Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 31, No. 3, October 2006
The Bologna Process: The Impact of Higher Education Reform on the Structure and Organisation of Doctoral Programmes in Germany JESSICA GUTH This paper aims to outline the main higher education reforms in Germany, including the implementation of the Bologna Process. It takes as its focus the doctoral phase, conceptualised by ‘‘Bologna’’ as the third cycle of study but held by many to be the first phase of independent scientific research. In the context of increasing internationalisation of higher education and the European Commission’s forecast that 700,000 more researchers will be needed (European Commission, 2003), it is vital to get the reform of the system right. The paper considers the effects of the German Higher Education Framework Act and regional laws as well as those of the Bologna Process on Germany’s ability to recruit and train national and international doctoral candidates in the natural sciences.
Introduction ‘‘Much of what is on the move today in university studies and teaching, in management and marketing is connected with the Bologna Process or with the impulses which this process, if not triggered, then at least have pushed forward’’ (Wolff, 2003). There has been talk of higher education reform in Germany for some time but the Bologna Process has provided the framework and the momentum to carry reform forward. Until recently the focus of the Process has been on the first two cycles of study, i.e. Bachelor and Master degrees. However, following the 2003 ministerial meeting in Berlin and the resulting Communique´, the doctoral phase can no longer be ignored. Recognising the need for closer links between the European Area of Higher Education (EAHE) and the European Research Area (ERA) as well as the vital contribution made by doctoral candidates to research, the ministers responsible for education in the signatory states recommended the inclusion of the doctoral phase as the third cycle of higher education in the Bologna Process (Berlin Communique´, 2003). This paper examines the effect that this process has had or will have on the structure and organisation of doctoral research in the context of scientific mobility. Following an introduction to the German legal framework and context, the paper offers an overview of the structure and organisation of doctoral research in the light of the Bologna reforms and in the context of scientific mobility
The Legal Framework Responsibility for higher education in Germany lies with the sixteen federal states, which operate within the framework legislation passed by the Federal Government (Federal Ministry for Education and Research, 2004). This stipulates in general terms that the universities must encourage international and in particular European ISSN 0379-7724 print/ISSN 1469-8358 online/06/030327-12 DOI: 10.1080/03797720601058930
#
2006 UNESCO
328
J. GUTH
co-operation and exchange and take into account the specific needs of foreign students (Section 2: 5). It also stipulates that study periods and qualifications gained abroad must be accepted if equivalence can be established (Section 20). Doctoral research is not specifically dealt with in the current version of the legislation other than to say that doctoral candidates employed by the university should be allowed enough time during their employment to complete their thesis. Further detail can be found in the laws of the federal states, and the probability is that they are likely to gain in importance especially in the light of the current debate about giving sole jurisdiction in matters of education to the federal states (Antachopoulos, 2006; Fu¨ller, 2005; Kretschmann, 2004). An analysis of the federal states’ laws in relation to the doctoral phase (Moes, 2003) reveals that the federal states take a varied approach towards the status of doctoral researchers and their position within the university. All agree that a doctorate is to be awarded for independent in-depth scientific research and is to be assessed by a thesis and oral examination. Some federal states stipulate that universities should offer doctoral candidates opportunities to gain key competencies and soft skills (Koepernik and Warner, 2006) and encourage the organisation of doctoral studies in graduate colleges or schools; others remain silent on the issue. Exact entrance requirements are generally left to the individual universities or even faculties but a number of states indicate that completion of a degree course lasting a minimum of 4 years (Fischer, 2006) or a Masters degree will be required. However, the Berlin HE law clearly states that admittance to a doctoral programme cannot be made dependent on completion of an advanced degree programme [Berliner Hochschulgesetz (Berlin Higher Education Law) Section 35: 2]. The structure and content of study for the doctorate is regulated by the universities themselves through the higher degree and examination ordinances which are drawn up by the faculties or schools These ordinances can vary significantly between different disciplines as well as between universities (Fischer, 2006). They will for example indicate entrance requirements, admissions language requirements and whether or not other examinations or study periods have to be completed in order to achieve the doctorate. The codes will often also stipulate if the thesis can be written and defended in a language other than German.
The German Context The European Commission (2003) has highlighted the need to encourage mobility in the research and development (R&D) sector and also the need to train a significant number of new researchers in order to meet future demand. The OECD (2004) notes that the availability of highly skilled labour is imperative for innovation and that …this includes the fact that the international location decision of enterprises is influenced by the availability of highly qualified employees and research personnel. Hence, securing a high performance of all segments of the education system is called for’’ (p. 128). It goes on to say that ‘‘policies should foster the attractiveness of Germany for highly qualified labour from abroad’’ (p. 128). Although Germany has an unemployment rate of 12.6 percent (BBC, 2005) with some East-German regions reporting unemployment
THE BOLOGNA PROCESS
329
of nearly 20 percent, it also has significant skills shortages in industry and academia’’ (BMBF, 2005; Voit, 2001), especially in IT (Fuchs, 2006; Straubhaar, 2000). Currently, however, ‘‘migration to Germany appears significantly biased toward low qualifications’’ (OECD, 2004: 133) which is more likely to increase general unemployment even further than to reduce skills shortages. In addition, Germany is experiencing an outflow of highly qualified labour, especially to the USA (Steffen, 2004; Straubhaar, 2000). German universities awarded 23,138 doctorates in 2004, but of these, only a relatively low proportion (12 percent) were awarded to foreign nationals (Federal Statistical Office Germany, 2005). One of the major disadvantages Germany has to overcome is the inefficiency of the HE system (OECD, 2004, 2005). The Bologna Process is providing a framework for achieving this but so far the new and the traditional models will be running concurrently leading to a complex and confusing higher education landscape. Traditional German higher education is based on a onecycle system usually leading to a diploma and is characterised by relatively low efficiency with long study duration and high dropout rates (OECD, 2004, 2005). Doctoral research follows the completion of a diploma or similar qualification which will usually have taken between eight and twelve semesters of regular study time to complete. The traditional model of doctoral research involves the researcher working on a thesis under the supervision of an established professor. The research is often conducted as part of, or alongside paid work at the university and the supervisor is often also the employer. This has led some commentators to suggest that doctoral candidates are too dependent on their supervisors being willing to give them sufficient time and resources to carry out work towards their thesis (Von Aichenberger, 2001; Wu¨rmann, 2006a). Increasing the efficiency and attractiveness of German higher education as a whole could therefore make a significant difference to the skills shortages currently experienced by reducing the time to degree and attracting foreign researchers to Germany and keeping German nationals at home. In order to raise Germany’s competitiveness and ability to recruit both national and international doctoral researchers and to respond to the increased labour market demand for researchers with doctorates, the German Research Foundation (DFG) introduced Research Training Groups (RTGs) in 1990. The RTGs offer doctoral candidates the opportunity to carry out their research and prepare their thesis in a more structured manner in organised programmes. More recently, similar graduate and research schools have sprung up across Germany. The Max Planck Research Schools are perhaps the best known example. Others include Lower Saxony’s Graduate Schools and the German Academic Exchange Service’s (DAAD) International Postgraduate Programme (IPP) which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and includes fifty programmes at thirty-seven universities. While the number of doctoral candidates in structured programmes is increasing (Tiefel, 2006), as the chart below indicates, the majority of doctoral researchers hold staff positions in teaching and research within universities or research institutes. What is clear from the discussion above is that the higher education landscape in Germany in particular with reference to doctorates is complex at best and there are many different models of organisation structure and funding. In the context of mobility and attracting foreign doctoral candidates to Germany, a clearly defined higher education landscape which is nevertheless flexible enough to accommodate the needs of
330
J. GUTH
FIGURE 1. MODELS OF DOCTORAL RESEARCH IN GERMANY BY GENDER
mobile researchers and individual circumstances is vital. It therefore seems that the increased focus on the doctorate in both academic and policy circles should be welcomed. So far an overview of the German legal framework and an introduction to the German doctoral research landscape has been offered. What should be remembered is that there are almost as many models of doctoral research as there are doctoral researchers in Germany. Nonetheless the remainder of this paper aims to offer an insight into the structure and organisation of doctorates in Germany by examining key considerations for national and in particular international doctoral candidates. In doing so, the focus is on the Bologna Process reforms and the extent to which the current German system fits into the Bologna framework or is changing in order to comply with the Bologna aims.
Bologna and Entry Requirements in Germany In Germany all federal states leave admissions policy to the individual institutions and therefore it varies from discipline to discipline and from university to university. The traditional model admissions requirements are governed by the individual higher education institutions’ doctoral ordinance (Fischer, 2006) and will normally include a completed German diploma or equivalent degree and a German-language requirement, although this may be waived, with the supervisor’s permission, for candidates who want to write their thesis in English. As mentioned above, a number of structured doctoral programmes have emerged over the last decade or so. The entry requirements vary with each programme. The structured programmes tend to require a Diploma or Masters degree and a good command of the English language. German is generally not required, but it is welcomed. In addition some programmes have admissions tests and interviews.
THE BOLOGNA PROCESS
331
Entrance Qualifications In discussing doctorates, the Bologna Process documents are silent on the entry requirements. It is however useful to re-examine the declaration itself and the subsequent communique´s for an indication of what will be expected. The Bologna declaration stipulates ‘‘The second cycle should lead to the Masters and/or doctorate degree as in many European countries’’ (Bologna Declaration, 1999: 3). In 2003, however, Ministers announced that ‘‘second cycle degrees should give access to doctoral studies’’ (Berlin Communique´, 2003: 4). This seems to imply that Bachelor degrees will not be sufficient for admission to a doctoral programme. This is echoed by Per Nyborg (2004), who sees the three Bologna cycles as consecutive with the completion of one as a prerequisite for beginning the next: ‘‘Internationally, recognising different Bachelor’s degrees as a basis for a Master’s programme and recognising even more different Master’s degrees as a basis for PhD studies, will be a great challenge for institutions’’ (p. 3). The regulations for entry requirements mentioned above suggest that Germany is adopting this consecutive system. The move towards requiring a Masters degree as a prerequisite for doctoral research might create a more transparent system and increase the compatibility of qualifications across the EAHE. However, if rigidly applied, it is likely to disadvantage applicants who hold traditional five-year diplomas (such as German, Polish or Bulgarian degrees for example) and who will find it increasingly difficult to locate their qualifications within the newly emerging three-cycle system. The requirement to complete a Masters degree before embarking on doctoral studies might also disadvantage those who choose not to undertake doctoral research immediately after their degree course but instead pursue an alternative career, before returning to higher education later (Ackers, 2005). Flexible but transparent rules on entry which take account of the diverse contexts in which researchers come to their doctoral studies and of the skills and experience that can be gained from pursuing alternative careers would benefit mobile scientists, particularly those following a non-linear career path (Oliver and Ackers, 2005).
Equivalence of Qualifications Regardless of the level of degree, most institutions require either a qualification from a German university or an equivalent one, but little guidance is given as to what equivalence might mean here. Per Nyborg is afraid that ‘‘it is still a relatively widespread practice within institutions not only to look for similar qualifications, but to look for identical qualifications. More open-mindedness will be necessary for mobility between the different national systems in the Bologna countries’’ (2004: 3). The number of applications for assessment of equivalence is not recorded and there is no way of calculating the percentage of successful applications or determining the reasons for acceptance or refusal. The Bologna Process will help to clarify matters for potential applicants from the EAHE and might also encourage an open-minded approach. With the streamlining throughout Europe of the undergraduate and postgraduate cycles into Bachelor and Masters schemes there are fewer models to reconcile and decisions will be made within a framework common to all Bologna signatories. Increasing co-operation in quality assurance across the cycles should also go some way to build up trust (Corbett, 2005) and reduce concerns over the level and equivalence of different degrees and study programmes.
332
J. GUTH
Germany and Language Requirements In order to undertake doctoral research at a German university non-native speakers must pass the Deutsche Sprachpru¨fung fu¨r den Hochschulzugang ausla¨ndischer Studienbewerber (DSH) [German Language Test for Admission of Foreign Applicants to Higher Education Institutions] or the Test Deutsch als Fremdsprache (TestDaF) [Test German as a Foreign Language], both of which test the ability to understand scientific and academic texts and to communicate in writing and orally in the chosen research topic. It is possible that insisting on a high level of German discourages some potential doctoral researchers. This could especially be the case in the natural sciences, where the working language in the laboratories is often English (Moes, 2006a; Voit, 2001). Applicants must therefore be able to satisfy the German language proficiency requirement as well as be able to work effectively in English in order to integrate into the research team. It is likely that lowering the expected level of German language proficiency at entry and instead offering opportunities to learn it concurrently would encourage more scientists to undertake doctoral research in Germany. The case for requiring a high level of German is weakened by the fact that a number of universities now allow doctoral theses to be submitted and defended in English and that many structured doctoral programmes are specifically tailoring their programmes towards international co-operation and thus require a high level of English proficiency rather than German language qualifications.
The Content of Doctoral Studies The German HRG emphasises the centrality of original research in the chosen discipline, as does the Bergen Communique´ (2005), which makes clear that ‘‘the core component of doctoral training is the advancement of knowledge through original research’’ (p. 4). However, there is also now an increasing demand for more generic skills (Kopernik and Warner 2006) such as management skills, team working skills and the ability to write for different audiences. The extent to which any training is offered in these areas throughout the course of doctoral research depends to a large extent on the context within which it is carried out. In spite of Ministers urging ‘‘universities to ensure that their doctoral programmes promote interdisciplinary training and the development of transferable skills’’ (Bergen Communique´, 2005: 4), most do not organise doctoral research sufficiently to offer any seminars, workshops or courses (Kopernik and Warner, 2006) so the amount of guidance received will depend on the individual supervisor. Advice might be given on writing, publishing, public speaking and other areas and some experience of time management and so-called ‘‘people skills’’ might be gained informally through the process of undertaking doctoral research by working in a laboratory for example. However, often there is no systematic provision of training in these skills, the availability of guidance and advice is in no way guaranteed and some doctoral candidates will have little or no support (DUZ Special, 2005; Wu¨rmann, 2006a). At the other end of the spectrum the structured doctoral programmes offer skills training very strategically to accompany the researchers’ doctorates. According to the German Research Foundation (DFG), they offer a tailor-made study programme which is developed specifically for the doctoral candidates within the particular group. ‘‘The goal is to complement and expand on the specialisation of each individual student by involving the student in the development of this programme’’ (DFG, 2003). By including the doctoral researchers in the development, it is possible to offer a
THE BOLOGNA PROCESS
333
programme which is useful and relevant to their research and career progression. If universities take some responsibility for the organisation of doctoral research the way can more easily be paved for seminars, workshops and courses for early career researchers including doctoral candidates. In order to encourage mobility, it is important that potential applicants know what is available for them and what is expected of them and this is an area where further debate and clarification as part of the Bologna Follow-Up Process would indeed be useful. Further guidance on the doctoral phase within the Bologna Process is expected in time for the London ministerial meeting in 2007 and it is to be hoped that the issues surrounding skills training will continue to be on the agenda and play a significant part in the discussion that will no doubt be taking place until then.
Duration of Doctoral Studies in Germany The Bologna Process envisages a doctoral phase of three to four years full time study or equivalent: ‘‘Considering the need for structured doctoral programmes and the need for transparent supervision and assessment, we note that the normal workload of the third cycle in most countries would correspond to 3–4 years full time’’ (Bergen Communique´, 2005: 4). The question of duration is a particularly relevant one in Germany, where firstdegree courses have traditionally been comparatively long. The high average age of thirtythree at completion of the doctorate (Federal Statistics Office Germany, 2005) is explained partly by the long time it takes to complete the first degree and the long duration of doctoral research, but may also hide factors such as ‘‘career breaks’’ or periods of work in other sectors (Moes and Tiefel, 2006). Although most university regulations stipulate that the doctoral research project should be achievable in three or four years the reality looks rather different and many take significantly longer (Enders and Bohrmann, 2002; Moes, 2006b; Moes and Tiefel, 2006). The chart below shows that the majority of doctorates take four years or more and that roughly 20 percent take seven years or more. However, the figures on the chart are based on a study carried out in 1999 at one single university with the total number of respondents being 699, some of whom may have completed their doctorates a considerable time ago. More up-to-date figures are not currently available; nor are nation-wide statistics (Moes and Tiefel, 2006). It is impossible to tell from the statistics available in Germany whether doctoral research is undertaken full time or not, since no distinction is made between full time and part time candidates, which makes it difficult to establish reliably how long a doctorate really takes in Germany. Prospective doctoral candidates (in the sciences) are likely to consider the time factor when deciding where to apply and Germany’s reputation for lengthy degree courses, as well as the lack of reliable data on which to base a decision, may leave Germany at a disadvantage when compared with other European countries. It is clear then that the collection of reliable data and further research is needed in this area in order to draw conclusions and make meaningful recommendations as well as to reassure scientists that by opting for Germany they are not necessarily increasing their time to degree.
Funding and Status The Bologna Process has stayed largely silent on funding issues. In a Bologna Seminar in Salzburg, in 2005, it was acknowledged that implementing the suggested reforms will
334
J. GUTH
FIGURE 2. THE DURATION OF DOCTORATES IN GERMANY
require financial investment but no recommendations as to how doctoral researchers should be funded were given. The Bergen Communique´ does not mention financial issues at all. Clearly, in order to encourage mobility, information on funding sources has to be easily available and transparent and in an attempt to achieve this the DAAD has created a scholarship database which allows scientists to search for scholarship and funding opportunities by subject area, country of origin and level. In addition to information being easily available and accessible, the funding itself has of course to be adequate. Currently it seems that Germany has an advantage over the UK for example. Even in those federal states where tuition fees for university courses have now been introduced, they do not apply to doctoral candidates, who therefore incur considerably less expenses than in some other European universities. However, while it seems obvious that someone who works as a highly qualified researcher for a number of years should be paid accordingly, the reality in Germany is rather different (Wu¨rmann, 2006a, 2006b). The demand for paid positions or scholarships is far greater than the supply. However, if Germany’s aim is to recruit the best researchers internationally and nationally they still fall far short of the ideal that ‘‘the financial conditions have to be attractive to the best’’ (Dose, 2004). There are a number of ways doctorates are funded in Germany including through staff positions, as contract researchers on funded projects, through scholarships and through earnings from other employment. In Mathematics and the Natural Sciences close to 80 percent of doctoral researchers work in a scientific context in universities and research institutions as academic staff or as contract researchers on funded projects. The graph below, which is based on a survey of nearly 10,000 doctoral researchers in Germany, shows the three most important sources of funding in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences.
THE BOLOGNA PROCESS
335
FIGURE 3. FUNDING FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE DOCTORATES IN GERMANY
Funding from staff positions offers a degree of employment security and the advantages associated with employment such as health insurance, pension rights and social security (Wu¨rmann, 2006b, 2006c). However, such employees have other teaching and research duties which reduces the amount of time they can spend on their doctorates. Even though some doctoral candidates have half-time positions especially advertised for the purpose of doctoral research or even have a time allowance for their doctoral research in their employment contract, many work more hours than they are contracted to work (Wu¨rmann, 2006a). The situation can be even more tense for researchers working on third-party funded projects as it is more difficult to draw a clear line between thesis preparation and other work and time allowed for doctoral work is not specified so that there is no guarantee that time is actually available (Wu¨rmann, 2006a, 2006b). Scholarships on the other hand give the opportunity to concentrate on the doctoral research fully but they offer less security. The stipend received is tax free but health insurance and social security not to mention pension contributions and other social insurance which would be taken out of a employees salary directly, have to be paid in addition to normal living costs. Tax advantages that employed colleagues can take advantage of, such as child benefit and tax-refund claims which include the expenses associated with doctoral research, are not available to scholarship holders (Wu¨rmann, 2006b). There are no statistics available which show how foreign nationals fund their doctoral research in Germany and it would be useful to see the proportion of foreign nationals in each funding type in order to evaluate to what extent funding systems pose an obstacle to mobility in this context.
Concluding Remarks Even though the Bologna Process has been silent on the doctoral phase until very recently; it is already impacting on the structure and organisation of doctorates in
336
J. GUTH
Germany. The law, whether national or federal, has so far left the structuring of doctoral research to the individual institutions and will probably continue to do so. Universities are therefore left to respond to labour market demands for generic skills teaching and for significant numbers of highly skilled personnel to fill skills shortages. In order to do so, further structuring and organisation of the doctoral phase is necessary in Germany, and many aspects of the system need to be made more transparent than they currently are. Easily available information on entry requirements, funding opportunities and expectations would go some way towards enhancing Germany’s competitiveness. In addition the shorter duration of degree courses encouraged by Bologna and the streamlining of the first two cycles should further encourage foreign doctoral researchers to come to Germany and German nationals to stay at home. While some of the initiatives discussed in this paper started before Bologna, the Process has provided the momentum to carry the reform forward. What is important now is that the existing initiatives are evaluated and that future reform decisions are made on the basis of comprehensive and reliable information about the doctoral phase and the situation of doctoral researchers in Germany. At this stage such information is not available and further work is needed in order to establish what Bologna should mean and what Bologna does mean for doctoral researchers from the EAHE in Germany and how the reform of higher education in general can be carried forward.
References ACKERS, H.L. ‘‘Academic Career Trajectories’’: Identifying the ‘‘Early Stage in Research Careers’’. CSLPE Working Paper 2005-1. Leeds: University of Leeds, 2005. ANTACHOPOULOS, D. (2006). ‘‘Fo¨deralismus: Vielfalt und verflochtene Kompetenzen’’ [Federalism: Variety and Interlinked Competences] Deutsche Welle, 2006. Available at: <http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1928986,00.html> Retrieved March 10 2006. BBC News ‘‘German Jobless Rate at New Record’’, 2005. Available at: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/ go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/4307303.stm> Retrieved March 1 2005. Bergen Communique´: The European Higher Education Area – Achieving the Goals. Communique´ of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, May 19–20 2005. Available at:<http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/050520_ Bergen_Communique.pdf> Retrieved November 14 2006. Berlin Communique´: Realising the European Higher education Area. Communique´ of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Berlin, 19 September 2003. Available at: <http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/030919Berlin_ Communique.pdf> Retrieved November 14 2006. BERLIN SENATSVERWALTUNG WISSENSCHAFT, FORSCHUNG UND KULTUR. Gesetz u¨ber die Hochschulen im Land Berlin (Berliner Hochschulgesetz – BerlHG) in der Fassung des A¨nderungsgesetzes vom 21 April 2005 [Berlin Higher Education Act in the amended version of the 21 April 2005]. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur, 2005. Bologna Declaration Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education (19 June 1999). Available at: <www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/990719BOLOGNA_ DECLARATION.pdf> Retrieved November 14 2006. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FU¨R BILDUNG UND FORSCHUNG (BMBF). 2005 Report on Germany’s Technological Performance. Bonn/Berlin: BMBF, 2005. CORBETT, A. Universities and the Europe of Knowledge. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. GERMAN RESEARCH FOUNDATION (DFG). Quality of the Supervision and Research Environment in the DFG’s Research Training Groups Report on a Survey of Doctoral Students. Bonn: DFG, 2003.
THE BOLOGNA PROCESS
337
DOSE, C. ‘‘Kommentar, Zur Situation Promovierender in Deutschland’’ [Comment: the Situation of Doctoral Researchers in Germany], in, Duz Special. Berlin: Raabe, 2004. Available at: <www.duz.de/docs/duz_special.html> Retrieved August 31 2006. Duz Special ‘‘Zur Situation Promovierender in Deutschland’’ [The Situation of Doctoral Researchers in Germany]. Berlin: Raabe, 2004. Available at: <http://www.duz.de/docs/ duz_special.html> Retrieved August 31 2006. ENDERS, J. and BORNMANN, L. ‘‘Was Lange Wa¨hrt, Wird Endlich Gut: Promotionsdauer an Bundesdeutschen Universita¨ten’’ [That Which Takes a Long Time Comes Good in the End: Duration of Doctoral Research at German Universities] Beitra¨ge zur Hochschulforschung (24) 1 (2002): 52–73. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. ‘‘Researchers in the European Research Area: One Profession, Multiple Careers’’ COM(2003) 436 final of the 18.07.2003, 2003. FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH OF GERMANY. Hochschulrahmengesetz (HRG) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 19 Januar 1999 (BGB1. I S. 18), zuletzt gea¨ndert durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 27 Dezember 2004 (BGB1. I S. 3835) [Higher Education Framework Act in the version announced on 19 January 1999, amended by article 1 of the law of the 27 December 2004]. Berlin: Federal Ministry for Education and Research, 2004. FEDERAL STATISTICAL OFFICE GERMANY. ‘‘Education Science and Culture Results and Information’’. Wiesbaden, 2005. Available at: <www.destatis.de> Retrieved November 14 2006. FISCHER, P. ‘‘Promotionsordnungen’’ [Higher Degrees Ordinances], in, KOEPERNIK, C., MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. (Eds.). GEW Handbuch Promovieren mit Perspektive [Handbook Doctoral Research with Perspective]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2006. FUCHS, W. ‘‘Deutschland im Vergleich – wer pra¨gt den IT-Markt von morgen?’’ [Germany in Comparison – Who will Shape the IT Market of Tomorrow?] VDI Press release 8.03.2006. FU¨LLER, C. ‘‘Fo¨deralismus: Bildung bleibt Knackpunkt’’ [Federalism: Education remains Sticking Point] Die Tageszeitung, taz Nr. 7563 13.1.2005, Seite 7, 2005. Available at: <www.taz.de/pt/2005/01/13/a0093.1/text> Retrieved November 14 2006. KERSTING, N. ‘‘Promotionsstudium im Vergleich’’ [Doctoral Programmes Compared]., Marburger Meinungsbilder [Marburger Opinions]. Marburg: Institut fu¨r Politikwissenschaft, Philipps Universita¨t Marburg, 2000. KOEPERNIK, C. and WARNER, A. ‘‘Akademische Schlu¨sselqualifikationen’’, in, KOEPERNIK, C., MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. (Eds.). GEW Handbuch Promovieren mit Perspektive [Handbook Doctoral Research with Perspective]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2006. KRETSCHMANN, W. ‘‘Fu¨r eine Reform des Bildungsfo¨deralismum’’ [For A Reform of Federalism in Education]. Bu¨ndnis 90/Die Gru¨nen im Landtag von Baden-Wu¨rttemberg [Green Party in State Parliament of Baden- Wu¨rttemberg], 2004. Available at: <http://www.gruenefraktionbayern.de/cms/bildung_und_schule/dok/46/46413.reform_des_bildungsfoederalismus.htm> Retrieved August 31 2006. MOES, J. Promotionsreform in der Landesgesetzgebung: Synopse der Hochschulgesetze der La¨nder und ihrer Anpassung an die Novellen des Hochschulrahmengesetzes im Bereich Promotion [Reform of Doctoral Research in the Federal State Laws: Summary of the Federal State Laws and their Adaptation of the Amendments to the Higher Education Framework Act in Relation to Doctoral Research]. Frankfurt: GEW, 2003. Available at: <http://www.gew.de/ Rechtliche_Rahmenbedingungen.html> Retrieved August 31 2006. MOES, J. ‘‘Internationalisierung fu¨r Promovierende’’ [Internationalisation for Doctoral Candidates], in, KOEPERNIK, C., MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. (Eds.). GEW Handbuch Promovieren mit Perspektive [Handbook Doctoral Research with Perspective]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2006a. MOES, J. ‘‘Der Promotions Prozess als Arbeit’’ [Doctoral Research as Work], in, KOEPERNIK, C., MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. (Eds.). GEW Handbuch Promovieren mit Perspektive [Handbook Doctoral Research with Perspective]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2006b.
338
J. GUTH
MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. ‘‘Promovieren mit Perspektive. Ein Handbuch von DoktorandInnen fu¨r DoktorandInnen – zum Anliegen des Handbuches’’ [Doctoral Research with Perspective. A Handbook by Doctoral Researchers for Doctoral Researchers – Purpose of the Book], in, KOEPERNIK, C., MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. (Eds.). GEW Handbuch Promovieren mit Perspektive [Handbook Doctoral Research with Perspective]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2006. NYBORG, P. ‘‘The Bologna Process from Berlinto Bergen’’. Berlin Seminar, 20th September 2004. Available at<www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/03-PNY/040920_pny.pdf> Retrieved November 14 2006. OECD. Economic Survey – Germany 2004: Improving the Capacity to Innovate 12. Paris: OECD, 2004, pp. 143–195. OECD. Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators 2005. Paris: OECD, 2005. OLIVER, L. and ACKERS, H.L. ‘‘Fixed Term Positions in the Academic Career Trajectory’’. CSLPE Working Paper 2005-3. Leeds: University of Leeds, 2005. STEFFEN, M. ‘‘Brain Drain Hurting Germany’’. Deutsche Welle, 2004. Available at: <www. dw-world.de> Retrieved August 31 2006. STRAUBHAAR, T. ‘‘International Mobility of the Highly Skilled: Brain Gain, Brain Drain or Brain Exchange’’, HWWA Discussion Paper 88. Hamburg: Institute of International Economics, 2000. TIEFEL, S. ‘‘Promovieren in Kollegs und Zentren: Entwicklung, Zielsetzung und Angebote Verschiedener Modelle Strukturierter Promotion’’ [Doctoral Research in Colleges and Centres: Developments, Aims and Offers of Different Models of Structured Doctoral Research]. in, KOEPERNIK, C., MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. (Eds.). GEW Handbuch Promovieren mit Perspektive [Handbook Doctoral Research with Perspective]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2006. VOIT, B. ‘‘Multinational LabsMeet Germany’s Need New Voices in Chemistry’’’, Chemistry and Engineering News (79) 13 (2001). VON AICHENBERGER, S. ‘‘German PhD Students: Free but Lonely’’. Nextwave sciencemag, 2001. Available at: <http://nextwave.sciencemag.org> Retrieved August 31 2006. WOLFF, K. ‘‘From Bologna to Berlin. A Vision Taking Shape’’, in, DUZ Spezial. Berlin: Raabe Verlag, 2003. Available at: <http://www.raabe.de/duzspec_bologna.pdft> Retrieved August 31 2006. WU¨RMANN, C. ‘‘Finanzierung der Promotion’’ [Funding Doctoral Research], in, KOEPERNIK, C., MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. (Eds.). GEW Handbuch Promovieren mit Perspektive [Handbook Doctoral Research with Perspective]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2006a. WU¨RMANN, C. ‘‘Arbeitsrechtlicher Rahmen und Steuerrecht’’ [Employment Law Framework and Tax Law], in, KOEPERNIK, C., MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. (Eds.). GEW Handbuch Promovieren mit Perspektive [Handbook Doctoral Research with Perspective]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2006b. WU¨RMANN, C. ‘‘Promovieren und Soziale Absicherung’’ [Doctoral Research and Social Security], in, KOEPERNIK, C., MOES, J. and TIEFEL, S. (Eds.). GEW Handbuch Promovieren mit Perspektive [Handbook Doctoral Research with Perspective]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2006c.