung

Aufwand 0

Transparenz 0

Unterstützung bei Öffent-lichkeitsarbeit/ Verwertung

0


Anmerkungen zur Zusammenarbeit mit dem FWF:

Gute Unterstützung durch FWF-Mitarbeiterinnen, soweit erforderlich.

INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PROJECT FINAL REPORT

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PROJECT FINAL REPORT