Date
2021-01-09Subject
150 Psychology 370 Education DeutschlandAkademikerAkademikerinBerufAkkreditierungBewertungPeer ReviewQualitätssicherungSelbstbestimmungMetadata
Show full item record
Aufsatz
German Professors’ Motivation to Act as Peer Reviewers in Accreditation and Evaluation Procedures
Abstract
Acting as a reviewer is considered a substantial part of the role-bundle of the academic profession (quality assurance (QA) and quality enhancement (QE) role). Research literature about peer review, for example, for journals and grants, shows that acting as a peer reviewer adds to an academic’s reputation. However, little is known about academics’ motivation to act as reviewers. Based on self-determination theory, the multidimensional work motivation scale (Gagné et al. 2015) is used for a survey of German professors acting as reviewers. The results of factor analysis show no intrinsic motivation to act as a reviewer in accreditation and evaluation procedures. Presumably, due to socialization effects, identified motivation among professors is higher compared to introjected motivation or to extrinsic motivation. A preference for HEI leadership/management predicts identified motivation to act as a reviewer, but a preference for teaching does not. Overall, the results suggest that professors acting as peer reviewers in accreditation and evaluation procedures accept the ambivalence of being self-determined in exercising the QA and QE professional role and of involuntarily being a management tool for higher education governance. The findings suggest that peer reviewing – also of research – is based on identified (and introjected) and not intrinsic motivation, for example, socialized acceptance of journal peer review as the best or most suitable mechanism of QA and QE.
Citation
In: Minerva Volume 59 / Issue 2 (2021-01-09) , S. 217-236 ; eissn:1573-1871Sponsorship
Gefördert im Rahmen des Projekts DEALCitation
@article{doi:10.17170/kobra-202105183912,
author={Ohly, Sandra and Schneijderberg, Christian},
title={German Professors’ Motivation to Act as Peer Reviewers in Accreditation and Evaluation Procedures},
journal={Minerva},
year={2021}
}
0500 Oax 0501 Text $btxt$2rdacontent 0502 Computermedien $bc$2rdacarrier 1100 2021$n2021 1500 1/eng 2050 ##0##http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/12844 3000 Ohly, Sandra 3010 Schneijderberg, Christian 4000 German Professors’ Motivation to Act as Peer Reviewers in Accreditation and Evaluation Procedures / Ohly, Sandra 4030 4060 Online-Ressource 4085 ##0##=u http://nbn-resolving.de/http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/12844=x R 4204 \$dAufsatz 4170 5550 {{Deutschland}} 5550 {{Akademiker}} 5550 {{Akademikerin}} 5550 {{Beruf}} 5550 {{Akkreditierung}} 5550 {{Bewertung}} 5550 {{Peer Review}} 5550 {{Qualitätssicherung}} 5550 {{Selbstbestimmung}} 7136 ##0##http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/12844
2021-05-25T08:04:30Z 2021-05-25T08:04:30Z 2021-01-09 doi:10.17170/kobra-202105183912 http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/12844 Gefördert im Rahmen des Projekts DEAL eng Namensnennung 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ academic profession accreditation and evaluation procedures Germany peer review quality assurance and enhancement self-determination 150 370 German Professors’ Motivation to Act as Peer Reviewers in Accreditation and Evaluation Procedures Aufsatz Acting as a reviewer is considered a substantial part of the role-bundle of the academic profession (quality assurance (QA) and quality enhancement (QE) role). Research literature about peer review, for example, for journals and grants, shows that acting as a peer reviewer adds to an academic’s reputation. However, little is known about academics’ motivation to act as reviewers. Based on self-determination theory, the multidimensional work motivation scale (Gagné et al. 2015) is used for a survey of German professors acting as reviewers. The results of factor analysis show no intrinsic motivation to act as a reviewer in accreditation and evaluation procedures. Presumably, due to socialization effects, identified motivation among professors is higher compared to introjected motivation or to extrinsic motivation. A preference for HEI leadership/management predicts identified motivation to act as a reviewer, but a preference for teaching does not. Overall, the results suggest that professors acting as peer reviewers in accreditation and evaluation procedures accept the ambivalence of being self-determined in exercising the QA and QE professional role and of involuntarily being a management tool for higher education governance. The findings suggest that peer reviewing – also of research – is based on identified (and introjected) and not intrinsic motivation, for example, socialized acceptance of journal peer review as the best or most suitable mechanism of QA and QE. open access Ohly, Sandra Schneijderberg, Christian doi:10.1007/s11024-020-09430-5 Deutschland Akademiker Akademikerin Beruf Akkreditierung Bewertung Peer Review Qualitätssicherung Selbstbestimmung publishedVersion eissn:1573-1871 Issue 2 Minerva 217-236 Volume 59 false
The following license files are associated with this item: