Conference Agenda

In May 2005, the European ministers responsible for higher education agreed on the cornerstones of doctoral studies in Europe, such as a minimum duration of three years, the definition of doctoral students as young scientists, ensuring adequate supervision and assessing and teaching generic skills and competencies for an extended job market. At the ministerial conference in London in May 2007, it was pointed out that the status, career prospects and financing of young scientists need to be strengthened, since these are the prerequisites for a strong research area. For these reasons, the importance of embedding doctoral programs in profile building and institutional strategy is emphasized (BMBWF & Austrian Rectors Conference, 2005; European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, 2005).

At many Austrian universities, doctoral programs were and are currently redesigned and structured according to these international recommendations and criteria. The reform efforts of Austrian universities in the field of doctorates are partly reflected in the forms offered, such as the introduction of doctoral colleges or doctoral schools. These structured doctoral studies, which need intensive supervision and appropriate funding, represent a challenging type of doctorate that is new to Austria (Universities Austria, 2007). Until the 1960s, the doctorate was the first academic degree or the only academic degree in Austria. It was not until the study reform of 1966 that a first gradation of academic degrees was introduced in the form of diploma studies. However, the implementation of this new study law took about two decades in the individual disciplines, and due to the generous transition periods, there were people who obtained their doctorate degree according to the "old study regulations", i.e. as a first degree, until recently. At the same time, the differentiation between diploma studies and doctorates was not a very marked gradation, neither “downwards” nor “upwards”. In terms of demands, content and teaching culture, the diploma course was in no way comparable to the undergraduate course in the Anglo-Saxon area.

Conversely, the conventional doctoral program was (or is) not research training in the narrower sense (which is explicitly designed as preparation for a research career). Until the end of the 1990s, the minimum duration for a doctorate in Austria was two years. Only with the Universities Act 2002 (UG 2002) was the possibility of longer doctoral programs granted (§ 54, paragraph 4): “The workload for doctoral studies must amount to at least 120 ECTS credit points. If the workload amounts to at least 240 ECTS credit points, (...) the academic degree PhD may be awarded." In 2006, the UG 2002 was amended, which reduced the minimum number of ECTS credit points for PhD programs to 180, with reference to the Bergen communique.

Against this background, an intensive discussion about a reform of doctoral studies in Austria takes place. One speaks of the "new doctorate" or of a switch to PhD studies. While there has been a wealth of experience with structured doctoral programs in Germany since the 1980s thanks to the DFG-funded graduate schools, the Austrian universities are largely breaking new ground.

In this context, we ask: If and how has the perception of doctoral candidates changed in accordance with the higher education reforms? Is there a difference between those who have earned their PhD between 2004 and 2016, between 2017 and 2021 and those who were still doing their PhD at the time of the survey collection in terms of their career prospects?

The research and discussion on mental health in academia is really alarming regarding mental health and well-being issues. Eurofund's (2019) study including 28 European countries revealed that workers’ emotional exhaustion and exposure to adverse demands constantly increased in the last 10 years. This situation has a direct impact on workers’ mental health and well-being. Kinman and Johnson (2019) particularly focused on the university academics in their study and their well-being as a result of the changes in the university sector over the last 20 years. There are a number of other studies focusing on the factors that have an impact on academics’ mental health and well-being which revealed teaching pressures, heavy administrative burden, and research pressures as factors affecting academics’ mental health (Barkhuizen, Rothmann, & Van de vijver, 2014; Coulthard & Keller, 2016; Guthrie et al., 2017; Urbina-Garcia, 2020).

Padilla and Thompson (2016) indicated that the teaching model at universities turned into a “business model”. Institutions and global organizations started to demand more skilled academics with more professional degrees and experience (Cohen, 2018). This huge demand for “trained” academics puts pressure on academics and students (Duderstadt, 2009; Rae, 2010). Studies asserted that these demands and pressures have a vital impact on academics’ mental health and well-being (Kinman & Johnson, 2019; Watts & Robertson, 2011). An increasing body of research demonstrates that academics are prone to developing mental health problems (Guthrie et al., 2017; Padilla & Thompson, 2016; Shin & Jung, 2014).

The demands and huge pressures along with the job characteristics and working conditions cause burnout syndrome among academics (Schaufeli, 2013; Watts & Robertson, 2011). Burnout syndrome decreases job satisfaction and increases mental health problems (Hurtado, Alvarez, Guillermo-Wan, Cuellar & Arellano, 2012; Winefield, Boyd, Saebel & Pignata, 2008). Recruiting international students who are a massive income for universities (Cantwell, 2015), and publishing research with “higher standards” (Kinman & Wray, 2014) paves the way for high levels of stress, depression, anxiety, and other mental health problems among academics (Bell, Rajendran, & Theiler, 2012; Fernández-Armesto, 2009; Mark & Smith, 2012; Peake, 2016; Shepherd & Edelman, 2009).

The World Health Organisation (WHO) uses well-being to define mental health as “a state of well-being in which an individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her community” (WHO, 2018). Thus, coping mechanisms and the individuals’ environment have a strong impact on their well-being. The environment gains enormous importance for academics. While a high level of satisfaction leads to success at universities (Khalid, Irshad, & Mahmood, 2012; Rothman, Kelly-Woessner, & Woessner, 2010), job dissatisfaction and high level of stress leads to burnout and negatively impact academics’ physical and mental health (Barkhuizen et al., 2014; Guthrie et al., 2017; Nicholson, Fuhrer, & Marmot, 2005; Padilla & Thompson, 2016; Richards et al., 2017).

There is increasing research on the scope of academics’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and subjective well-being in Turkey (Doğan & Eryılmaz, 2012; Garip, 2019; Koç, 2017; Özdemir, 2001). These studies revealed the relationship between organizational commitment, work-related-need satisfaction, and the well-being of academics. However, the literature on academics’ views on mental health and well-being is limited. Therefore, this research aims to explore the academics’ views on mental health and well-being in academia. In order to meet this aim, semi-structured interviews will be conducted with academics.