Research orientations
Researchers are subject to multiple expectations and demands, which they try to integrate into their research practice. To assess the research culture, it is important to know, on the one hand, to what extent researchers actually share the goals declared by university management in research and teaching, or whether they perceive them more as being imposed on them from the outside. Furthermore, it is interesting to know to what extent they feel pressure from expectations regarding these goals. This can come from outside, but it can also be self-imposed. Thirdly, these assessments can be compared with the priority that scientists ultimately give to these goals in their day-to-day work when time and other resources have to be weighed up in practice.
The spectrum of objectives in science and academia to be evaluated includes a mixture of research-related intrinsic values (“methodological rigor” and “originality”), relevant topics of science policy discourses (“open science”, “cooperation” and “knowledge transfer to society”), as well as other tasks and objectives (“teaching” and “publication output”) that are also the subject of evaluation processes in one way or another.
The results (Figure 55) show that the research-immanent values are considered by the vast majority to be overarching or even the highest goals. It is interesting to note that “good teaching” is seen as a similarly important and high goal. But the science policy goals and some of the external goals also receive quite broad approval. This shows that the goals of “open science” and “knowledge transfer” are accepted by the community as scientific goals.
Only “publication output” and “third-party funding” should, in the opinion of the vast majority of scientists, be clearly subordinate goals, not overarching ones, let alone top-level goals. These judgments are in clear contradiction to the dominant and one-sided output-oriented incentive systems in the scientific system. The resistance against these kinds of incentive systems is still being intensely debated, as can be seen, for example, in the demands of the EU Commission (2021) or the activities of the CoARA network (2022), which are advocating for a revision of the performance evaluation system in science. The contradiction between the relevance attributed to publication output and third-party funding acquisition by scientists and external expectations is also reflected in the pressure of expectations. In particular, when it comes to publication output and, to a lesser extent, third-party funding, scientists perceive a “high” to “very high” pressure of expectation; significantly more than with the research-immanent goals of “originality” and “methodological rigor,” where they still see themselves under a high pressure of expectation or place themselves under it.
For all other scientific goals, a clear majority of respondents rate the pressure of expectation as “low” or “non-existent”. The pressure of expectation is felt least in relation to “good teaching” and “open science”, and it is also low in the area of knowledge transfer. On the one hand, this is remarkable, since these dimensions play a relatively important role in the normative assessment of the scientific goals. On the other hand, however, this is not surprising since these aspects of scientific work do not play such a major role in the evaluation systems.
But how do scientists prioritise their everyday work in the face of these multiple demands and goals? Figure 55 shows, on the one hand, that goals which the respondents themselves consider important for science are prioritised: the research-immanent values of “methodological rigor” and “originality”. On the other hand, goals are also prioritised that are subject to high to very high pressure of expectation, even though the scientists themselves do not regard the goals as the highest goals: this applies above all to “publication output”. In this respect, it cannot be assumed per se that external expectations and objectives have a negative influence on research quality. Obviously, the external pressure of expectation is very high in the case of “publication output”, and significantly shifts the setting of priorities in the research practice. Nevertheless, scientists weigh this against their own normative objectives. Prioritisation is thus not or only partially at the expense of research quality. Scientists continue to pursue the goals that are most important to them, and above all research quality, even when the external pressure of expectation is more likely to be directed at other goals.
Nevertheless, prioritizing different goals and requirements is a source of tension. This is currently more likely to be at the expense of secondary goals that are not associated with either too much personal importance or too much (external) pressure of expectation. “Good teaching” ranks in the middle when it comes to setting priorities. Since this goal is not associated with high expectations, prioritisation is maintained by intrinsic motivation for achieving the goal. The science policy goals of “knowledge transfer” and “open science” are the lowest priority for scientists. Neither the importance of the goal nor the pressure of expectation is sufficient to push these tasks to the top of the list.
On the other hand, this analysis should not be misunderstood as a guide to control. If you want to push a task, e.g. by significantly increasing external pressure of expectation, this can always be at the expense of the importance perceived by the scientists, as the examples of publication output and third-party funding show. External (extrinsic) incentives can displace intrinsic motivation and values. At the same time, the whole measurement is relational. Not all tasks can be equally important or have the “highest” priority. This means that if a task gains priority due to pressure of expectation or shifts in meaning, it is always at the expense of other tasks, as can be seen from the relationship between teaching and research, or publications and third-party funding. Scientists will find their own paths through the labyrinth of demands in order to reconcile them with their limited capacities and time resources.
In summary, it can be said that scientists are highly motivated to deliver research results of quality and also put this into practice, although the pressure of expectations is greater for other goals. The basic pattern of these results has not changed significantly in the last two years between 2022 and 2024. (The values from 2022 are shown in less saturation with the same color symbols.) Minor shifts, such as those seen in knowledge transfer, can be attributed to the item being reformulated. The item “attracting third-party funding” was not included in the 2022 survey.