Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Martin Fieder x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search


This study analyzes the age profile of scientific employees and its relation to personnel costs and scientific productivity within eight faculties at the University of Vienna. The age demography can overall be divided into two main categories: Category one faculties represent an increased number of younger aged researchers (Catholic-, Protestant Theology, Law, Economics, Information Sciences, and Medicine), category two faculties show an increased number of older aged researchers (Social Sciences, Humanities, and Science). In addition, it can be demonstrated that the personnel costs for full professors are higher within four faculties (Catholic-, Protestant Theology, Law, and Economics and Information Sciences). Inevitably, this leads to savings for habilitated and non- habilitated researchers at these faculties. The faculty of Medicine represents a well-balanced use of personnel costs. Three faculties (Social Sciences, Humanities, and Sciences) have to pay dramatically more for their older aged habilitated and non-habilitated personnel. For the entire university and two faculties, Medicine and Humanities, a positive and significant relationship between age and the average weekly teaching performance is shown. This study suggests that institutions with a high percentage of older researchers, mainly in the categories of habilitated and non- habilitated personnel, must change their policy to become more flexible and attractive for new talented young people. Due to the fact, that this cannot only be realized through the introduction of new laws, each faculty must establish a scientific plan combined with reorganizations of the personnel structure and personnel costs.

Restricted access
Fred Bookstein
Horst Seidler
Martin Fieder
, and
Georg Winckler


Several individual indicators from the Times Higher Education Survey (THES) data base—the overall score, the reported staff-to-student ratio, and the peer ratings—demonstrate unacceptably high fluctuation from year to year. The inappropriateness of the summary tabulations for assessing the majority of the “top 200” universities would be apparent purely for reason of this obvious statistical instability regardless of other grounds of criticism. There are far too many anomalies in the change scores of the various indices for them to be of use in the course of university management.

Open access