Abstract
Higher education policy reforms rarely seem to achieve their intended effects. The aim of our paper is to contribute to a comparative perspective of innovation research by providing a hypothetical explanation of this observation. We consider higher education policy reforms as social innovations and discuss two examples of such innovations, namely measures intended to facilitate an earlier independence of junior researchers and the introduction of performance-based funding in universities. We demonstrate that these innovations were designed as modular innovations, which neglected their embeddedness in complex systems of action and institutional structures. Since the limited success of both innovations can be explained by this neglect, it can be hypothesized that due to the low modularity of social innovations it is difficult to aniticipate conditions under which they can succeed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
§ 110 of the Berlin Higher Education Act, https://gesetze.berlin.de/bsbe/document/jlr-HSchulGBE2011pG11 (Accessed: 27.02.2023).
- 2.
One study compared early careers in molecular biology and the historical sciences in Germany, the Netherlands and Australia (Laudel 2017). A second study analysed the emergence of the first individual research programmes of junior German academics in plant biology, experimental physics and early modern history (Laudel and Bielick 2018). In total, 106 interviews were conducted with junior German academics in both projects.
- 3.
This study compared the opportunities for researchers to develop innovations in their field in four countries (including Germany). The study included the junior researcher phase. The subjects were experimental atomic and molecular optics, evolutionary developmental biology, educational research, and linguistics (see the contributions in Whitley and Gläser 2014).
- 4.
Employer Statement [05/16], Form 53.12, https://www.dfg.de/formulare/53_12_elan/ (Accessed: 27.02.2023).
- 5.
In the following, we only consider the performance-based allocation of research funding. A second innovation in higher education policy, the performance-based salary introduced in 2004 for newly appointed professors, has so far hardly been studied in terms of its structures and effects (Biester and Flink 2015; Ringelhan et al. 2015).
- 6.
Identifying effects of governance instruments is always a difficult undertaking, as the identification of changes in research and their causal attribution to governance instruments must overcome numerous methodological problems (Gläser and Laudel 2016). However, the absence of effects can be stated with some certainty.
References
Ash, M. G. (2010). Welcher (implizite) Universitätsbegriff steckt hinter der Exzellenzinitiative? Spitzenforschung, intensive Lehre, Qualitätskultur. In S. Leibfried (ed.), Die Exellenzintiative – Zwischenbilanz und Perspektiven (p. 261–267). Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.
Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415.
Bekkers, V. J. J. M., Tummers, L. G., & Voorberg, W. H. (2013). From public innovation to social innovation in the public sector: A literature review of relevant drivers and barriers. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Biester, C., & Flink, T. (2015). The Elusive Effectiveness of Performance Measurement in Science: Insights from a German University. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan & M. Osterloh (eds.), Incentives and Performance: Governance of Research Organizations (p. 397–412). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Böhmer, S. (2010). Der Preis der Freiheit: Die Bedeutung hoher Forschungsautonomie für Arbeitsalltag und Karriere von Nachwuchsgruppenleitern. Die Hochschule, 19(1), 64–76.
Böhmer, S., Hornbostel, S., & Meuser, M. (2008). Postdocs in Deutschland: Evaluation des Emmy Noether-Programms (iFQ-Working Paper, 3). Bonn: IFQ.
Capano, G. (2011). Government Continues to do its Job. A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector. Public Administration, 89(4), 1622–1642.
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2015). Funding Atlas 2015: Key Indicators for Publicly Funded Research in Germany. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/zahlen_fakten/foerderatlas/2015/dfg_fundingatlas_2015.pdf. Accessed: 27.02.2023.
Dohmen, D. (2015). Anreize und Steuerung in Hochschulen – Welche Rolle spielt die leistungsbezogene Mittelzuweisung? Wege zu einer höheren Wirksamkeit des Qualitätsmanagements (p. 92–120). Berlin: Stabsstelle Qualitätsmanagement der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/conferences/qm2013/all/PDF/qm2013.pdf. Accessed: 27.02.2023.
Enders, J. (2001). A chair system in transition: Appointments, promotions, and gate-keeping in German higher education. Higher Education, 41, 3–25.
Gemeinsame Wissenschaftskonferenz (GWK) (2016). Programm zur Förderung des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses. https://www.gwk-bonn.de/themen/foerderung-von-hochschulen/wissenschaftlicher-nachwuchs. Accessed: 27.02.2023.
Gläser, J. (2007). The social orders of research evaluation systems. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (eds.), The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems (p. 245–266). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gläser, J., Lange, S., Laudel, G., & Schimank, U. (2010). Informed Authority? The Limited Use of Research Evaluation Systems for Managerial Control in Universities. In R. Whitley, J. Glaser & L. Engwall (eds.), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation (p. 149–183). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing Science: How Science Policy Shapes Research Content. European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 57(01), 117–168.
Gläser, J., & von Stuckrad, T. (2013). Reaktionen auf Evaluationen: Die Anwendung neuer Steuerungsinstrumente und ihre Grenzen. In E. Grande, D. Jansen, O. Jarren, A. Rip, U. Schimank & P. Weingart (eds.), Neue Governance der Wissenschaft. Reorganisation – externe Anforderungen – Medialisierung (p. 29–46). Bielefeld: Transcript.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.
Hochschulvertrag (2018). Vertrag für die Jahre 2018 bis 2022 gemäß § 2a Berliner Hochschulgesetz zwischen dem Land Berlin, vertreten durch den Regierenden Bürgermeister von Berlin und der Technischen Universität Berlin, vertreten durch Herrn Prof. Dr. Christian Thomsen, Präsident der Technischen Universität Berlin. https://www.berlin.de/sen/wissenschaft/politik/hochschulvertraege/hochschulvertrag-2018-2022-03-tu-inkl-anlagen.pdf. Accessed: 27.02.2023.
Hutter, M., Knoblauch, H., Rammert, W., & Windeler, A. (2016). Innovation Society Today: The Reflexive Creation of Novelty. In W. Rammert, A. Windeler, H. Knoblauch & M. Hutter (eds.), Innovation Society Today: Perspectives, Fields, and Cases (p. 13–31). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Internationale Expertenkommission Exzellenzinitiative (IEKE) (2016). Endbericht. https://www.gwk-bonn.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Dokumente/Papers/Imboden-Bericht-2016.pdf. Accessed: 27.02.2023.
Jaeger, M. (2008). Wie wirksam sind leistungsorientierte Budgetierungsverfahren in deutschen Hochschulen? In S. Nickel & F. Ziegele (eds.), Bilanz und Perspektiven der leistungsorientierten Mittelverteilung. Analysen zur finanziellen Hochschulsteuerung (p. 36–50). Gütersloh: CHE Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung.
Knill, C. (2005). Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 764–774.
Kreckel, R. (2008). Zwischen Promotion und Professur. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt.
Krempkow, R., & Landrock, U. (2013). Wie effektiv ist die leistungsorientierte Mittelvergabe in der Hochschulmedizin? In E. Grande, D. Jansen, O. Jarren, A. Rip, U. Schimank & P. Weingart (eds.), Neue Governance der Wissenschaft: Reorganisation – externe Anforderungen – Medialisierung (p. 95–111). Bielefeld: transcript.
Lange, S. (2007). The Basic State of research in Germany: Conditions of knowledge production pre-evaluation. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (eds.), The Changing Gouvernance of the Sciences (p. 153–170). Dordrecht: Springer.
Laudel, G. (2017). How do national career systems promote or hinder the emergence of new research lines? Minerva 55(3), 341–369.
Laudel, G., & Bielick, J. (2018). The emergence of individual research programmes in the early career phase of academics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(6), 972–1010.
Marquardt, W. (2011). Neuere Entwicklungen der Hochschulfinanzierung in Deutschland. Berlin: Wissenschaftsrat.
Medizinische Fakultät der Universität Tübingen (o. J.). Merkblatt für die Vergabe des Promotionsrechts an Nachwuchsgruppenleiter nach §4 (2) c der Promotionsordnung von 2014. https://www.medizin.uni-tuebingen.de/uktmedia/Studierende/PDF_Archiv/Merkblatt+Antrag+Promotionsrecht.pdf. Accessed: 26.04.2017.
Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560–568.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145–162.
Rammert, W. (2010). Die Innovationen der Gesellschaft. In J. Howaldt & H. Jacobsen (Hrsg.), Soziale Innovation. Auf dem Weg zu einem postindustriellen Innovationsparadigma (p. 21–51). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Ringelhan, S., Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2015). Performance Management and Incentive Systems in Research Organizations: Effects, Limits and Opportunities. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan & M. Osterloh (eds.), Incentives and Performance: Governance of Research Organizations (p. 87–103). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Rogers, E. M. ([1962] 1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Scharpf, F. W. (1987). Grenzen der institutionellen Reform. In T. Ellwein, J. J. Hesse, R. Mayntz & F. W. Scharpf (eds.), Jahrbuch zur Staats- und Verwaltungswissenchaft (p. 111–151). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Schimank, U. (1995). Hochschulforschung im Schatten der Lehre. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.
Schubert, C. (2016). Social Innovations: A New Instrument for Social Change? In W. Rammert, A. Windeler, H. Knoblauch & M. Hutter (eds.), Innovation Society Today: Perspectives, Fields, and Cases (p. 371–391). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008). The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 840–857.
Teece, D. J. (1996). Firm organization, industrial structure and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31, 193–224.
TUM Mitteilungen (2007). Promotionsrecht für TUM Junior Fellows. TUM Mitteilungen, 3, p. 5. https://www.fundraising.tum.de/fileadmin/w00bhg/www/MAN_TUMcampus_3-2007.pdf. Accessed: 26.04.2017.
Voß, J.-P. (2007). Innovation processes in governance: The development of “emissions trading” as a new policy instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329–343.
Voß, J.-P., & Simons, A. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: the social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 735–754.
Westerheijden, D. F., de Boer, H., & Enders, J. (2009). Netherlands: An “Echternach” Procession in Different Directions: Oscillating Steps towards Reform. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie & E. Ferlie (eds.), University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives (p. 103–125). Dordrecht: Springer.
Whitley, R., & Gläser, J. (eds.). (2014). Organizational Transformation and Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Restructuring on Universities and Intellectual Innovation. Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Bingley: Emerald Group.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer for his constructive comments on an earlier version.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gläser, J., Laudel, G. (2023). The Undercomplexity of Higher Education Policy Innovations. In: Schubert, C., Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (eds) Berlin Keys to the Sociology of Technology. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41683-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41683-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-41682-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-41683-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)