Academic Profession in Knowledge Societies (APIKS)
Full Metadata Record
AbstractThe German part of the project ´Academic Profession in Knowledge Societies (APIKS)´ is part of an international comparative study of working conditions in science and the attitudes of scientists. The mixed-mode survey (CAWI/Paper-and-Pencil), which took place in winter 2017/18, was conducted for the third time. Similar surveys were conducted in 1992 (Carnegie Study) and 2007/2008 (The Changing Academic Profession; CAP). The project involves research teams from more than 30 countries organised as an APIKS consortium (including Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Finland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey and the USA). For the German study, a stratified random sample of 24 higher education institutions was drawn, including 12 universities of applied sciences and 12 universities. The sample takes into account a regional distribution and differences in the size of HEIs. The organisational variables are not part of the scientific-use file due to anonymisation. The German sub-study of the APIKS project was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (funding code M522200). The APIKS survey has two objectives. Firstly, the working conditions and attitudes of academics (professors and academic staff) at public universities are to be identified with a focus on research, teaching and university governance, including academic self-administration.Secondly, with the supplementary block of questions on knowledge and technology transfer, a current topic area on the so-called ´third mission´ or social relevance is added to the survey. The questions on knowledge and technology transfer activities are not limited to classic fields such as spin-offs and licences, but also include teaching and voluntary work. In addition, the German sub-study was expanded to include a block of questions on "Supervision practices in the doctoral phase". This short study asks about the experiences of professors regarding supervision activities in the context of their doctorate and is based on a transfer of qualitatively elaborated supervision types and practices into standardised survey instruments (Schneijderberg 2018, 2021).
Table of ContentsA) Employment history:Academic rank, academic discipline, extent of employment, extent of employment in %, length of employment, year of degree: bachelor, master, diploma, Magister, state examination, doctorate or habilitation, degree obtained in Germany or other country, characterization of doctoral phase:Prescribed number of courses attended, received intensive advice from academics, topic chosen independently, received scholarship, received employment contract for activities in teaching/research, employed at non-university research institute or outside academia, doctorate self-financed and/or financed by family support, didactics courses attended, participation in research projects with other researchers, dissertation written as monograph, cumulative dissertation written; length of employment (full-time/part-time) since graduation: At universities, non-university research institutions, public sector institutions, industry or private sector, Self-employed; first year of full or part-time employment at university or research institution, first year of full or part-time employment at current university, first year of full or part-time employment in current position. B) General occupational situation:Spent working time per week (during and outside lecture time) on teaching, research, knowledge and technology transfer, scientific self-administration and other scientific activities; own interest is primarily on teaching or research, importance of subject/discipline, department/faculty, institution, opinions about scientific career: Difficult time for scientific career, would not become a scientist again, profession is a burden, teaching and research difficult to combine; satisfaction with contract conditions, work situation, general situation as a scientist; activities in the last academic year: participation in scientific commission at state, federal or international level, reviewer activity, (co-)editorship, elected functionary in scientific organization or trade union, active work or functionary in politics (regional, national and/or international) C) Teaching time:Proportion of teaching time in bachelor´s degree programs and undergraduate studies, master´s degree programs and graduate studies, doctoral degree programs (including supervision of doctoral students), postgraduate and continuing education programs, other levels and types of degree programs; type of teaching activities: Lectures, seminars, individual instruction, project-based learning and supervision in project studies, practical instruction (e.g., in laboratories), e-learning,Distance learning, development of teaching materials, development of study programs, contact with students outside of courses and student advising; goals set by the institution for teaching: number of participants in courses, number of master´s theses and doctoral dissertations to be supervised, amount of time spent on student advising, compulsory attendance at the university, other specifications or expectations, views on own teaching activities, teaching conditions and teaching situation, language used in teaching. D) Research:Collaboration with others, with doctoral students in at least one research project, with scientists at university, at other institutions in Germany, in other countries, from other disciplines or fields; focus of own research: basic/theoretical research, applied or practice-oriented research, commercially oriented / oriented to technology transfer, socially oriented / understood as a contribution to the improvement of society, internationally or internationally comparatively oriented, disciplinary, multi-/ interdisciplinary; scientific contributions: (co-)authorship, editorship, contributions to scientific books, scientific journals, research reports, full conference contribution, supervision of completed PhDs, patenting of processes or inventions, EDP programs for public use, artistic works, technical articles for daily newspapers, magazines, blogs or similar, appearances on television, radio, podcasts or similar, other scientific or artistic contributions; percentage of scientific publications in the last three years as author, internationally, working with scientists in Germany or abroad, with peer review; expectations of the institution: to attract external funding, to achieve scientific quality, to conduct applied research, to make scientific results available to other users; percentage of funding by the institution, national public research funding agencies, ministries or other governmental bodies, private companies, non-profit foundations or other non-governmental research funding agencies, international public research funding agencies, other financial resources. E) Knowledge and technology transfer:Activities with external partners in the last three years: research-based and teaching-based activities, other activities, external partners involved in activities: other higher education institutions, public research institutions, private research institutions, public administration, ministries and municipalities, business and industry, non-profit organizations, other institutions; source of funding for activities: own or other university, public or non-profit funders, public administration, ministries and municipalities, business and industry, other sources, no additional funding; importance of knowledge and technology transfer activities for own research, teaching, scientific reputation, career, discipline or research field, for mission of university; contribution of external activity to university location (city and region), national/international community; results are of benefit to culture, economy, education, environment, health, politics and state, social and other areas. F) Qualifications and careers in science:Evaluate professional competencies and their relevance to current employment: Developing research ideas, working independently and taking responsibility, establishing, maintaining and using networks and collaborations, effective planning, management and implementation, constructive collaboration, obtaining external funding; views on: Consulting services, support in career planning, opportunities for social contacts and network building, integration into own department/institute; proportion of working time for everyday scientific tasks and further qualification (in %); assessment of request and expectation of professional situation in 5 years: Working as a scientist in which type of institution and in which function; evaluation of the current work situation and its importance: salary, job security, career opportunities, prestige of the university, learning opportunities and competence development, independent teaching and research design, having interesting work. G) Understanding of science:Agree with statements about behavior and values of scientists: Share new research results, protect latest results, evaluate research performance, evaluate new knowledge and its potential applications based on reputation and past performance of an individual or research group, select research projects only with relevance to practice in mind, are motivated by desire for knowledge and discovery, not by prospect of profit, compete for funding and recognition, are responsible for the direction and control of science through governance, self-regulation, and peer review, design research consistent with the profile of their organization/institution, consider new findings, hypotheses, and innovations, spend careers publicizing findings, theories, or innovations.Supervision practices in the doctoral phase:Status during PhD, gender and type of main supervisor, supervision practices:Same research interests, gives thoughtful input, formulation of clear research question, recognizes abilities, reflects on personal development, strict schedule , strict progress monitoring, regular feedback, empathy, does not care about well-being, uncertainty due to too high expectations, creates confusion, does not interfere, explicit scientific quality standards, evaluation criteria difficult to follow, other theory/method imposed, provides networking support, prepares to deal with criticism and competition, no interest in dissertation. H) Governance and Management:Personal influence on university policy decisions at the level of the department, faculty and the university, peer review/evaluation of teaching, research, and transfer activities by colleagues in the department/division, department head/dean, members of other departments or divisions of one´s own institution, senior members of one´s own university administration, students, external reviewers, oneself (formal self-assessment), others, or no one; assessment of the university in terms of: Competence of management staff, emphasis on institution´s mission/profile, quality of communication between university management and academic staff, management style, collegiality in decision-making, performance orientation of teaching and research, and administrative and decision-making processes; assessed emphasis of institution on performance-based funding, funding of department by number of students, consideration of research and teaching quality and practical relevance of academic activity in personnel decisions, appointment of persons with practical work experience; views of own university: Clear internationalization strategy, participation in exchange programs for students, offering various opportunities and funding for stays abroad for academic staff, for international students and guest scientists, for participation in conferences in other countries, promoting the employment of scholars from other countries and international scientific publications. Demography: sex, year of birth, citizenship and country of birth (continent), marital status, highest degree (spouse), children in household, number of children, dependents in household, amount of care for dependents (h per week); employment interruption (child care and/or dependents), highest professional degree of father/mother; father/mother also a scientist. Additionally coded were: respondent ID, type of university, subject discipline including geosciences, subject discipline grouped according to Federal Statistical Office, subject discipline grouped according to OECD Frascati Manual, extent of response.
Schneijderberg, C., & Götze, N. (2020). Organisierte, metrifizierte und exzellente Wissenschaftler*innen. Veränderungen der Arbeits- und Beschäftigungsbedingungen an Fachhochschulen und Universitäten von 1992 über 2007 bis 2018. Kassel: International Centre for Higher Education Research. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3949756.
Schneijderberg, C. (2018): Promovieren in den Sozialwissenschaften. Eine sozialisationstheoretische Erschließung des Forschungsfeldes Promotion. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-19739-1]).
Schneijderberg, Cristian; Götze, Nicolai; Müller, Lars: The Academic Profession in Knowledge Societies (APIKS) 2018 : Daten- und Methodenbericht zur deutschen Teilstudie der APIKS-Erhebung. Kassel: International Center for Higher Education Research Universität Kassel
Update Metadata: 2022-02-09 | Issue Number: 5 | Registration Date: 2021-12-15