Zur Kurzanzeige

German Professors’ Motivation to Act as Peer Reviewers in Accreditation and Evaluation Procedures

dc.date.accessioned2021-05-25T08:04:30Z
dc.date.available2021-05-25T08:04:30Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-09
dc.identifierdoi:10.17170/kobra-202105183912
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/12844
dc.description.sponsorshipGefördert im Rahmen des Projekts DEALger
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.rightsNamensnennung 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectacademic professioneng
dc.subjectaccreditation and evaluation procedureseng
dc.subjectGermanyeng
dc.subjectpeer revieweng
dc.subjectquality assurance and enhancementeng
dc.subjectself-determinationeng
dc.subject.ddc150
dc.subject.ddc370
dc.titleGerman Professors’ Motivation to Act as Peer Reviewers in Accreditation and Evaluation Procedureseng
dc.typeAufsatz
dcterms.abstractActing 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.eng
dcterms.accessRightsopen access
dcterms.creatorOhly, Sandra
dcterms.creatorSchneijderberg, Christian
dc.relation.doidoi:10.1007/s11024-020-09430-5
dc.subject.swdDeutschlandger
dc.subject.swdAkademikerger
dc.subject.swdAkademikeringer
dc.subject.swdBerufger
dc.subject.swdAkkreditierungger
dc.subject.swdBewertungger
dc.subject.swdPeer Reviewger
dc.subject.swdQualitätssicherungger
dc.subject.swdSelbstbestimmungger
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
dcterms.source.identifiereissn:1573-1871
dcterms.source.issueIssue 2
dcterms.source.journalMinervaeng
dcterms.source.pageinfo217-236
dcterms.source.volumeVolume 59
kup.iskupfalse


Dateien zu dieser Ressource

Thumbnail
Name:
license_rdf
Größe:
908Bytes
Format:
application/rdf+xml
Öffnen
Thumbnail
Name:
Ohly_Schneijderberg2021_Articl ...
Größe:
545.1Kb
Format:
PDF
Öffnen

Das Dokument erscheint in:

Zur Kurzanzeige

Namensnennung 4.0 International
Solange nicht anders angezeigt, wird die Lizenz wie folgt beschrieben: Namensnennung 4.0 International