The success of science stands or falls with the people who research, teach and support science. That is why the ongoing, intensive discussion about career prospects and fixed-term contracts for researchers who do not yet have permanent employment in science is valuable. Using the hashtag #IchbinHanna, many people describe in an impressive and personal way the financial bottlenecks, uncertainties in life planning and psychological stresses that can result from repeated, repeated fixed-term contracts. At the same time, they criticize the current career system. The core question is the future architecture of academic careers: permanent positions, job prospects, job profiles next to the professorship and decision-making times.This text also wants to address these important architectural questions, but first we have to sort out the initial facts of the debate.
At the center of the discussion is the accusation of an excessively high degree of fixed-term employment at universities. The date “92 percent” is mentioned most often. This figure from the Federal Statistical Office indicates the proportion of temporary employees in the full-time academic staff under 45 years of age in 2018. In its generality, however, it is of little help.
There are three things to consider: 1. The professors of all people are not counted, although of course they are usually employed on a permanent basis.
2. Doctoral positions, on the other hand, are included in the calculation, although no one requests that they be extended.
In addition, in the last decade the universities have converted many doctoral scholarships that are not subject to social insurance contributions into employment contracts, which is good for doctoral candidates, but has also increased the number of temporary positions.
3. In the case of fixed-term statistics, a distinction must be made between whether a position is financed from budget funds or from third-party funds.
The latter are temporary project funds and can only be used to finance permanent positions in exceptional cases.
One can argue about the ratio of numbers
In view of this, it seems more expedient to focus the discussion on fixed-term contracts on the core area of basic-financed budget positions, i.e. the area in which the universities actually have the power to act with regard to fixed-term contracts. And here the picture looks noticeably different: Depending on the university, 30 percent and, if you leave out doctoral positions in household positions, even significantly more household positions for researchers after completing their doctorate are filled indefinitely.
Is that a fair relationship? We can and must discuss the right balance between temporary and permanent budget positions from postdoc level. Universities need attractive permanent positions (especially for permanent scientific tasks) and flexibility, both in terms of intergenerational equity and in order to be able to map new scientific dynamics. A general “tenure requirement” for all qualification positions after the doctorate, as is currently being discussed in Berlin, may be advantageous from the point of view of those currently affected. But it looks different for the next generation of young scientists. If you are starting a doctorate now or in the future, it would be much more difficult for you a few years later,obtain a postdoc qualification position. And in the medium term the universities would no longer have any jobs to offer for new aspiring researchers and the thematic impulses they provide.