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

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 repu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Minerva (London) 2021-06, Vol.59 (2), p.217-236
Main Authors: Ohly, Sandra, Schneijderberg, Christian
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accreditation
Accreditation (Institutions)
Analysis
College Faculty
Education
Educational Quality
Employee motivation
Evaluators
Factor analysis
Foreign Countries
Higher Education
Higher education institutions
Leadership
Literature reviews
Motivation
Peer Evaluation
Peer review
Periodicals
Preferences
Professional practice
Program Evaluation
Quality Assurance
Quality control
Science and Technology Studies
Self Determination
Social Sciences
Socialization
Teacher Motivation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0026-4695
1573-1871
DOI:10.1007/s11024-020-09430-5