名古屋高等教育研究

第 8 号 （2008）

The Situation of Post-Graduate Formationin Germany and New Tasks for Higher
Education Centers in it
Marianne Merkt＜Abstract＞
The German university system experiences a high impact forchange. The Bologna-Process fostering a European knowledge andeconomic area by setting up a standardization process for a European
wide academic system meets a German University system in whichreform processes are overdue since the introduction of German Mass
Universities in the 1970ies. Humboldt’s paradigm of “freedom andunity of research and teaching” is still very high regarded amongst
German academic members. But increasing numbers of students withconstant teaching capacities alongside lack basic conditions for
careful monitoring of student’s academic development. Universities
missions for an academic formation have shifted from a research
career oriented goal to a scientific formation for a futurenon-academic employment goal. Both processes influence discourses
regarding the reform of Post-Graduate formation. Two models can be
distinguished, the research apprenticeship model based on an individual student-professors relationship and the network model supporting the idea of interdisciplinary research work within teams.
Referring to the results of two German surveys on doctoral formation
both models will be discussed in order to distinguish new tasks forHigher Education Centers in Post-Graduate formation. The
Post-Graduate network project of the Center for Higher Education of
Dortmund University will be presented as “best practice” example.

Dean of the Study Program “Master of Higher Education”, the Universityof Hamburg, Germany
Visiting Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher Education,
Nagoya University

243

1.

Introduction
The topic of promoting Early Stage Researchers has gained attention

from Higher Education Politics in Europe and in Germany in the last years.
Trends towards globalization have changed the type of research organisation mainly in research fields that are closely linked to international
markets like natural sciences and engineering. Research is organizedwithin complex international and interdisciplinary clusters or project
teams with third-party funding. The new structures demand a high gradeof management and training for staff development besides the supervisionof and formation for research work (Berning & Falk, 2005: 48). The numberof doctoral graduations has increased constantly in Germany since the1980ies leading to a higher demand for non-academic careers. More andmore doctor graduates hold high qualification positions in non-academic
institutions and enterprises. As a back-loop this shift has led to an impact
on research orientation away from a mere intra-discipline theoretical-oriented focus towards more inter-disciplinary foci that combine
theoretical-oriented and applied sciences-oriented perspectives. The
quality of a German doctoral formation still seems to be appreciatedabroad but the mentioned trends reveal weak points within this traditionalmodel.
The European Ministers have addressed these tendencies by promoting
doctoral programmes as part of the Bologna process. Early Stage Researchers formation is regarded to be crucial for the establishment of aEuropean knowledge area. In Germany the confrontation of the traditional
research apprenticeship model deriving from the University concept ofWilhelm von Humboldt with the modern more anglo-american network-like model of doctoral formation in Graduate Schools resulting fromthe actual influence of the Bologna process has led to an intensive discussion (e.g. Enders, 2005; Berning & Falk, 2005). Based on the results of
two surveys on doctoral formation in Germany this article aims on analysing the advantages and disadvantages of both models in order to
identify gaps and draw consequences for new tasks for Higher Education
Centers in future doctoral formation as part of the Bologna study structure.

244

The situation of Post-Graduate formation in Germany and new tasks for Higher Education Centers in it

1.1

Post-Graduate study programs - the 3rd cycle within the Bologna
study structure

On their conference held at Bologna, Italy in 1999 the European Ministers of Higher Education and Research committed to establishing a
European Research and Higher Education Area (European Ministers of
Education, 1999). The Bologna Process initiated in Italy is an ongoingstandardization and quality survey process of the European University
Systems. Mobility, employability, competitiveness and lifelong learning areimportant aspects in actual Bologna Commitments. By establishingcomparable academic study programs and Degrees students are supposed
to be able to study in all European countries and of course to be employed
in enterprises acting within the European Market after Graduation. Actually all European countries deal with implementing the two-cycled
Bachelor- and Master study structures. Meanwhile the European Bologna
Workgroups are preparing the third Bologna Study Cycle being thedoctoral formation (EUA, 2007).
Having obtained a mandate from the Bologna Ministers Conference inBergen in 2005 the European University Association has published a report outlining a framework for doctoral programmes within the Bologna
Process (EUA, 2007). The report distinguishes three clusters of issues thatrefer to different institutional levels. The basic level refers to the quality ofthe doctoral programmes themselves. Stressing the role of doctoral work
as original research work the report outlines quality criteria for supervision, monitoring and assessment procedures as basic conditions for good
research work progress. A need for additional training is stated in order todevelop transferable skills that relate to future employability. The nextlevel defines the role of higher education institutions to provide organisational structures. New embedded structures for doctoral programmes
are to be developed providing links to Bachelor- and Master Programmes.
They should take in consideration the special needs of different discipline
cultures and they should provide a variety of access and admission possibilities and funding models. Options for internationalization and mobility
should be sustained through adequate structures. The third level addresses the role of the state in means of public responsibility to assure245

legal and regulatory frameworks and funding models for doctoral formation. The provision of frameworks to foster attractive research careers isa further issue on the third level.
1.2

Humboldt and Mass Universities - specific aspects of the German
university system

The impact for change arising from the European Bologna Process
meets a German University System that can be characterized by overdue
reform processes. Since the introduction of Mass Universities in the
1970ies and the effects of the economic crisis in the following decades
Wilhelm von Humboldt’s University concept deriving from the Age of
Enlightenment have been challenged (Bollenbeck & Wende, 2007).
Besides the impact of the actual reform processes coming from the
Bologna process paradigms arising from the German University history
still experience a high value amongst academic members. When founding
the Berlin University Humboldt’s interest was to keep out the influence of
the German State whose main interest was to gain a formation system fortheir civil employees. Thus the founder of the Berlin University established the binary or dual university system based on the idea of “academic
freedom” which means first of all freedom from influences coming fromoutside of the system (Vinnai, 2005). In contrast to Humboldt’s binary
concept unitary university systems like the one of the United States ofAmerica or of the United Kingdom include the most part of professional
formation fostering the formation of schools alongside vocational study
programmes instead of the formation of disciplines (Kirstein, 1999).
With the foundation of 25 new Universities in Germany the percentage
of students per birth year increased from 5% to 35% nowadays (Asholt,
2007: 126). In consequence high-level professional formation was partly
reintegrated into the University System by founding the Universities ofApplied Sciences which responded to the increasing demand for scientificbased formation for future non-academic employment in addition to the
traditional academic research careers. Due to the economic crisis in thefollowing decades the university budgets decreased continuously. Basedon an empirical study over thirty years Plümper and Schneider state that

246

The situation of Post-Graduate formation in Germany and new tasks for Higher Education Centers in it

there is a significant relation between the “over-booking” of “cheap” study
places by doubling the student numbers in humanities, cultural sciences
and languages with unchanged teaching capacities alongside and the increasing unemployment rates over all Federal Countries in Germany.
Plümper and Schneider assume that the Federal Countries Ministries of
Education had an interest to encourage young people to study in order tolower the unemployment rates taking into account a considerable decrease in the quality of study conditions (Plümper & Schneider, 2007).
Whereas the mentioned trends have led to an attitude of resignation orresistance of academic members against all kinds of reorganization or
reform the Bologna Process has brought fluctuation into this status. On
one hand Higher Education Politics used the impact coming from theEuropean Ministers to implement more economic-oriented models foruniversity managements. (Dainat, 2007: 91). On the other hand the necessity of study reforms evoked discussions about values and paradigms ofan academic formation.
1.3

The traditional research apprenticeship model and the new networkmodel as conflicting concepts

Discussions on the necessity of a doctorals formation reform distinguishand often oppose two models. The traditional model is mentioned as“Zunftmodell” (Enders, 2005, 40) referring to the organization of medieval
handcraft persons called “Zunft” or “Gilde” or as“Meister-Schüler-Modell”(Berning & Falk, 50) which can be translated as master-scholar-modelstressing more the relationship of the concerned persons. The term of
research apprenticeship model will be used in this article because it expresses both aspects, the organization and the relationship and it includes
the transfer into an academic context. The new network model is influenced by the concepts of Graduate Schools coming from anglo-americancountries. This term stresses the organization of the supervisors’ relationship being in responsibility of several persons or a team. Both models
will be described in detail in this chapter in order to identify main characteristics.
The so-called “humanistisches Bildungsideal” implicit in Wilhelm from247

Humboldt’s University concept is based on two central concepts, the“autonomous individual” and the “world citizenship”. In the view of
Humboldt and the Enlighteners scientific formation is supposed to be theformation of an autonomous thinking person with interest in human conditions questions. The relevant organization of relationship traces back to
the medieval apprenticeship model for the formation of handicraft persons
organized in gilts or so-called “Zünfte” with three phases of formation, theapprenticeship, the jouneymanship and the mastership. Masters were fully
responsible for the apprentices both for their personal and their professional development. As Journeymen were supposed to move in order tolearn from different masters and gilts the exchange of knowledge throughthe mobility ofterms ofjourneymen was part of the apprenticeship concept. The“Doctor father” or “Doctor mother” express this individual

type of relationship between supervisor and doctorand1). Research habitualization and research ethics of the supervisor like research paradigms
or discipline culture are important aspects of this concept. Klaus Landfried,
former president of the German’s Universities Rectors Conference statesthat beyond a good technical infrastructure the qualities of a German
University formation still consist in the “deepness” of issues going beyond
the surfaces, a careful methodical formation and a critical researchers
attitude (Metz-Göckel, 2004). It seems that the research apprenticeshipmodel is still an important paradigm particularly for the doctoral phase.
Though the aspects of integration of the doctorand as apprentice in a
research community and of a careful individual scientific formation withthe aspect of mobility have lost their basic conditions with the mentioned
tendencies in German Universities.
The new trend in doctoral formation is a more network-like modelthat stresses the support by an interdisciplinary or international project
team or a research institution rather than by a single person. The core
concept is to provide a supervision structure for a group of doctorands
with similar issues within a research cluster. Different types of networkmodels exist in German doctoral formation. Low structured “doctoral
study programmes” are offered by the Universities, the more structured
so-called “Graduiertenkollegs”2) are offered by faculties or institutions.

248

The situation of Post-Graduate formation in Germany and new tasks for Higher Education Centers in it

Most doctorand members hold grants for a limited time mainly supportedby the German Research Association (DFG). Very high structured types
are the “International Max-Planck-Research Schools” or the “International
Doctoral Programmes” financed either by the German Research Association (DFG) or by the German Academic Exchange Organization (DAAD).
Doctorand members have a job or a grant. The most recent trends are
newly established “Graduate Schools” which have the opportunity toapply for funding from the “Excellenz-Initiative” a funding project of theGerman State Ministry started in 2006. Lower structured models like
“doctoral studies” consist mainly in a student status by enrolment as
doctoral student and rely more on self-organization of the doctorands andpeer supervision than on defined responsibilities for supervision by seniorresearchers or research teams like for example “Graduate Schools”. Additional workshops are optional rather than fixed obligatory study programmes. Access and admission is often informal whereas high structured
types have high selective admission processes. Network-like models seemto support more interdisciplinary ore international oriented clusters thansingle area or discipline issues. Peer feedback and learning from peers thatare only some steps ahead the own progression are important aspects ofthis type of doctoral formation. But high structured types like “Graduate
Schools” follow rigid research programmes in hierarchical organizedprojects or clusters due to their expensive third-party funding which
concedes less freedom in choice and development for the doctorands own
works. There are hints that critical thinking and a critical researchers
attitude are not appreciated in this type of research environment as statesa report of the German Independent University Magazine on doctorands ofInternational Max-Planck-Research Schools (duz, 2007).

2．A detailed view on doctoral formation - results of two surveys on
doctorates in Germany
2.1

Foci of the two surveys

In 2004 two surveys were accomplished that allow a more detailed viewon the diverse situation of doctorands in Germany. One of the German249

doctorands Associations called THESIS3) conducted a questionaire with
10.000 doctorands. The THESIS survey was interested in revealing thesituation of the doctorands from their own perspective (duz SPECIAL,
2004; Briede, Gerhardt & Mues, 2005). The Bavarian State Institute forHigher Education Research (IHF4)) included 3.000 persons, professors anddoctorands in their questionaire focusing more on the institutional support
and organization of doctoral formation. Both surveys reveal similar trends
for specific aspects differentiated over the main discipline groups (Berning& Falk, 2006.
2.2

Trends in main discipline groups

Both surveys split their results into main discipline groups differentiating humanities / cultural sciences / languages, law, economics, social
sciences, engineering and natural sciences. Medicine doctorands were notincluded in both surveys because of their special formation procedure.
Main results of both surveys are summarized below. Most doctorands
have a solid intrinsic motivation to pursue their research work. Nevertheless 3/4 of them hope that their scientific work will have a crucial
impact on their further career. Over all disciplines more than half of all
doctorands had a traditional supervising relationship. Most of them werelaw doctorands followed by engineering, social sciences and humanities /
cultural sciences doctorands. About 40% of natural sciences and economics
doctorands were integrated in some type of lower structured Doctoral
Studies.
Only about 10% of economics and humanities / cultural sciences doctorands were integrated in so-called “Graduiertenkollegs” or belonged tohigh structured “Graduate Schools”, “International Programmes” or to“International Max-Planck-Research Schools”. There are a variety offunding types for doctoral formation. German doctorands hold half part
academic jobs legally dedicated for doctorands or full time academic jobs.
They can apply for different grant models from different institutions orfoundations. Partly they hold the status of so-called “extern doctorands”
when working as employees in non-academic institutions or enterprises or
as freelancers. Whereas in natural sciences, in engineering and in eco-

250

The situation of Post-Graduate formation in Germany and new tasks for Higher Education Centers in it

nomics most of the doctorands had a full time or part time job at their
university or their research institute only 1/3 or less in humanities /
cultural sciences did so. About 1/3 of the doctorands in humanities /
cultural sciences held a grant but 1/3 had no funding. The integration in
research projects of the supervisor or in scientific communities seems to
be a crucial aspect for doctoral formation. Natural sciences doctorands
ranked the integration in the research of the supervisor and the support
for shared publications on a middle scale range being the best rate over all
disciplines. The worst rate came from law doctorands followed by humanities / cultural sciences doctorands. The ranking for the best support
for own publications and for conferences participation and papers submission came from engineering doctorands followed by natural sciences
doctorands. Again the law doctorands seem to be the less supported followed by humanities / cultural sciences. Less than 1/4 over all interviewed doctorands had taken part in conferences in other countries. Morethan 1/4 of all doctorands had experienced delays or breaks up to ninemonth in their doctoral works. Reasons stated by doctorands was workoverload with tasks besides their research work or organizational problems like lacking access to laboratories or literature. More than 15%
mentioned problems to assure their daily income. Referring to additional
training the best ranking for teaching preparation came from the economics doctorands, the best ranking for research management preparation from the engineering doctorands. Humanities and cultural sciences
doctorands feel that they have the worse preparation for teaching and law
doctorands for research management preparation.
It can be stated that there are different conditions for different discipline groups. Natural sciences, engineering and economics doctorands seemto have better conditions for research integration, additional training for
future research work and teaching than law and humanities / culturalsciences / languages with social sciences in the middle. Law doctorands
obviously have the worst conditions for research integration and additional training whereas humanities / cultural sciences / languages doctorands have the worst conditions in funding with slightly better conditions for research integration and additional training as law doctorands.

251

The trends underline the well known fact that natural science, engineering and economics faculties in Germany have better structures andresources for research and teaching than humanities / cultural sciences /languages and thus can provide faculty supported structure for doctoral
formation. This corresponds to the study of Plümper and Schneider
mentioned above. The selection results for the funding programme for“Graduate Schools” within the “Excellenz-Initiative” started by theGerman State Ministry in 2006 show the same trend. From 18 selected
applications for funding in the first selection phase only two “Graduate
School” projects belong to the discipline group of humanities / culturalsciences / languages (Wissenschaftsrat, 2007). It is supposed that the highstructured model of doctoral formation like “Graduate Schools” will remain a limited model for a small research elite within well-funded researchclusters with international economic-driven orientation.
As Enders states it is most surprising that regardless bad institutional
conditions for doctoral formation Germany has the highest rate of doctoral
graduation in the world. He assumes that there are two crucial aspects one
being the informal and open admission procedure leaving the responsibility for admission to the “doctor father” or “doctor mother” and a variety of funding types, the other being the value of a doctoral degree in theemployment market (Enders, 2005, p. 41).
2.3

Quality aspects for doctoral formation programmes

Summarising the findings and main paradigms of both models we assume that there is a broad variety of different models and types of doctoral formation depending on the discipline field, the funding situation, theresearch context and the University context. Nevertheless there seem tobe two different aspects that are crucial for the quality of doctoral formation. The first aspect is the assurance of basic conditions for Early
Stage Researchers. The second aspect refers to the assurance of research
quality through integration in research work and scientific communities.
The first aspect belongs to the responsibility of universities and ofHigher Education Policy. In German Universities the traditional research
apprenticeship model prevails in most disciplines. The results of the252The situation of Post-Graduate formation in Germany and new tasks for Higher Education Centers in it

mentioned surveys show that doctoral formation is still regarded to be thetask of single professors. There is nearly no institutional support or additional training provided from faculties or universities. Only a small partof doctoral formation is organized in “doctoral programmes”, so-called“Graduiertenkollegs” or “International Graduate Schools”. They offer amulti-personal supervision structure partly self-organized with peers andpartly in responsibility of senior researchers. They vary in access andadmission procedures, in funding and in the strictness of included study
programmes or trainings. Only some third-party funded international
research clusters have established a high structured type of “Graduate
Schools” that provide good organizational conditions for doctoral formation with strict study programmes. As the selection process of theso-called “Exzellenz-Initiative” shows they relate mainly to international
economic-driven topics like Biotechnology, Computational Engineering,
Optics and Phototronics or Neuroscience (Wissenschaftsrat, 2007). But thiscomplex high structured type of research organization obviously reduces
the freedom of the doctorants research work. There are hints that a
critical researchers attitude is not appreciated within this type of researchcontexts. Access and admission are highly selective. So Graduate Schools
seem to conflict with Humbold’s idea of supporting an individual formation through original research work.
The second aspect is the assurance of research quality by defining,
discussing and setting research ethics and standards like published in the
research guidelines of the German Research Association (DFG, 2007).
These aspects are in responsibility of the individual researchers themselves. Early Stage Researchers only can learn them by habitualization
through participation in research work and scientific communities. Even
given the fact that research ethics and standards have a high value
amongst German university professors there is a lack of basic conditions
needed for the integration and participation of Early Stage Researchers
within respective research and scientific communities. This relates to thefact that the isolation of doctorands is an often mentioned problem thatmostly concerns the group of so-called “extern doctorands” in the discipline group of humanities / cultural sciences / languages or in law. Be-

253

sides the lacking of basic conditions particularly for the mentioned “extern
doctorands” and discipline groups of humanities / social and culturalsciences / languages the provision of network-like structures to support
participation and integration in scientific communities in order to foster
research habitualization as part of the professionalization process is aserious quality problem.

3．New Tasks for Higher Education Centers
3.1

Higher Education Centers in Germany

With the introduction of Mass Universities in the 1970ies and a vague ofUniversity foundations the newly employed academic assistants started an
initiative for a Higher Education reform processes which resulted in aparadigmatic publication that reinterprets Humboldt’s concept of “unityof teaching and research” stressing theoretical aspects on self-dependent
learning for Higher Education didactics and study reform processes (BAK,
1970, Huber, 2004). Several Centers for Higher Education and Higher
Education service offices were founded in the following years. Important
aspects of the Higher Education Centers concept were the interdisciplinary orientation and the integration of theoretical and applied research.
Interdisciplinary-oriented research on Higher Education teaching andlearning was supposed to be promoted by integrating professors frommany different disciplines in the newly founded Centers and the integration of theory and practice by the integration of research and service
offers. Theory and practice in Higher Education combined findings andtraining methods from different discipline fields like andragogy, sociology,
psychology and economics particularly concepts for staff development,
team and group support or communication theory deriving for example
from management training methods or concepts of learning organizations.
With the economic crisis and the cutback of University budgets in thefollowing decades all Centers for Higher Education suffered a dramatic
reduction of research and service resources.
In the 1990ies the establishment of New Media and eLearning brought
new tasks.

254

Media Centers and Higher Education offices tasks merged at

The situation of Post-Graduate formation in Germany and new tasks for Higher Education Centers in it

several Universities. In the last years there is a trend for the merging of
single service offices to networks offering services and training for an
aggregation of universities like the Bavarian network or the Baden-Württemberg network. With the impact of the Bologna process theneed for research expertise and services from Higher Education Centersrelated to study reform processes, staff development or eLearning issues
is growing. Developing embedded structures for doctoral formation is one
task within this process but with tight budgets Universities hesitate toassure additional research and service capacities. The Graduate Network
project of the Dortmund Center for Higher Education can be seen as one“best-practice” example demonstrating how weak points within theGerman doctoral formation can be met.
3.2

The Graduate Network of HDZ Dortmund – a “best practice” example

In 2004 the Center of Higher Education (HDZ) at the Dortmund University conducted a survey on the situation of doctorands in the faculties
for humanties, social and cultural sciences in Dortmund University inorder to reveal condition problems and prepare a network support project.
Two reasons to initiate the Dortmund survey were cited. The first reason
being the fact that with the implementation of global budget systems forGerman Universities the rate of doctoral degrees per faculty per year will
be a future performance parameter. The second reason being statistics of
the years 1997 to 2003 that showed significant differences between
numbers of students, of graduates and of doctoral graduates within different faculty groups. The percentage of doctoral graduations was much
lower within the faculty group of humanities / social and cultural sciences
than within the faculty group of engineering and natural sciences. One
argument explaining this condition is the fact that from 815 academic jobs
for doctorands only 22% belonged to the faculty group of humanities /
cultural sciences. The other argument is that the faculty group of humanities / social and cultural sciences mainly perform the formation ofteachers. So research projects that offer jobs for doctorands are the exception in contrast to the research organization type within the engi-

255neering and natural sciences faculties. In consequence the survey mandated by the Rectorate of the University was conducted in order to reveal
weak points within the doctoral formation in humanities / social andcultural sciences and clarify needs for tasks of a Graduate Center.
The questionnaires design and findings relate closely to the results of
the above mentioned surveys from THESIS and the IHF. The questionnaire including 112 persons, doctorands and professors referred to thedoctorands point of view on their situation like motivation, funding, supervision quality and need for further qualification training and advice andthe supervisors point of view like the type of selection and admission
process, their understanding of supervision tasks, form of supervision andtime requested and problems of doctorands and needs for further qualification. Both doctorands and supervisors stated the need for additional
qualification and reflection. Issues mentioned for further qualification were
workshops on research methods, on scientific writing skills or advices on
individual special topics and the provision of individual coaching, supervision and career planning and advising. Half of the supervisors stated thatthey were interested in participating in a Graduate Center to provide
better support for the faculty doctorands, to share resources for supervision and additional training with colleagues and to foster synergy effects(Selent, 2004).
In july 2004 the Center for Higher Education in Dortmund (HDZ) started
a graduate network project called “Graduierten-Netzwerk Fachbereiche /Fakultäten 12 – 16” with a kick-off workshop aiming on network and groupbuilding and on revealing concrete issues for additional training provision.
The project explicitly addresses so-called “extern doctorands” from thehumanities / cultural and social sciences faculties. Regularly so-called“network market places” are organized by the Center for Higher Education in Dortmund where doctorands can exchange with peers about all
relevant issues around their thesis work. They can participate to findself-organized peer groups on research clusters or find Graduate groups
organized by supervisors. They get information on the additional workshop programme organized by the Center for Higher Education Dortmund(HDZ) covering more general areas like research methods and theory or

256

The situation of Post-Graduate formation in Germany and new tasks for Higher Education Centers in it

funding and more individual areas like time and knowledge management,
individual advising and career planning and they can suggest new issues
for further training (lookup:http://www.graduiertennetzwerk.uni-ortmund.de/de/infos.html).

4．Conclusions and future directions for the German doctoral
formation
As third cycle of the Bologna study structure doctoral formation isregarded to be an important transfer phase between a students and a
researchers state. The Bologna workgroup on doctoral programmes
mandated from the European Ministers of Education has outlined aframework that addresses three clusters of issues referring to different
institutional levels. The basic level stresses the core task of doctoral work
as original research work and outlines quality criteria for supervision,monitoring and assessment procedures, the provision of basic conditions
like funding or infrastructure access and the need for additional training todevelop transferable skills. The next level defines the role of Universities
to provide organizational structure and to develop embedded structures
for doctoral programmes with links to Bachelor- and Master programmes.
The third level addresses to the responsibility of the state to assure legal
and regulatory framework and funding models for doctoral formation.
The traditional German doctoral formation model termed “research
apprenticeship model” in this article derives from the University conceptof Wilhelm von Humboldt. Its strong points are the implicit paradigms ofindividual doctoral formation through original autonomous research work,
the independence from outside influence through research ethics andstandards and their habitualization by participating in scientific communities. Admission procedures are informal and in responsibility of thesupervisors. Extern doctorands that are admitted in this type of doctoral
formation provide an important exchange link between society or work
environment and research. It seems that the appreciated research qualityof the German doctoral works relates to the mentioned aspects. But thedramatic changes of research organization, of study conditions and of an257

academic formation mission since the introduction of Mass Universities
have challenged the traditional research apprenticeship model. Network-oriented models like the anglo-american type of Graduate Schools
have been established in the context of international interdisciplinary
third-party funded research clusters. They afford a multi-personal supervision, additional training and a strict study programme. Doctorands
acquire additional competences and are able to accomplish their thesis in
the foreseen time but high structured research organization and management reduces their options for individual development as researchers.
There are hints that a critical attitude is not appreciated in this type of
research context.
There is a broad variety of doctoral formation patterns between the two
mentioned models as the “outer edges of a line” differing in status, infunding types, in institutional or scientific integration, in supervising forms
or in optional or facultative additional training programmes. This variety
responds partly to different needs in different disciplines and different
research contexts. Nevertheless the two surveys conducted on the situation of doctorals in Germany and in Bavaria show some problematic points.
Particularly in the discipline of law and the discipline group of humanities/ social and cultural sciences / languages a considerable part of doctorands lack basic conditions like funding and access to scientific communities. The provision of supervising, monitoring and assessment is reduced
to rare contacts to a single supervisor.
The “best-practice” example of the Graduate Network in Humanities /social and cultural sciences at Dortmund University shows that Centers ofHigher Education have the expertise to organize low structured networks
fitting particularly the needs of this part of doctorands. They can support
self-organziation of supervisors and doctorands and provide additional
training within an optional workshop programme if their Universities aredisposed to furnish the needed institutional and policy support.

258

The situation of Post-Graduate formation in Germany and new tasks for Higher Education Centers in it

Notes
1) In this article the term doctorand will be used for persons who write a thesis.
The term refers to the fact that the doctoral formation in Germany is very
diverse in funding, supervision, additional training or integration in an
academic or research context. The only common attribute is to get theadmission of a Professor as supervisor and the request to submit a Thesis
work.
2)

So-called“Graduiertenkollegs”

orResearch

Training

Groupsaretime-limited university graduate training programmes established atscientific centers in specific fields that can apply for funding from theGerman Research Associtation (DFG). They are proposed by faculty
members and endorsed by their university. The evaluation and selection for
funding is a peer review procedure.
3) As mentioned in 2.1 THESIS is the name of an interdisciplinary doctorands
Association in Germany.
(lookup: http://www.thesis.de/, 2007.10.30.)
4) As mentioned in 2.1 IHF is the abbreviation for the Bavarian State Institutefor Higher Education Research and Planning.
(Bayerisches Staatsinstitut für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung,lookup: http://www.ihf.bayern.de/, 2007.10.30.)
References
Asholt, W., 2007, Internationalisierung, Ökonomisierung und die disziplinkulturelle Vielfalt aus der Perspektive eines (einst) großen Faches. Bollenbeck,
G. & Wende, W., 2007, (Hrsg.). Der Bologna-Prozess und die Veränderung derHochschullandschaft. Heidelberg: Synchron., 123-31.
BAK-Bundesassisstentenkonferenz, 1970, Forschendes Lernen-wissenschaft-liches Prüfen. Bonn: BAK.
Berning, E. & Falk, S., 2005, Das Promotionswesen im Umbruch. Bayrisches
Staatsinstitut für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung (Hrsg.).

Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 1 (27): 48-72
Berning, E. & Falk, S., 2006, Promovieren an den Universitäten in Bayern.
Praxis – Modelle – Perspektiven. Band 72. München: Bayerisches Staatsinstitut für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung.
(http://www.ihf.bayern.de/dateien/monographien/Monographie̲72.pdf,

259

2007.10.25.)
BMBF - Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2005,

Bologna Seminar on Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society .
(Salzburg, 3-5 February 2005). Conclusions and Recommendations.
(http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/EN/Bol̲sem/Seminars/

050203-05Salzburg/050203-05̲Conclusions.pdf, 2007.10.25)

Bologna Prozess. Nationaler Bericht 2005 bis 2007 für Deutschland von KMK und BMBF.

BMBF-Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2007,(http://www.bmbf.de/pub/nationaler̲bericht̲bologna̲05-07.pdf,2007.10.25.)
Bollenbeck, G. & Wende, W., 2007, (Hrsg.), Der Bologna-Prozess und die

Veränderung der Hochschullandschaft. Heidelberg: Synchron.
Brown, T., 2004, Eurodoc. Gathering of Evidence and Development of a European Supervision and Training Charter.
(http://www.eurodoc.net/workgroups/supervision/Eurodocsuptrain.pdf,
2007.10.25.)
Dainat, H., 2007, Die Germanisten in Europa: ratlos. Über disziplinäres Driftenin Zeiten der Studien- und Hochschulreform. . Bollenbeck, G. & Wende, W.,
2007, (Hrsg.). Der Bologna-Prozess und die Veränderung der Hochschul-landschaft. Heidelberg: Synchron, 89-103.
DFG-Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 2007, Empfehlungen der Kommission

Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft.
(http://www.dfg.de/aktuelles̲presse/reden̲stellungnahmen/download/em
pfehlung̲wiss̲praxis̲0198.pdf, 2007.10.25.)
duz SPECIAL, 2004, Zur Situation Promovierender in Deutschland. Ergebnisse

der bundesweiten THESIS-Doktorandenbefragung 2004. Berlin: Raabe.
(http://www.duz.de/docs/downloads/duzspec̲promov.pdf, 2007.10.25)
European Ministers of Education, 1999, Joint declaration of the European

Ministers of Education convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999.
(http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna.pdf,
2007.10.25.)
EUA, 2007, Doctoral Programmes in Europe’s Universities: Achievements andChallenges. Report prepared for Europaean Universities and Ministers ofHigher Education.
(http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user̲upload/files/Publications/Doctoral̲Pro
grammes̲in̲Europe̲s̲Universities.pdf, 2007. 10.25.)
Enders, J., 2005, Brauchen die Universitäten in Deutschland ein neues Paradigma der Nachwuchsausbildung? Bayrisches Staatsinstitut für Hoch-

260

The situation of Post-Graduate formation in Germany and new tasks for Higher Education Centers in it
schulforschung und Hochschulplanung (Hrsg.). Beiträge zur Hochschulfor-

schung, 1(27): 34-47.
(http://www.ihf.bayern.de/dateien/beitraege/Beitr̲Hochschulf̲1̲2005.pdf,
2007.10.25.)
Gerhardt, A.; Briede, U.; Mues, C., 2005, Zur Situation der Doktoranden in
Deutschland-Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Doktorandenbefragung. Bayrisches Staatsinstitut für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung (Hrsg.).

Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 1(27): 74-95.
(http://www.ihf.bayern.de/dateien/beitraege/Beitr̲Hochschulf̲1̲2005.pdf,
2007.10.25.)
Huber, L., 2004, Forschendes Lernen – Thesen zum Verhältnis von Forschungund Lehre in Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen aus der Perspektive des Studiums. die hochschule. Journal für wissenschaft und bildung 13(2). 2004.
Kirstein, J., 1999, Information on Learning Structures in Higher Education in
the EU/EEA countries. Project Report: Trends in Learning Structures inHigher Education, 7 June 1999.
(http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/OFFDOC̲BP̲trend̲I.10687151361
82.pdf, 2007.10.25.)
Metz-Göckel, S., 2004, Interview mit Prof. Dr. Klaus Landfried, Präsident a.D.
der HRK. Hochschuldidaktisches Zentrum Dortmund (Hrsg.). Journal

Hochschuldidaktik. 15 (1): 6-7.
(http://www.hdz.uni-dortmund.de/fileadmin/JournalHD/Jounal̲HD̲2004̲1.pdf, 2007.10.25.)
Plümper, T. & Schneider, C., 2007, Too much to die, too little to live: unemployment, higher education policies and university budgets in Germany.

Journal of European Public Policy 14(4): 631-52.
Selent, P.,2004, Die DoktorandInnenstudie der Fachbereiche / Fakultäten 12-16.
Hochschuldidaktisches Zentrum Dortmund (Hrsg.). Journal Hochschuldi-

daktik. 15 (1): 4-5.
(http://www.hdz.uni-dortmund.de/fileadmin/JournalHD/Jounal̲HD̲2004̲1.pdf, 2007.10.25.)
Vinnai, G., 2005, Utopie und Wirklichkeit der Universität. Abschiedsvorlesung-gehalten am 28. Juni 2005 an der Universität Bremen.
(http://www.vinnai.de/utopie.pdf, 2007.10.25.)
Warnecke, T. (2004). Verträge, Stipendien und Kindergeld. duz MAGAZIN

05/2004.

261

(http://www.duz.de/docs/stellenthemen/max̲planck̲i.html, 2007.10.25.)
Wissenschaftsrat, 2007, Exzellenz-Initiative.
(http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/exini̲start.html, 2007.10.25.).

262

ドイツの大学院教育と高等教育センターの課題
マリアンヌ・メルクト＜要旨＞

ドイツの大学システムは大きな転換期を迎えている。今日では、いわゆる「ボローニャ・プロセス」によってヨーロッパの大学システム
は標準化されつつあり、1970 年代に高等教育が大衆化して以来、改革が遅れていたドイツの大学も大きな影響を受けている。「学問の自由と研究・教授の統合」は今なおドイツの大学教員に強く支持されている。しかし、大学生数の増加する一方で教育環境は改善されず、学生の知的発達を促すための基礎条件の整備は十分とはいえなかった。知の共同体としての大学のミッションは、伝統的な研究者養成から、研究者以外の仕事に就く上で科学的素養を身につけることに変わりつつある。この相反する二つの目標はそれぞれ大学院教育のあり方に影響を与えている。前者は学生と教授の個人的関係に基づく徒弟制モデルであり、後者はチームワークによって学際的な研究を可能にするネットワークモデルである。本稿では大学院博士課程に関する二つの全国調査結果を通してこの２つのモデルの有効性を検討し、ドイツの大学に設置されている高等教育センターが大学院教育の改善にどのよ
うに取り組むべきかに言及する。その際、ドルトムント大学の高等教育センターの大学院ネットワークプロジェクトを「ベスト・プラクテ
ィス」として紹介する。

ハンブルク大学 高等教育修士プログラム長名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・客員教授

263