Academic Careers in Comparative Perspective

Hans Pechar, Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research, Alpen Adria Universitt, Vienna, Austria
Lesley Andres, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract
In this article, we focus, from a comparative perspective, on the traditional academic career within a university setting. We
commence by describing the various facets relevant to academic careers, including academic training, employment contracts,
hierarchies, and the case for and against tenure. We conclude with a discussion of current reforms and policy debates.

The term academic career is slippery to dene. Most

commonly, it refers to employment at universities by those
educated at the doctoral level with the triumvirate of teaching,
research, and service (Schuster and Finkelstein, 2006) as
central employment responsibilities. Academic-like careers can
also be found in other venues, including research institutes
(e.g., CNRS in France, Max Planck Institutes in Germany,
Russian Academy of Sciences), various levels of government,
and arms-length or nongovernmental organizations (e.g.,
OECD, UNESCO). For the purposes of this article, we focus,
from a comparative perspective, on the traditional academic
career within a university setting. We commence by describing
the various facets relevant to academic careers, including
academic training, employment contracts, hierarchies, and the
case for and against tenure. We conclude with a discussion of
current reforms and policy debates.

Academic Training
An academic career is characterized by an extended training
period. Increasingly, the PhD is the entrance requirement for
permanent teaching positions, research positions, or both and
is now standard at most research universities in OECD countries. However, there is signicant variation among academic
systems regarding how the training period is conceptualized
and interconnected with paid employment.
The range of doctoral training models is dened primarily
in terms of the nature of the relationship and the related
degree of dependence between the student and her or his
research supervisory committee and the degree to which
programs are structured. Doctoral programs fall on a
continuum ranging from almost complete independence (i.e.,
reading for a degree) where the student works independently
with minimal contact and input from a research supervisor and
committee and without a prescribed set of courses, to those
that are highly structured, in terms of programs of study, and
close surveillance by the research supervisory committee
(Kehm, 2006). Most doctoral students are required to produce
a dissertation that is original theoretically, conceptually, and/
or empirically. However, the nature and extent to which the
dissertation is assessed that is, whether examiners external to
the supervisory committee, department, and university varies
from program to program (Usher, 2002).

26

Also, the extent of rigor, in terms of research training, varies

across institutions and countries (Nerad and Heggelund,
2008). Programs offering full-edged research training strive
to ensure that, upon graduations, graduates are prepared to
embark on research careers, and hence are intended for
students who want to pursue this trajectory. Other programs
are designed to provide credentials (and the related title of Dr)
for individuals who seek to use such credentials as a signal in
the labor market. As an illustration, in some countries (e.g.,
Austria, Germany), as late as 40 years ago, the doctorate was the
rst academic degree earned by university students. Clearly, it
served a very different purpose than doctorates earned in highly
differentiated university systems (e.g., the United States, UK).
For example, Egon Franck and Christian Opitz (2007)
demonstrate that 58.5% of CEOs of major German companies have earned doctorates, whereas only 5.5% of CEOs in
comparable companies in the United States possess the same
credential. The emphasis on labor market signaling can be
regarded as problematic because of the potential to dilute the
rigor of research training. This concern was the major impetus
for a major redesign of doctoral programs in many European
countries, in particular Germany, by refocusing the emphasis
on research training (European University Association, 2007).
However, that universities are accustomed to training
academics for the nonacademic labor market can also be
regarded as an advantage at a time where there is mismatch
between supply and demand within academic labor markets
(Nature, 2011; Usher, 2002).
The extent of rigor in doctoral examination policies,
procedures, and practices also differentiates types of doctoral
training. Efforts exerted by institutions to examine doctoral
candidates range from minimal (e.g., dependent on one
person, usually the research supervisor) to extensive (e.g.,
multiple checks and balances including external review of the
dissertation, policies preventing conicts of interest between
the research committee and external examiners).
Doctoral training also serves as the interface between
education and employment, with variation in the precise
design of this interface. In many European countries, doctoral
students may be formally employed by the university (e.g.,
Sweden). It is rare that the majority of doctoral students have
an employment contract; usually, the most promising students
are employed as assistants to their research supervisors. Those
employed as assistants are regarded as early stage researchers

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03001-4

Academic Careers in Comparative Perspective

in most European countries as dened by the Bergen

Communiqu (European Ministers Responsible for Higher
Education, 2005; Williams Committee of Inquiry into
Education and Training, 1979). This type of employment is
xed term in nature and thus does not usually hold the promise
of a permanent appointment upon successful completion of
a doctoral degree. Because of the lack of rigor in some doctoral
programs, many European systems require a second thesis, the
Habilitation. In countries with a Habilitation system, xed-term
employment may also be the case while the junior academic
works on her or his Habilitation. As with the doctoral degree,
successful completion of a Habilitation does not lead to
a permanent position. Rather, it is the opposite; by completing
the Habilitation, many junior academics reach the maximum
years allowed in xed-term contracts and are required to leave
the university (see chain contracts below).
Until recently, doctoral training in North America has been
regarded predominantly as part of the education of prospective
academics. Many doctoral students are employed as research or
teaching assistants. Although they may be considered to be
early stage researchers (Bazeley, 2003), they are graduate
students (and may belong to student unions) and not
employees. Doctoral training in the United States and Canada
is more rigorous than in most European higher education
systems in terms of length, due to mandatory course work and
other requirements such as comprehensive examinations. A
doctoral degree is the necessary and sufcient formal entry
requirement to an academic career. In North America,
a maximum length of time to completion is usually specied,
whereas in Europe, a minimal time to completion tends to be
stipulated.

Employment Contracts
Employment contracts can be either permanent or xed term.
Senior academics typically have permanent positions.
However, the dividing line between junior and senior
academics and the criteria that dene senior academics vary
among academic systems.
In many countries, senior academics have tenure which
guarantees higher job protection than does a regular permanent position (Finkin, 1996; Horn, 1999b). Because the case
for and against tenure is complex and controversial, we devote
a separate section to this topic. Types of tenure vary.
Academics in most European countries are civil servants who
can be terminated only under special circumstances; hence,
they are accorded high job protection. However, in most
instances only those holding a Professorship and Chair
benet from such protection. Academic tenure in North
America is different in that even in the public universities of
the United States and Canada, academics are not civil servants
but rather employees of the university. Academic tenure in
North America is the outcome of a long probation period
followed by rigorous peer review. This review involves peer
review both within ones university (usually at the departmental, faculty, and university-wide levels) and externally by
seeking expert opinions from academics from other universities. (In some countries, tenure status is not awarded
to academics. For example, in the UK, tenure was abolished

27

and replaced with permanent and xed-term contracts, see

Court (1998).)
There are different reasons for xed-term contracts. First,
xed-term employment is used as a probation mechanism,
usually in the early stages of an academic career. Under these
circumstances, employees typically can look forward to the
prospect of permanent employment if they stand the tenure
test. One example for this type of probation is the assistant
professor within the North American tenure track system. The
assistant professorship is a xed-term position that concludes
in an up or out decision. A positive evaluation is required to
achieve a permanent and tenured position.
In many European higher education systems, the term
assistant has a different meaning (Busch, 1963). Assistants in
the German-speaking higher education systems are usually not
on probation; they have xed-term training positions which
allow them to complete either their doctoral degrees or their
Habilitation. The crucial difference to the tenure track is that
successful completion of the training phase does not guarantee
a permanent position.
Although there are structural similarities between those
undergoing either a period to complete the Habilitation or as
a tenure track professor (e.g., a period of extension beyond the
doctorate; undergoing another level of peer scrutiny through
examination in the case of the former or assessment of the
tenure le in the case of the latter; the right to teach independently (venia legendi)), there are several key differences. In the
Habilitation system, the training period, called the qualication
agreement, does not guarantee employment. The assistant
literally assists her or his professor. Tenure track assistant
professors do not require a training period. Although their
research, teaching, and service skills improve with time and
experience, they are expected to perform their duties independently, often with advice and support of senior colleagues, but
not under their thumbs. Fixed-term contracts are also granted
for special projects that have a beginning and an end.
Researchers employed in such projects are usually hired on soft
money; that is, funds outside of the regular general operating
funds of the university (e.g., a research grant). In order to
increase competitiveness, some European countries have
strongly amplied this type of research by shifting nancial
resources from general university funds to the granting
agencies; this practice is criticized by Mnch (2011). Hence, the
peer review process ensures that only excellent researchers are
successful in these competitions. As a result, the number of
xed-term postdoctoral positions has escalated.
To what degree such types of employment carry the risk of
precarious positions depends on a variety of factors. The
element of time is crucial. For doctoral students, xed-term
employment in research projects provides welcome opportunities to gain practical experience in research. The same is the
rule for postdoctoral fellows, granted that there is a realistic
opportunity for them to embark on regular that is, tenure
track career trajectories or other forms of permanent
employment. However, in this type of employment arrangement, the later stage researcher is at much greater risk in terms
of job security. Another critical factor is the legal possibility to
continue in renewable xed-term projects over the long term.
In some countries, unions have been successful at legally
banning a succession of xed-term contracts, labeled chain

28

Academic Careers in Comparative Perspective

contracts, that exceed a given number of years. The intention of

the unions was to reduce risk for employees by forcing
employers to convert xed-term positions into permanent
ones. However, contrary to what was intended, in many
European universities systems, rather than strengthening the
job security of researchers, this policy has made these positions
more vulnerable. Universities either cannot afford or are not
willing to give researchers hired to work on specic projects
permanent positions. Nor are they legally allowed to renew
contracts after a specied number of years. The term Prekariat in
German and prcariat in French, dened as a social group that
suffers multiple forms of insecurity, has emerged and has
triggered debate about the increase of such positions and their
associated dangers.

Hierarchies
Academic systems are highly stratied with respect to reputation, salaries, and the working conditions of academics. In the
past, small elite systems that had preceded massication of
higher education were indeed stratied. However, subsequent
expansion has increased the functional differentiation of
academic work signicantly, and as a result has increased the
degree of stratication. During the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, most higher education systems adopted, in
one way or another, the Humboldtian ideal of unity of teaching
and research (although as Kezar (2013) rightly points out,
historically the academic profession has been one of continuous change). Massication of higher education, commencing
in the second half of the twentieth century, has partly reversed
this trend by creating sectors and segments that are devoted
primarily to teaching (e.g., the community college sector in
North America, the former polytechnics in UK, and Fachhochschulen in Germany). The research function is the most
important criterion for the stratication of reputation, income,
and working conditions. Typically, research universities have
higher reputations than teaching institutions. However, some
countries have elite teaching sectors, such as the private liberal
arts colleges in the United States or the grand coles in France.
The former are undergraduate institutions and the latter are
professional specialized schools that constitute the elite
segment of higher education and have a more esteemed reputation than research universities in France.
Mass higher education systems of today embody different
kinds of functional differentiation and reputational stratication. As a rule, national systems that are strongly steered by
governmental intervention are differentiated into different
sectors. In such systems, reputation, salaries, and working
conditions are usually quite different among sectors; however,
within each sector, little stratication exists. In most European
countries, public research universities are treated equally by
governments, irrespective of informal reputational hierarchies
(as expressed in rankings). As such, working conditions for
academics in each of the sectors are fairly equitable. In countries with more market-oriented systems such as the UK or the
United States, the research university sector is highly stratied
in terms of, for example, reputation, wealth, faculty access to
resources, working conditions, and composition of the student
body. Stratication among universities in the United States has

greatly intensied over the last 30 years (Geiger, 2010). This

shift is evident by the emergence of elite clubs such as the
Russell Group in the UK and the Big Five in Canada.
University systems that are divided into sectors have little
institutional differentiation within each sector. However,
within each institution, the hierarchy between the different
academic status groups, between full professors and nonprofessorial staff, between senior and junior academics, is strongly
pronounced. In other words, academia in such countries is
divided in a national guild of senior academics (with little
differentiation among institutions) and various types of
nonprofessorial groups. Status differences appear within every
institution, with working conditions for each status group fairly
equal within each sector. Conversely, status hierarchies in
market-oriented systems within each university are comparatively at; however, status differences between different institutions are strongly pronounced. Depending on the
perspective, these patterns in one system may be regarded as
more egalitarian than another. Some observers regard European higher education systems as less hierarchical than US
higher education because institutional stratication is much
more at. Others claim that the North American pattern is
more egalitarian because the hierarchy between senior and
junior academics is much less vertically stratied. In fact,
hierarchies are strongly pronounced in both academic worlds,
albeit in qualitatively different forms.
International data on academic salaries are rare and problematic in terms of comparability. The United States compiles
extensive databases at the national level; however, the way
that data are aggregated does not reect substantive
wage differentials. The Academic Career Observatory of the
European University Institute in Florence (http://www.eui.
eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/
CareerComparisons/SalaryComparisons.aspx) provides salary
comparisons for selected countries. A study by the European
Commission (2007) has attempted to adjust academic
salaries to the cost of living of the respective countries. Also,
salary progression by experience and gender is provided. An
attempt to broaden comparisons beyond OECD countries
has been conducted by Philip Altbach et al. (2012).

The Case for and against Tenure

The most common perspectives used to frame the discussion in
support of tenure are either that of academic freedom or
economics of tenure.

Academic Freedom Perspective

Historically, the hiring of professors was haphazard with little
specicity in contracts regarding terms of the employment.
Faculty had tenure during pleasure which meant the pleasure
of the university board and faculty members could be red
without cause. As early as 1915, the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP) addressed the issue of tenure
(Metzger, 1987: 167). Following a spate of dismissals and
related legal challenges, in 1940 the AAUP produced a document entitled Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and
Tenure which stated,

Academic Careers in Comparative Perspective

academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both

teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the
advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is
fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in
teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it
duties correlative with rights. Tenure is a means to certain ends;
specically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural
activities, and (2) a sufcient degree of economic security to make
the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and
economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of
an institution in fullling its obligations to its students and to
society.
American Association of University Professors, 1970

Scholars such as Christopher Jencks and David Riesman

(1968) celebrated the rise to power of the academic profession (p. xiii) because tenure harnessed the unfettered power of
administrators. Academic freedom is a central tenet of tenure
(Brown and Kurland, 1990).

Economics of Tenure Perspective

The long-held view is that tenure is appropriate for the type of
work for which academics are trained and in which they
engage. Preparation for such a career is highly specialized and
requires years of training; hence, possibilities for transferring
these skill sets are limited. Without tenure, it would be difcult
to entice highly talented young people to devote extensive time
and nancial resources on careers that are considered as high
risk (McPherson and Winston, 1988). In addition, without
a tenure system, a newly hired faculty member could be
perceived to pose a considerable threat to the positions of
existing faculty members. Since hiring in academia is unlike
other careers because it entails a strong peer review component,
in the absence of tenure, faculty may be more inclined to hire
less dangerous and hence more mediocre junior colleagues
(Carmichael, 1988).
In the 1980s, the concept of tenure was besieged (Chait and
Ford, 1982; Finkin, 1996; Horn, 1999a,b). Arguments fueling
the debate against tenure included the following: Because it was
difcult to terminate nonproductive professors, it promoted the
promulgation of deadwood within academic departments.
Also, because of particular departmental cultures, tenure was
alleged to inhibit, rather than promote, creativity. Also, it was
argued that universities were paralyzed by a rigid rather than
exible academic labor force. The key counterargument supporting tenure systems was that a better substitute did not exist.
Renewable contracts were costly in terms of resources that
would not offset the deadwood problem. Also, because tenure
goes hand in hand with academic freedom, tenure protects
outspoken and intellectually innovative faculty. Over the last
three decades, these debates continue (Acker, 2009; Finn, 2009;
Horn, 2009; Kingwell, 2009; Soto Anthony and Hayden, 2009).
Such attacks have served as ideological support for shrinking of
the stock of tenured professors based on economic grounds.

Current Reforms and Policy Debates

Over the last three decades, signicant changes have taken place
in regard to the structure of academic careers. With tremendous

29

expansion of higher education in Martin Trows (1999)

terminology, from elite (less than 15%) to mass (i.e., up to
40%) to universal participation (greater than 40%)
concurrently the nature of the academic labor force has been
restructured. In most countries, academic posts in higher
education and research systems continue to grow (as
expansion of higher education has reached unprecedented
levels); however, the composition of the academic workforce
is undergoing transformation. The balance between
permanent and xed-term positions is shifting toward the
latter. The academic core of tenured professors is declining in
most OECD countries, not necessarily in absolute numbers,
but as a percentage of the total academic workforce (Kezar,
2013; Schuster and Finkelstein, 2006).
In different countries, this general trend is evolving in
various ways. On one extreme, the American system has the
highest percentage of permanent positions; on the other
extreme, in the German system only 10% of the entire academic
workforce has permanent positions (Kreckel and Zimmermann,
2014). All others have xed-term positions in the form of
professors in waiting or those who work from contract to
contract (soft money) for their entire careers without any
guarantee of renewal. The contraction of a highly developed
system (e.g., the United States) in order to reorient itself to
higher education expansion in the twentieth century is in stark
contrast to an ineffective response of an outdated elite system
(e.g., Germany) characterized by escalation of the risk
character of academic careers and related dead ends. However,
increasing awareness of the challenges facing such systems has
led some universities to introduce bold reforms. For example,
the Technical University of Munich has introduced a tenure
track system (Mnchen, 2012).
Ongoing contraction of tenured positions in both systems
has severe implications for the career prospects of junior
academics and graduate students who are considering academic
careers. Because the prospect of embarking on a secure academic
position is decreasing, the next generation of prospective
academics faces the risk of precarious employment. Two recent
reports address this issue (Boston University, 2010; The Modern
Language Association of America, 2014).
Currently, two phenomena can be observed. On the one
hand, an increasing proportion of teaching duties in higher
education systems is carried out by xed-term and mostly parttime academics, such as adjunct professors in the United States
or Lektoren in the German-speaking countries. On the other
hand, academic research is becoming increasingly project
based and is mostly performed by postdoctoral fellows
(sometimes doctoral students) who are employed on soft
money. Increasingly, these positions are funded by agencies
that fund basic research and/or from private contractors.
Both developments point toward fundamental shifts in the
normative underpinnings of the academic career structure. Since
the Humboldtian reforms in Prussia approximately 200 years
ago, the norm for the academic core position has been the
combination of teaching and research, mostly supplemented by
other duties such as administration or service. This strong
teaching/research nexus was tailored originally for elite higher
education institutions of the nineteenth century; however, it has
been maintained and adapted during the period of transformation from elite to mass higher education. In that course of

30

Academic Careers in Comparative Perspective

massication, such a strong emphasis on both research and

teaching has been questioned regarding its appropriateness for
the changing nature of higher education. However, the
normative power of this model has been forceful enough to
keep the traditional academic job description intact. As higher
education systems surpass massication and move toward
universal participation, the unconditional research/teaching
nexus shows signs of erosion. The high cost of the traditional
academic model that is increasingly at odds with a more and
more diversied system of research and higher learning is the
main driver of change. Academic careers that are dened by
a strong emphasis on both research and teaching will continue
to exist, but most likely the proportion of faculty who hold such
positions will be reduced to minority status in academia. This
raises the question of how the decoupling of this traditional
structure will affect the academic profession in general.
Currently, it goes hand in hand with a decrease in permanent
positions and an intensied risk of precarious positions for
future generations of academics.
Other parallel structures of full-time employment are either
developing or under consideration in various jurisdictions.
Teaching tenure track positions are emerging to meet the
demand for more instructional time which is currently met
increasingly through contingent teaching staff (e.g., see the
University of British Columbia). Renewable full-time contracts
for sessional or adjunct faculty, as specied in university
collective agreements, have the potential to provide a higher
level of job security and benets for those who would
otherwise face precarious labor market conditions. However,
precarious academic appointments, dened by lack of job
security, low pay, few or no benets, poor working
conditions, and limited job security remain common in the
academic institutions of today (Kezar, 2013).
Academia has always been a risk career (Weber, 1947);
however, recent developments are dangerous in that the most
talented graduates are increasingly less attracted to this
profession. High on the agenda are policy solutions that do
justice to the increased diversication of the academic landscape while providing stable career options to future teachers
and researchers.

Bibliography
Acker, S., 2427 October/November 2009. Gender Equity and the Tensions of Tenure.
Academic Affairs.
Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L., Yudkevich, G.A., Pacheco, I.F. (Eds.), 2012. Paying the
Professoriate. A Global Comparison of Compensation and Contracts. Routledge,
New York.
American Association of University Professors, 1970. 1940 Statement of Principles
on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments. Retrieved
from: http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedomand-tenure.
Bazeley, P., 2003. Dening early career in research. Higher Education 45, 257279.
Boston University, 2010. Report of the Task Force for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty. Boston
University.
Brown, R.S.J., Kurland, J.E., 1990. Academic Tenure and Academic Freedom. Faculty
Scholarship Series, Paper 2718.
Busch, A., 1963. The vicissitudes of the privatdozent: breakdown and adaptation in
the recruitment of the German university teacher. Minerva 1, 319341.

Carmichael, L.H., 1988. Incentives in academics: why is there tenure? Journal of

Political Economy 96 (3), 453473.
Chait, R.P., Ford, A.T., 1982. Beyond Traditional Tenure. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Court, S., 1998. Academic tenure and employment in the UK. Sociological Perspectives
41 (4), 767774. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/
1389668.
European Commission, 2007. Remuneration of Researchers in the Public and Private
Sectors. European Commission, Brussels.
European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, May 2005. The European higher
education area: achieving the goals. In: Bergen: Communiqu of the Conference of
European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, pp. 1920.
European University Association, 2007. EUAs Contribution to the Bologna Ministerial
Meeting. European University Association, Brussels.
Finkin, M.W., 1996. The Case for Tenure. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Finn, P., 2223 October/November 2009. The Real Case against Tenure. Academic
Affairs.
Franck, E., Opitz, C., 2007. The singularity of the German doctorate as a signal for
managerial talent: causes, consequences, and future developments. Management
Revue 18 (2), 220224.
Geiger, R., 2010. Postmortem for the Current Era: Change in American Higher
Education, 19802010. Working Paper No. 3. Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania.
Horn, M., 1999a. Academic Freedom in Canada: A History. University of Toronto Press,
Toronto.
Horn, M., 1999b. Tenure and the Canadian professoriate. Journal of Canadian Studies
34 (3), 261281.
Horn, M., 58 October/November 2009. The Case for Tenure. Academic Affairs.
Jencks, C., Riesman, D., 1968. The Academic Revolution. Doubleday, New York.
Kehm, B.M., 2006. Doctoral Education in Europe and North America: A Comparative
Analysis. Wenner Gren International Series. Portland Press Ltd, Portland.
Kezar, A., 2013. Changing Faculty Workforce Models. TIAA-CREF Institute, New York.
Kingwell, M., 1316 October/November 2009. The Tenure Blues. Academic Affairs.
Kreckel, R., Zimmermann, K., 2014. Hasard oder Laufbahn. In: Akademische Karrierestrukturen im internationalen Vergleich. Akademische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig.
McPherson, M.S., Winston, G.C., 1988. The economics of academic tenure: a relational
perspective. In: Breneman, D., Youn, T. (Eds.), Academic Labor Markets and
Careers. Falmer Press, London/New York, pp. 174199.
Metzger, W.P., 1987. Academic profession in United States. In: Clark, B.R. (Ed.), The
Academic Profession. National, Disciplinary, and Institutional Settings. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Mnch, R., 2011. The rhetoric of functionality in reconstructing the academic world. In:
Halvorsen, T., Nyhagen, A. (Eds.), Academic Identities Academic Challenges?
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 3963.
Mnchen, T.U., 2012. TUM Berufungs- und Karrieresystem. Statut zum Qualittsmanagement. Technische Universitt Mnchen. Retrieved from: http://www.
google.at/url?sat&rctj&q&esrcs&sourceweb&cd1&cadrja&uact8&ved
0CCAQFjAA&urlhttp%3A%2F%2Fportal.mytum.de%2Fkompass%2Fpersonalwirts
chaft_public%2FTUM-Berufungs-und-Karrieresystem-deutsch-englisch.pdf%2Fdownload&eig93pU7XEF4LMyAOv4YLQDQ&usgAFQjCNEALqoUpDS7ZOlNYFHgIRsXfx
ArjQ&bvmbv.72676100,d.bGQ.
Nature, 2011. The PhD factory. The world is producing more PhDs than ever before. Is it
time to stop? Nature 472, 276279.
Nerad, M., Heggelund, M. (Eds.), 2008. Toward a Global PhD. Forces and Forms in
Doctoral Education Worldwide. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Schuster, J.H., Finkelstein, M.J., 2006. The American Faculty: The Restructuring of
Academic Work and Careers. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Soto Anthony, J., Hayden, R., 1721 October/November 2009. Are Tenured Faculty
Slackers? Academic Affairs.
The Modern Language Association of America, 2014. Report of the MLA Task Force
on Doctoral Study in Modern Language and Literature. The Modern Language
Association of America, New York. Retrieved from: http://www.mla.org/pdf/
taskforcedocstudy2014.pdf.
Trow, M., 1999. From mass higher education to universal access: the American
advantage. Minerva 37, 303328.
Usher, R., 2002. A diversity of doctorates: tness for the knowledge economy? Higher
Education Research and Development 21 (2), 143153.
Weber, M., 1947. Science as a profession. In: Gerth, H.H., Mills, C.W. (Eds.), From Max
Weber: Essays in Sociology. Kegan, London, pp. 129156.
Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, 1979. Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.