Modul 1: The academic profession

Christine Böckelmann, Hochschule Luzern; Carole Probst, ZHAW; Christian Wassmer, ZHAW; Sheron Baumann, Hochschule Luzern

Abstract:

The ability of lecturers at non-traditional universities / universities of applied sciences (hereafter: UAS) to both teach in a practice-relevant manner and conduct scientifically sound research and teaching is a controversial issue in the higher education policy debate in Switzerland. Therefore, the presentation examines current survey data to determine the practice-orientation and scientific qualifications of these lecturers, as well as their simultaneous activity in the fields of research and teaching. Furthermore, the comparison with data for lecturers of Swiss traditional universities (hereafter: universities) shows to what extent the two types of higher education institutions are converging with respect to their profiles. The question of the extent to which UAS meet the requirement of providing practical and professionally relevant teaching can also be answered from the perspective of graduates. Therefore, the presentation includes analyses of the graduate studies conducted by the Federal Statistical Office throughout Switzerland. Here too, the results from the UAS are compared with those from the universities. Based on the results we can show that in teaching, the educational policy requirement of equivalent but different types of higher education institutions is mostly met. As an example, we see that the majority of lecturers at UAS have extensive practical experience, which is also much more extensive than that of university lecturers. This can be seen both in the overall duration of the practical work and in the fact that lectures at UAS often work in practice in parallel. Conversely, the more frequent doctorates and habilitations of university lecturers indicate that they are in fact more research oriented than those at UAS. The graduates of the UAS assess the studies in terms of basics for the career entry better than graduates of the universities. However, the assessment is the same in both types of higher education institutions when it comes to the basics for fulfilling current work tasks. The much greater amount of professional experience that graduates of UAS already have at this point in their career may explain these results.

Fabienne Crettaz von Roten, OSPS – UNIL

Abstract:

Animal experimentation (AE) is a scientific practice generating varying degrees of confidence in society, but also in science. After several hundred years of use, it is still controversial. In Switzerland, the tools of direct democracy have led the population to vote on the subject three times (1985, 1992, and 1993) and a new one is in the horizon. Initiatives are an opportunity to inform the population and generate debate; engagement of scientists is therefore vital. Studies have analyzed scientists’ public engagement and outreach (POE) activities, but not on scientists in AE. Our aim was to document the situation in Switzerland by the mean of a mixed methodology. First, we send a questionnaire to four cohorts of scientists participating to FELASA mandatory courses, covering scientists’ attitudes toward society, importance of various incentives and barriers to POE activities, level of POE activities (510 questionnaires filled, response rate of 48%). Then we undertook a media analysis of the future initiative on AE from September 2017 until December 2019 (more than hundred news have been published in the three regions). Our results showed a constructive situation in terms of public engagement and media exposure, but with surprising differences.

Agnė Girkontaitė, Institute of Sociology and Social Work, Vilnius University, Lithuania; Michael Ochsner, FORS, Lausanne

Abstract:

Research evaluation has become an important instrument of governance in higher education. Evaluation procedures, however, differ widely across countries and institutions. In this presentation, we look into how such differences in evaluation can shape the way research is conducted and reported. We apply a mixed-methods approach to two institutions close to the opposite extremes of evaluation procedures: on the one hand, the Institute of Sociology and Social Work at Vilnius University, Lithuania, subject to a performance-based funding model and, on the other hand, FORS, the Centre of Expertise for the Social Sciences in Lausanne, Switzerland, evaluated periodically by peers based on self-evaluation reports. We analyse quantitatively and qualitatively the bibliometric information on the scientific production of the two institutions in the years 2012 to 2016 using three sources: the annual reports of the institutions themselves, the institutional repositories and Web of Science. Furthermore, we complement this data by qualitative semi-structured interviews with employees of the two institutes. Our results show that both researchers and institutes themselves often choose to report only part of what they produce. Yet, what becomes visible differs between the two as reporting requirements can influence what researchers prioritise in their work. We conclude that bibliometric indicator-based research evaluation limits the understanding of the work of a researcher, ignores the variety of personalities needed within universities and disregards activities that remain invisible but are important for the functioning of research. An incomplete reporting comes with the risk of compromising SSH research’s function in society and tends to separate activities that should be linked.