Two new publications by members of the DFG Research Group
Buechele, S., Buenstorf, G., Fenkner, T., Hamann, J., Huegel, M., Koenig, J., & Serrano Velarde, K. (2026). One, two, many postdoctoral careers? Subjective and objective career perspectives in academia and beyond. Science and Public Policy, [Online First]. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scag089
Abstract:
Using a convergent mixed-methods design, this study examines how labor-market conditions and subjective career experiences shape postdoctoral trajectories in Germany. We integrate employment biographies for 5,927 PhD holders with 60 interviews conducted with postdocs in experimental particle physics and modern history to trace transitions within and beyond academia. Quantitative analyses reveal strong disciplinary disparities five years after the PhD: physicists more often secure full-time, better-paid, permanent jobs outside academia, while historians face fragmented, lower-paid, and insecure paths. Qualitative findings complement these patterns: physicists anticipate and prepare for non-academic transitions, whereas historians experience ongoing uncertainty, hidden unemployment, and limited orientation toward alternatives. Across fields, fixed-term contracts compress time horizons and foster a gradual, drawn-out exit process, although strong commitment to research often delays departure. We conceptualize transitions as continuous, discipline-sensitive processes that begin early in the postdoc phase and highlight the need for employer recognition and institutional reforms to reduce precarity.
Kosmützky, A. (2026). Multiple Competition and the Ethics of the Sciences: Toward an Interdisciplinary Dialogue. In J. Hinrichsen, K. Bizer, C. Hönnige, C. Misselhorn, T. A. C. Reydon, & S. Schicktanz (Eds.), Ethics of the Sciences (pp. 81–102). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-92-2821-8_4
Abstract:
Competition has long been understood as a key mechanism in the self-organization of science. While classical accounts emphasize reputation-driven competition within scientific communities, contemporary higher education and research systems are increasingly shaped by multiple and overlapping competitions—for publications, third-party funding, positions, impact, visibility, and institutional prestige. This chapter conceptualizes multiple competition as a structural condition of academic work and analyzes how it transforms the environments in which epistemic values are pursued, responsibilities are allocated, and evaluative standards are negotiated. On this basis, this chapter develops an interdisciplinary dialogue between the sociology of science and the ethics of the sciences. It shows how multiple competition creates normative tensions, diffuses responsibility across institutional layers, and generates forms of normative pluralism that challenge established ethical frameworks. Rather than treating ethics as an external oversight mechanism, this chapter argues for a reflexive and procedural ethics of the sciences that attends to the organizational and systemic conditions under which knowledge generation takes place. In bringing both perspectives together, this chapter demonstrates how analyses of multiple competition and ethical reflection can mutually enrich one another.