Academic Career Trajectories: Transatlantic Comparisons

Hans Pechar Lesley Andres

Alpen Adria University University of British Columbia

HER 2013

Overview

• Contemporary Concerns

• History of the Habilitation Model

• History of Tenure Track Model

• Habilitation/Tenure Track Compared

• The Case For and Against

Contemporary Issues

North America

Decline in TT positions

an obsolete model?

how much are research universities affected?

Germanic Countries

TT a Role Model?

relationship between academic status groups e.g., what is an assistant professor?

transparent career trajectories; reduce risk in early career stages

Tenure, TT, Habilitation

UK, Sweden, Netherlands

•lecturers/senior lecturers have permanent positions (tenure)

•only a minority is promoted to full professor (SWE: 1/3, UK 1/4)

North America

•those admitted to tenure track are expected to become a full professor

Habilitation model

•only full professors should have permanent positions

•junior faculty -- trainees on fixed term positions

Tenure (FRA/UK), TT (US), Habilitation (GER)

Source: Kreckel 2012

Different Habilitation Systems (CZE/GER/CH/AT)

Source: Kreckel 2012

History of the Habilitation Model

Early 1800s

•departure from “family university” (academic dynasties)

Raising Quality Standards

• from preservation of traditional knowledge to creation of new knowledge

• dissertation written by students, not professor

• Habilitation - ‘private docent’ - entry qualification for academic career

Chair Structure

University = federation of many small principalities

One Professor per Institute

•represents the discipline comprehensively

•little formal structure

•huge discretionary power

•strong personal dependence

•future academics apprentices under “his” supervision

Mass Higher Education

• most teaching/research is done by non-professorial faculty

• improved social rights but still regarded as “qualification position” (no career track)

• conflicts about representation in collegial bodies (struggle for quotas)

History of the Tenure Track Model

Roots

•intellectual independence

•collective autonomy

•time and financial security to conduct scholarly work (Horn, 1999)

•academic freedom

Early Contracts

•presumption of tenure – Scottish tradition

•no specific reference to term of office

•tenure during pleasure

•1915 American Association of University Professors report

•numerous dismissal cases and court challenges in USA and Canada from the 1860s to 1950s difficulties recruiting new faculty

“their opportunities for suitable employment are rare, and if lost are not easily substituted by other congenial employment. Their specialized training

unfits them for general service. In their chosen field, the material rewards are relatively small. In

order . . . that this noble profession may still attract recruits, it is wisely acknowledged both in theory

and practice that the employment of professors by colleges should be characterized by stability

approaching to permanence”(Mr. Justice A.K. Dysart in Horn, 1999)

• professorships akin to professional status

• dismissal should be be based on due process used in disbarring lawyers or revoking licenses of physicians

• tenure as custom vs. tenure as law

1960s Onward

• CAUT Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1960)

• “sellers” market for faculty

• tenure during good behaviour – first “understood” and then formalized in collective agreements

• probation – tenure – dismissal for cause only

• constrained by retirement at 65

Tenure Track

• rigorous PhD

• required mobility (contest mobility)

• assistant professor = independent academic career

• trial period in unfamiliar territory

Habilitation Model

Tenure Track

• tenure evaluation (up or out)

• permanent contract dependent on achievement

• promotion to full professor at home institution

• promotion depends on personal achievement

• no limits due to available positions

Habilitation Model

Tenure Track

• rigorous PhD

• required mobility (contest mobility)

• Assistant professor = independent academic career

• trial period in unfamiliar territory

Habilitation Model

• less demanding doctorate

• Habilitation required

• internal recruitment (sponsored mobility)

• ‘assistant’ = literally

• assigned to professor

• qualification period within familiar network

Tenure Track

• tenure evaluation (up or out)

• permanent contract dependent on achievement

• promotion to full professor at home institution

• promotion depends on personal achievement

• no limits due to available positions

Habilitation Model

• venia legendi

• no permanent contract

• application for full professor requires mobility)

• imbalance between applicants and available professorial positions

Crucial Differences

Habilitation

•insider orientation below professoriate

•juniors remain within familiar networks

•selective career step = late (prolongs uncertainty)

•categorical differences between status groups (impedes solidarity)

Tenure Track

•selective recruitment at early stage allows for regular promotion within a career track

•gradual differences between status groups (conducive for solidarity)

Status Groups - Quantitative Relations

AT US

Source: Kreckel 2008

requiredmobility

AT US

Status Groups - Qualitative Relationshighly separated tracks vs flat hierarchy

requiredmobility

The Case Against

Tenure Track

• promotes conformity rather than creativity

• “impediment, rather than aid, to academic freedom” (Kingwell, 1997)

• guarantees employment to unproductive faculty “deadwood”

• stifles institutional flexibility in a greatly changed academic landscape

• no longer needed vis-à-vis academic freedom

Habilitation Model

• long period of personal dependency

• high uncertainty

The Case ForTenure Track

• flawed, but substitutes (e.g., renewable contracts) no improvement

• regular reviews costly

• required to attract and keep the intellectually gifted, innovative, and outspoken

• long pre-tenure period serves as quality control

• required for academic freedom

Habilitation Model

• tradition gives “legitimacy”

• guarantees high quality of academic training

Thank you for your attention!

Further Reading

Ben-David, J. (1991). 'The Profession of Science and Its Powers'. In: Scientific Growth. Essays on the Social Organization and Ethos of Science (pp. 187-209). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Busch, A. (1963). The Vicissitudes of the "Privatdozent": Breakdown and Adaptation in the Recruitment of the German University Teacher, Minerva, Vol. 1, pp.319-341

Clark, W. (2006). Academic Charisma and the Origin of the Research University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kreckel, R. (Hg) (2008): Zwischen Promotion und Professur. Das wissenschaftliche Personal in Deutschland im Vergleich mit Frankreich, Großbritannien, USA, Schweden, den Niederlanden, Österreich und der Schweiz. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt.

Metzger, W. P. (1987). 'Academic Profession in United States'. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings (pp. 123-208) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Neave, G. & Rhoades, G. (1987). 'The academic estate in Western Europe'. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings (pp. 211-270) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Schimank, U. (2006). Unsolved problems and inadequate solutions: The situation of academic staff in German higher education. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 115-136). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

Schmeiser, M. (1994). Akademischer Hasard. Das Berufsschicksal des Professors und das Schicksal der deutschen Universität 1870 - 1920. Stuttgart: Klett.