Professorial Chairs As Tools Of Power Abuse

The principle underlying professorial chairs, as established at higher-education institutions in Germany, is increasingly subject to criticism from within the system itself. Expressing explicit disapproval of the status quo of the system of science in Germany are the members of the so-called Young Academy (Junge Akademie), an association of young professors. The primary object of their criticism is the system’s pyramid-like hierarchical structure which, the Academy argues, makes professorial chairs an effective tool of professors‘ power, and favors dependency relationships. The systemic consequences, according to Young Academy, range from poor working conditions, insecure jobs to limited career prospects and a loss of quality in scientific work. Against this backdrop, the association calls for a profound structural reform that is to replace the existing structure with a so-called “department structure“.

Following the position paper written by the Young Academy, professioral chairs in Germany are designed as pyramid-like hierarchies headed by a comparatively low number of chair holders, closely followed by holders of a professorship. The bottom level is occupied by a relatively large number of gainfully employed academic personnel (e.g., postdoctoral scientific employees or scientific employees taking part in a doctoral program). Those at the top of the pyramid enjoy certain privileges; those at bottom level are in an inflexible relationship of dependency, the Young Academy contends. Although the Academy admits that professors too are in a hierarchical relationship in that they are subordinate to their committees, it argues that this does not rule out professors‘ privileged position: Professors have the decision-making power over resources as well as over the recruitment of scientific staff and granting permanent employment contracts. In their capacity as public officials, they enjoy special protection, meaning that in the event that complaints are filed against them, they can be penalized by universities only with difficulty. If one follows the Young Acadmy’s line of reasoning, this pyramid structure entails the risk of power abuse.

In systems where only few people are in power, there is the risk for that power to be abused. This is not only true for politics and the film industry but also in academia. The position taken by professors in the current science system opens up – at least in theory – a wide range of possibilities for power abuse.

For example, professors have the power to burden their doctoral students with more work than contractually agreed. For many, working overtime has already become a matter of course. While scientific employees often have to evaluate final theses and exams even after hours, professors solely put their signature on them.

What is more, professors have a tremendous impact on the evaluation of junior researchers insofar as there might be bias involved. If, for instance, the position taken by a doctoral student in his or her thesis – irrespective of the quality of the work – deviates too much from the position of his supervisor and the content line of the chair, let alone the scientific mainstream, this may result in a worse evaluation.

In addition, professors are capable of taking advantage of the intellectual property of their staff for their own purposes. Such a case occurs, for example, if a professor’s name is mentioned first or even mentioned exclusively in a research paper that is based on research done by the staff.

Also, there could be the situation that professors demand the performance of sexual services in return for better grades or for extending the work relationship. Cases like this very rarely become known to university management or the public. This is due mainly to the precarious employment situation of scientific employees.

The job situation at higher-education institutions in Germany is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and dependency. The great majority of scientific employees work under a fixed-term employment contract, with every second contract running for not more than twelve months. This state of affairs is hardly surprising considering that academia is increasingly sponsored by third-party funds and that even universities‘ basic funds are to an increasing extent used for funding temporary jobs. This precarious situation opens the floodgates to potential power abuse. For job-related insecurity makes the parties involved dependent on their professors, given that it is they who decide as to whether a contract is extended or not.

The dependency relationship is reinforced by the fact that it is hard for many scientific employees to exit academia because they are too old and/or overqualified. What remains is the hope for permanent employment or becoming a professor in one’s own right. However, only a few enjoy this benefit. The ratio between completed doctorates and new professorships is 11 to one. That is to say that a consistently lower number of professorships encounters an increasing number of scientific employees who try to get one fixed-term contract after another. To counteract this situation, the Young Academy proposes a comprehensive structural shift.

In their position paper the Young Academy advocates that the existing organizational structure of universities and other higher-education institutions in Germany be broken up in favor of a department structure, based on the model of Anglo-Saxon universities. Abolishing professorial chairs, in the proposed model, leads to a flatter hierarchical structure, with only two levels instead of three. The decision-making power is allocated to a variety of professors that meet on equal terms. It is hoped that the structural change will bring more job security and better career prospects as a result of reallocation of funds that flow into the science system. The basic idea is to invest more funds in permanent professorships and less in temporary jobs. As a result, there would be fewer jobs but better working conditions for all jobs available. The path towards a professorship, according to this model, begins at graduate centers that are subordinated only to the department as a whole. The next step to a successfully completed doctorate would be a temporary professorship which is converted into a permanent one in the event of outstanding research and teaching achievements.

As in any debate, a new idea is not only met with approval. The same applies to the model proposed by the Young Academy. Jens Bochert, professor of political science at the University of Frankfurt, determines several shortcomings of the department concept. For one thing, Borchert has doubts as to the actual extent of job dissatisfaction on the part of scientific employees. Though he concedes that they may be dissatisfied with certain aspects of their occupational situation, he believes that they are not dissatisfied with the situation as such. This, he contends, is evidenced by a number of surveys.

Moreover, Borchert puts forward the view that the structural revolution as demanded by supporters of the department model is more likely to deteriorate working conditions for junior researchers as the turning towards more professorships would, on the one hand, offer a solution only to a few postdocs while the situation of the remaining employees would be uncertain and, on the other hand, make it more likely for negative consequences to occur for the administrative staff (e.g., job cuts, work intensification).

Another argument against the model advocated by the Young Academy, in Borchert’s estimation, is that departments as they exist in Anglo-Saxon countries are anything but egalitarian, with unpleasant department-related  tasks being delegated to precariously employed people outside the department. Apart from that, Borchert argues, doctoral students in the USA need to finance their tuition fees by way of academic “servitude“. Furthermore, he goes on to say that departments in the USA are subject to the monitoring power of professionalized deans, and that there is the trend to employ adjunct professors on the basis of non-permanent employment contracts.

Overall, Borchert does agree with the view that there are necessary changes to be made in the present science system. Yet unlike the Young Academy, Borchert opposes what he considers the neoliberal proposal to destroy the current system and replace it by a new one. Instead, he makes the case for gradual reforms, such as the creation of permanent jobs for scientific employees.