Abstract
This chapter focuses on the production of academic elite pathways through graduate schools in Germany. Vertical differentiations and graduate schools are new phenomena in German higher education. Based on longitudinal data on doctoral programs at German universities, the emergence of a new field of doctoral education is reconstructed. The chapter explores whether this development is the outcome of isomorphic change and how it is connected to new vertical differentiations. It then analyzes how rank differences between graduate schools are established by focusing on the connections between institutional prestige and academic elite career pathways. Drawing on organizational case studies of two graduate schools funded by the Excellence Initiative, it is investigated how these schools relate to their graduates in order to construct academic elite career pathways.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The case studies were undertaken in 2012 and 2013 as part of the research project “Elite Formation and Universities” within the DFG research group “Mechanisms of Elite Formation in the German Educational System” (FOR 1612). They involved 25 interviews with professors, staff, and doctoral researchers as well as the observation of specific organizational arrangements such as extracurricular events, meetings of the selection committees, graduation ceremonies, and workshops.
- 3.
Because there is no central database for doctoral researchers, their exact number in German higher education is unknown. The Federal Statistical Office (2016a) estimates that there are altogether 196,200 doctoral researchers, of which 64 percent (124,900) are employed by universities (ibid., p. 39), usually as research associates. Although some of them may also be matriculated in doctoral programs, altogether only 23 percent of all doctoral researchers participate in such programs (ibid., p. 33), among them scholarship holders. In some disciplines there is also a high proportion of ‘external’ doctoral researchers who either work in extra-mural research institutes or outside academia (ibid., 35f.).
- 4.
Universities of applied sciences and private universities are excluded from the Excellence Initiative.
- 5.
Based on a survey of all doctoral programs in 2014 at the 88 public research universities that are eligible to participate in the Excellence Initiative. The survey included the founding year of each doctoral program; however, those programs that had ceased to exist in the meantime could not be accounted for.
- 6.
Of the ten universities that had at the time of writing not introduced a doctoral program, five are monodisciplinary universities for teacher education or public administration.
- 7.
Within the framework of the Excellence Initiative universities need at least one graduate school (and research cluster) to be eligible for the most prestigious of its funding lines, “institutional strategies,” which assigns excellence status to the whole university (ExV 2005).
- 8.
For instance, the latest federal competitive funding scheme, the Pact for Junior Researchers (Pakt für den wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs), requires the universities to have a personnel development concept in place for acquiring additional professorships. Graduate schools are one cornerstone of such concepts. In a similar fashion, research clusters funded by the Excellence Initiative and Collaborative Research Centers (Sonderforschungsbereiche) funded by the German Research Foundation have set up their own doctoral programs.
- 9.
Apart from the RTGs funded by the German Research Foundation, which had already been in place prior to the Bologna Process but were inherently temporary.
- 10.
Number of draft proposals (Antragsskizzen) for the first phase in 2005/06. Universities submitted another 98 draft proposals in 2011 for the second phase (German Research Foundation and German Council of Science and Humanities 2015, p. 13).
- 11.
Some rejected proposals for graduate schools have received intermediate funding from excellence programs at Land level to enable them to prepare a successful application for the next round of the federal Excellence Initiative. Such funding is, however, very limited in scope. Apart from one explorative study on rejected research clusters (Simon et al. 2010), there is no research on the ‘losers’ in the Excellence Initiative.
- 12.
These are mainly positions for research associates. In 2015, German universities employed 166,692 of the same, while the universities of applied sciences only 11,755, most of them third-party funded (Federal Statistical Office 2016b).
- 13.
The Länder are responsible for higher education legislation.
- 14.
“Governments generally do not like the tendency of modest or new institutions to emulate the styles and pretensions of the old elite ones. What they want is more diversity in the national higher education system, more vocationally relevant studies, new and more efficient modes of instruction, new and more democratic governance arrangements, new channels of access. The last thing they want is a bigger and bigger university system, with all the new colleges and technical schools aping the universities, taking on more arts programs, and demanding the rights and privileges of the universities, their research and graduate work along with their autonomy and self-governance” (Trow 1984, p. 143f.). In the end, it is the state that originally set up the binary structure and has maintained it up to the present day.
- 15.
As devices like the Excellence Initiative focus on research, teaching-oriented institutions may regard them as “irrelevant to the activities in which the institution is engaged” (Bleiklie 2011, p. 31) and will thus refrain from such aspirations.
- 16.
Both the Excellence Initiative and the funding ranking by the German Research Foundation reflect a tripartition of the German university sector, with 10 to 15 universities with an excellent in record in all research areas at the top, followed by another 30 to 40 universities that are excellent in some areas and have been partially successful in the Excellence Initiative (by gaining a graduate school and/or a research cluster). The remaining 70 universities are not competitive within the Excellence Initiative and are also at the bottom of the DFG funding ranking (Kreckel 2015, p. 407; cf. Hornbostel and Möller 2015, p. 52).
- 17.
Based on the survey of all doctoral programs (N=516), four different types can be distinguished: (1) interdisciplinary programs in which disciplines from at least two different subject groups (e.g. humanities and natural sciences) participate (19 percent, N=97); (2) disciplinary programs that are confined to one discipline, often named in the title of the program (e.g. “graduate school of social sciences,” 37 percent, N=193); topic-centered programs that are related to a specific research topic in the tradition of the DFG RTGs (25 percent, N=131); service-oriented programs that structure the PhD only formally (19 percent, N=95).
- 18.
There are, however, several research rankings in specific disciplines such as economics that are connected to these programs (cf. Maesse 2015).
- 19.
Up to 2013, 2499 PhDs had been completed within the framework of the Excellence Initiative, 1897 of them in graduate schools (German Research Foundation and German Council of Science and Humanities 2015, pp. 31, 189). Overall, 27,707 PhDs were granted in Germany in 2013 (Federal Statistical Office 2016c).
- 20.
See Nespor in this volume for visibility strategies of elite business schools in the United States.
- 21.
I thank Norman Tannhäuser for his help in gathering the data.
- 22.
Thirty-three out of currently 45 graduate schools of the Excellence Initiative have been funded since the first phase (2006/07) and have been in place long enough to produce graduates.
- 23.
The Erlangen Graduate School in Advanced Optical Technologies does refer to placements, yet it includes under the heading “awards” a list of all faculty positions offered to their principal investigators and their graduates and whether they were accepted or declined (http://www.aot.uni-erlangen.de/saot/awards/offer-faculty-positions-at-universities.html [Accessed 8 May 2017]).
- 24.
This explicit reference to career trajectories may be due to the specific academic culture in economics. According to Maesse (2015, and in this volume), doctoral programs in economics are unequivocally committed to the future career success of their graduates. This is supported by our findings on other doctoral programs that include information about the positions of their graduates. Five of these 16 programs include only cursory information. Of the other 11 programs, seven belong to economics, where this information is commonly expected.
- 25.
All names are anonymized. High Tech belongs to the natural sciences and Scheelheim to the humanities.
- 26.
Karlsruhe School of Optics and Photonics (https://ksop.idschools.kit.edu/mission_and_philosophy.php [Accessed 8 May 2017]).
- 27.
Based on a survey of German professors, Zuber and Hüther (2013) show that interdisciplinarity is related to prolonging the period between PhD completion and obtaining a professorship.
- 28.
Ironically, it is precisely such a presumed overproduction of PhDs which has led the international commission for the evaluation of the Excellence Initiative to recommend the exclusion of graduate schools from future rounds of the competition (cf. IEKE 2016, p. 28).
- 29.
A transparent performance-based career system like the tenure track is only just beginning to emerge, for instance at Technical University Munich (TUM). There, the tenure track clearly serves aspirations to win talent and secure the institution’s position as an elite university: “TUM offers promising young scientists from around the world attractive career perspectives with its new career model: TUM Faculty Tenure Track. Highly qualified candidates are appointed as assistant professors (W2) with prospects for performance-based advancement to a permanent professorship (associate professor, W3). With further research achievements at the highest international level, this path can lead to promotion to a chair position (full professor, W3).” (http://www.tum.de/en/about-tum/working-at-tum/faculty-recruiting/tum-faculty-tenure-track/ [Accessed 8 May 2017]). The recent Pact for Junior Researchers (Pakt für den wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs) is an attempt to establish tenure track professorships as an alternative career path across the system.
- 30.
Graduate schools may be used strategically to establish a specific school of thought or a new research field, and they may take the career success of its PhDs not as an end in itself but as a means for achieving this specific purpose (cf. Bloch and Mitterle 2017).
- 31.
Graduate School for Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (GSaME) (http://www.gsame.uni-stuttgart.de/EN/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed 8 May 2017]).
- 32.
Gumport (2000) shows that US elite graduate schools socialize their doctoral researchers to aspire to top positions (cf. Maesse 2015 for similar effects of German doctoral programs in economics). In line with this, Morrison et al. (2011) found that graduates from elite programs value the prestige of faculty appointments more highly than those from non-elite programs, who value salary more highly. Consequentially, the former are more likely to choose their academic positions with respect to prestige.
References
Athey, S., Katz, L.F., Krueger, A.B., Levitt S., and Poterba, J. (2007). What Does Performance in Graduate School Predict? Graduate Economics Education and Student Outcomes. American Economic Review, 97(2), pp. 512–520.
Baldi, S. (1994). Changes in the Stratification Structure of Sociology, 1964–1992. The American Sociologist, 25(4), pp. 28–43.
Bleiklie, I. (2011). Excellence, Quality and the Diversity of Higher Education Systems. In: M. Rostan and M. Vaira, eds., Questioning Excellence in Higher Education, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 21–35.
Bloch, R. (2015). Promotion und Exzellenz. Stratifikation durch Auswahl im Feld der Doktorandenausbildung. In: S. Lessenich, ed., Routinen der Krise – Krise der Routinen. Verhandlungen des 37. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Trier2014. [pdf]. Available at: http://publikationen.soziologie.de/index.php/kongressband/article/view/144/pdf_141 [Accessed 15 Dec. 2016].
Bloch, R., Kreckel, R., Mitterle, A. and Stock, M. (2014). Stratifikationen im Bereich der Hochschulbildung in Deutschland.Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17, Special Issue 19, pp. 243–261.
Bloch, R., Kreckel, R., Mitterle, A. and Stock, M (forthcoming). Stratification through Internationality in the Field of German Higher Education. In: C. Maxwell, U. Deppe, W. Helsper, and H.-H. Krüger, eds., Elite Education and Internationalization, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bloch, R. and Mitterle, A. (2017). On Stratification in Changing Higher Education: The ‘Analysis of Status’ Revisited. Higher Education, 76(3), pp. 929–946.
Bloch, R. and Würmann, C. (2012). Außer Konkurrenz? Lehre und Karriere. die hochschule, 12(2), pp. 199–219.
Bloch, R. and Würmann, C. (2013). Alles oder nichts? Zur Reproduktion von Ungleichheit in der Personalstruktur des deutschen Wissenschaftssystems. In: F. Gützkow and G. Quaisser, eds., Jahrbuch Hochschule gestalten, Bielefeld: Universitätsverlag Webler, pp. 65–73.
Bloch, R. and Würmann, C. (2014). Königswege, Sackgassen, Überholspuren. Übergänge in der Wissenschaft. In: U. Banscherus et al., eds., Übergänge im Spannungsfeld von Expansion und Exklusion. Eine Analyse der Schnittstellen im deutschen Hochschulsystem, Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag, pp. 137–154.
Brunsson, N. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing Organizations: The Example of Public Sector Reform. Organization Studies, 21(4), pp. 721–746.
Burris, V. (2004). The Academic Caste System: Prestige Hierarchies in PhD Exchange Networks. American Sociological Review, 69(2), pp. 239–264.
Deppe, U., Helsper, W., Kreckel, R., Krüger, H.-H. and Stock, M. (2015). Germany’s Hesitant Approach to Elite Education. In: A. van Zanten, S. J. Ball and B. Darchy-Koechlin, eds., World Yearbook of Education 2015. Elites, Privilege and Exzellence: The National and Global Definition of Educational Advantage. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 82–95.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147–160.
Enders, J. (1994). ‘Akademische Profession’ und Nachwuchsförderung. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 16(2), pp. 227–241.
Enders, J. (1996). Die wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter. Ausbildung, Beschäftigung und Karriere der Nachwuchswissenschaftler und Mittelbauangehörigen an den Universitäten. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus Verlag
Engler, S. (2001): “In Einsamkeit und Freiheit?”. Zur Konstruktion der wissenschaftlichen Persönlichkeit auf dem Weg zur Professur. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.
Exzellenzvereinbarung (ExV) (2005). Bund-Länder-Vereinbarung gemäß Artikel 91 b des Grundgesetzes (Forschungsförderung) uber die Exzellenzinitiative des Bundes und der Länder zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Forschung an deutschen Hochschulen. Exzellenzvereinbarung (ExV) vom 18. July 2005. [pdf]. Available at: http://www.gwk-bonn.de/fileadmin/Papers/exzellenzvereinbarung.pdf [Accessed 15 Dec. 2016].
Federal Statistical Office [Statistisches Bundesamt] (2016a). Promovierende in Deutschland. Wintersemester 2014/15. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Federal Statistical Office [Statistisches Bundesamt] (2016b). Personal an Hochschulen 2015. Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.4. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Federal Statistical Office [Statistisches Bundesamt] (2016c). Prüfungen an Hochschulen 2015. Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.2. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
German Council of Science and Humanities (2011). Anforderungen an die Qualitätssicherung der Promotion. Cologne: German Council of Science and Humanities.
German Rectors‘Conference (2012). Zur Qualitätssicherung in Promotionsverfahren. Empfehlung des Präsidiums der HRK an die promotionsberechtigten Hochschulen. [pdf] Bonn: Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. Available at: https://www.hrk.de/uploads/tx_szconvention/Empfehlung_Qualitaetssicherung_Promotion_23042012.pdf [Acessed 15 Dec. 2016].
German Research Foundation (2000). Strukturelle Auswirkungen des Programms zur Förderung von Graduiertenkollegs. [pdf]. Bonn: German Research Foundation, Available at: http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/programme/grk/strukturbericht2000.pdf [Accessed 15 Dec. 2016].
German Research Foundation and German Council of Science and Humanities (2010). Merkblatt Graduiertenschulen. DFG/WR-Vordruck ExIn201-3/10. Bonn: German Research Foundation.
German Research Foundation and German Council of Science and Humanities (2015). Bericht der Gemeinsamen Kommission zur Exzellenzinitiative an die Gemeinsame Wissenschaftskonferenz. [pdf]. Available at: https://www.bmbf.de/files/1_Bericht_an_die_GWK_2015.pdf [Accessed 15 Dec. 2016].
Graf, A. (2015). Die Wissenschaftselite Deutschlands. Sozialprofil und Werdegänge zwischen 1945 und 2013. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R. and Suddaby, R. (2002). Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), pp. 58–80.
Gumport, P.J. (2000). Learning Academic Labor. In R. Kalleberg, F. Engelstad, G. Brochmann, A. Leira and L. Mjøset, eds., Comparative Perspectives on Universities (Comparative Social Research, Vol. 19), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 1–23.
Hornbostel, S. (2009). Promotion im Umbruch ‒ Bologna ante Portas, In: M. Held, G. Kubon-Gilke, and G.R. Sturn, eds., Jahrbuch Normative und institutionelle Grundfragen der Ökonomik. Band 8, Bildungsökonomie in der Wissensgesellschaft, Marburg: Metropolis, pp. 209–234.
Hornbostel, S. and Möller, T. (2015). Die Exzellenzinitiative und das deutsche Wissenschaftssystem. Eine bibliometrische Wirkungsanalyse. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hurlbert, J. S. and Rosenfeld, R. A. (1992). Getting a Good Job. Rank and Institutional Prestige in Academic Psychologists’ Careers. Sociology of Education, 65(3), p. 188–207.
Hüther, O. and Krücken, G. (2012). Hierarchie ohne Macht? Karriere- und Beschäftigungsbedingungen als ‚vergessene’ Grenzen der organisatorischen Umgestaltung der deutschen Universitäten. In: U. Wilkesmann and C. J. Schmid, eds., Hochschule als Organisation, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 27–39.
International Commission for the Evaluation of the Excellence Initiative (IEKE) (2016). Endbericht [pdf]. Available at: http://www.gwk-bonn.de/fileadmin/Papers/Imboden-Bericht-2016.pdf [Accessed 15 Dec. 2016].
Jungbauer-Gans, M. and Gross, C. (2013). Determinants of Success in University Careers: Findings from the German Academic Labor Market. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 42(1), pp. 74–92.
Kreckel, R. (2010). Zwischen Spitzenforschung und Breitenausbildung. Strukturelle Differenzierungen an deutschen Hochschulen im internationalen Vergleich. In: H.-H. Krüger, U. Rabe-Kleberg, R. T. Kramer, and J. Budde, eds., Bildungsungleichheit revisited. Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit vom Kindergarten bis zur Hochschule, Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 235–256.
Kreckel, R. (2015). Struktur der Studierendenauswahl im expandierenden Hochschulsystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: W. Helsper and H.-H. Krüger, eds., Auswahl der Bildungsklientel: Zur Herstellung von Selektivität in “exklusiven” Bildungsinstitutionen, Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 405–419.
Kreckel, R. (2016). Zur Lage des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses an Universitäten: Deutschland im Vergleich mit Frankreich, England, den USA und Österreich. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 38(1-2), pp. 12–40.
Krücken, G. and Meier, F. (2006). Turning the University into an Organizational Actor. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer and H. Hwang, eds., Globalization and Organization. World society and Organizational Change, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–257
Lang, F.R. and Neyer, F.J. (2004). Kooperationsnetzwerke und Karrieren an deutschen Hochschulen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 56(3), pp. 520–538.
Lenger, A. (2008). Die Promotion. Ein Reproduktionsmechanismus sozialer Ungleichheit. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.
Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional Rationality and Practice Variation: New Directions in the Institutional Analysis of Practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4-5), pp. 349–361.
Maesse, J. (2015). Eliteökonomen. Wissenschaft im Wandel der Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Mertens, A. and Röbken, H. (2013). Does a Doctoral Degree Pay Off? An Empirical Analysis of Rates of Return of German Doctorate Holders. Higher Education, 66(2), pp. 217–231.
Möller, C. (2015). Herkunft zählt (fast) immer. Soziale Ungleichheiten unter Universitätsprofessorinnen und -professoren. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
Morrisson, E., Rudd, E., Picciano, J. and Nerad, M. (2011). Are You Satisfied? PhD Education and Faculty Taste for Prestige: Limits of the Prestige Value System. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), pp. 24-46.
Musselin, C. (2003) Internal Versus External Labour Markets. Higher Education Management and Policy, 15(3), pp. 9–23.
Neave, G. (1979). Academic Drift: Some Views from Europe. Studies in Higher Education, (4)2, pp. 143–159.
Oevermann, U. (2005). Wissenschaft als Beruf. Die Professionalisierung wissenschaftlichen Handelns und die gegenwärtige Universitätsentwicklung, die hochschule, 13(1), pp. 15–51.
Ramirez, F. O. (2010). Accounting for Excellence: Transforming Universities into Organizational Actors. In: L.M. Portnoi, V.D. Rust and S.S. Bagley, eds., Higher Education, Policy, and the Global Competition Phenomenon, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 43–58.
Röbken, H. (2007). Departmental Networks — An Empirical Analysis of Career Patterns among Junior Faculty in Germany. Higher Education, 54(1), pp. 99–113.
Röbken, H. (2009). Karrierepfade von Nachwuchswissenschaftlern in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 55(3), pp. 430–451.
Röbken, H. (2010). Similarity Attracts: An Analysis of Recruitment Decisions in Academia. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(4), pp. 472–486.
Röbken, H. and Grötzinger, G. (2012). Wissenschaftliche Karrieren im Maschinenbau. Eine netzwerktheoretische Analyse zum Reputationswettbewerb. die hochschule, 20(2), pp. 260–272.
Rostan, M. and Vaira, M. (2011). Structuring the Field of Excellence. A Comparative View on Policies, Actors, Interests and Conflicts in Four European Countries. In: M. Rostan and M. Vaira, eds., Questioning Excellence in Higher Education: Policies, Experiences and Challenges in National and Comparative Perspective, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 57–74.
Schimank, U. and Lange, S. (2009). Germany: A Latecomer to New Public Management. In: C. Paradeise, ed., University Governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 51–75.
Simon, D., Schulz, P. and Sondermann, M. (2010). Abgelehnte Exzellenz. Die Folgen und die Strategien der Akteure. In: S. Leibfried, ed., Die Exzellenzinitiative, Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus-Verlag, pp. 161–197.
Smith-Doerr, L. (2006). Stuck in the Middle: Doctoral Education Ranking and Career Outcomes for Life Scientists. Bulletin of Science, Technology &Society, 26(3), pp. 243–255.
Stevens, M. L., Armstrong, E. A. and Arum, R. (2008). Sieve, Incubator, Temple, Hub. Empirical and Theoretical Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, pp. 127–151.
Strang, D. and Meyer, J. W. (1994). Institutional Conditions for Diffusion. In: W. R. Scott and J. W. Meyer, eds., Institutional Environments and Organizations. Structural Complexity and Individualism, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 100–112.
Teichler, U. (2008). Diversification? Trends and Explanations of the Shape and Size of Higher Education. Higher Education, 56(3), pp. 349–379.
Teichler, U. (2009). Between Over-Diversification and Over-Homogenization: Five Decades of Search for a Creative Fabric of Higher Education. In: Kehm, B. and Stensaker, B., eds., University Rankings, Diversity, and the New Landscape of Higher Education, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 155–181.
Thoenig, J.-C. and Paradeise, C. (2014). Organizational Governance and the Production of Academic Quality: Lessons from Two Top U.S. Research Universities. Minerva, 52(4), pp. 381–417
Trow, M. (1984). The Analysis of Status. In: B.R. Clark, ed., Perspectives on Higher Education. Eight Disciplinary and Comparative views, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 132–164.
Witte, J., van der Wende, M. and Huisman, J. (2008). Blurring Boundaries: How the Bologna Process Changes the Relationship Between University and Non-university Higher Education in Germany, the Netherlands and France. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), pp. 217–231.
Zuber, S. and Hüther, O. (2013). Interdisziplinarität in der Exzellenzinitiative – auch eine Frage des Geschlechts?Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 35(4), pp. 54–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bloch, R. (2018). Stratification Without Producing Elites? The Emergence of a New Field of Doctoral Education in Germany. In: Bloch, R., Mitterle, A., Paradeise, C., Peter, T. (eds) Universities and the Production of Elites. Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53970-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53970-6_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53969-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53970-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)