Problems and motivations

For the fundamental new version of the doctoral regulations of the mathematical and natural science faculty of the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, an internet-mediated cooperative standard setting at a university was realized for the first time in July 2013. The doctoral regulations regulate the basis of a doctoral procedure to achieve the academic degree of a doctor. As part of the revision of the old doctoral regulations, the focus was on optimizing actual doctoral services and improving the supervision of doctoral students. In this case, cooperative standard setting describes the participation of all those involved in the faculty in the process of formulating and selecting the standards that apply to them. For legal reasons, the decision on whether to accept or reject the new regulations was made solely by the Faculty Council, because a given voting behavior would have contradicted the free mandate.

History and originating bodies

The new version of the doctoral regulations within the framework of an internet-mediated cooperative standard setting procedure and in particular its binding character illustrates a significant reorientation in a formerly strictly formal process. The Higher Education Act of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia regulates the autonomy of the universities in the design of their doctoral regulations. The decision on measures to correct these lies with the relevant faculty council of the university concerned. The Faculty Council is composed of various representatives of individual interest groups, such as student representatives and academic and non-academic staff, of the faculty. However, the majority in this instance are held by professors. In the course of the new regulation, an open faculty council meeting limited to three months was held. Now all those affected were given the right to have a say and participate in the norms that are binding on them.

The need for a redesign was based on the recommendation of the Science Council, the University Rectors' Conference, and a joint position paper by the General Faculty Day and the German University Association. The background to this was the increasing public criticism of the doctoral procedure of the universities, especially in dealing with scientific misconduct. The project was carried out and accompanied by the interdisciplinary research group "Internet-mediated cooperative standard setting" of the Heinrich Heine University.

Participant selection

As already described, an elected faculty council previously regulated the passing of doctoral regulations. As a result of the internet-mediated cooperative process, this process opened for 1346 members of the faculty. This included all professors, all current doctoral students, all research assistants, the elected student representatives and the persons affected in the administration.

Due to the immediate relevance of the topic, a basic interest and knowledge about formalities and requirements of a doctoral regulations could be assumed for the target group.

The invitation to participate was sent via email. Half of the potential participants received a personal message, the other half a standardized impersonal message. In the later evaluation it turned out that the target group, which received a personally formulated notification, participated more percentage in the later procedure. Since it was legally an open faculty council, registration with the real first and last name had to be made, as is usual there. Advantages and disadvantages of this non-anonymous form of participation will be worked out in the further course. In order to counteract possible barriers to participation, for example, a mandatory password registration was dispensed with. Before the start of the project, each affected person also received another email to remind them of the upcoming start of the project. Of the 1,346 potential participants, about 30 percent of the target group did not respond in any way.

Considerations, decisions, and dealing with the public

In addition to avoiding obstacles when activating participants, the course of the cooperative norm design also facilitated participation through various procedural stages. The entire process of the online faculty council meeting spanned a period of three months. In three of the five phases (phases 1, 2, 4), the participants had the opportunity to participate online. Principles could be proposed, individual suggestions in the form of comments approved or rejected, or evaluated positively or negatively. Finally, a generally accepted opinion should be achieved through a lively discourse. The five cooperative phases were as follows:

1. Discussion of the principles (online, from July 2, 2013 to July 23, 2013): The beginning of the process provided for a discussion of the principles of the new doctoral regulations. The participants were able to propose their own, well-founded principles. At this point, no further knowledge of the doctoral regulations was required. Subsequently, suggestions could be commented on, approved or rejected, as could the individual comments. An opinion in the course of this online discourse emerged within the process of three months.

2. Summary of the principles (online, from July 31 to August 14, 2013): The aggregation of the suggestions, comments and the approval and rejection was taken into account in the second phase, when the principles were combined into a package. The dean and the vice dean summarized the matter; the decision to announce or reject the principles is subject to an obligation to state reasons. The participants had the opportunity to comment on the summary of the dean's office and to make suggestions for changes.

3. Elaboration of the new doctoral regulations (offline, from August 14, 2013 to September 9, 2013): The approved summary has now been implemented offline by the dean's office in the draft of a new doctoral regulations.

4. Discussion of the draft (online, from September 9th to September 30th, 2013): This preliminary draft was presented to the participants and there was the possibility to note inconsistencies or errors or to suggest corrections.

5. Adoption of the new doctoral regulations (offline, first faculty council meeting in the winter semester): In a regular meeting of the faculty council, the acceptance or rejection of the new doctoral regulations was voted on. If rejected, the faculty council should determine how to proceed.

In the meantime, e-mail reminders informed the participants about the beginning and end of a new phase. The highest level of attention can be seen in the first phase: 4878 of a total of 5148 votes in favor or against, as well as 436 of a total of 542 comments, are devoted to the design of the principles. The majority of doctoral candidates, as well as professors. Approximately 40 percent of all potential participants acted passively; they only followed the process without voting or commenting.

Influence, results and effects

After the end of the fourth phase, on September 30, 2013, the Faculty Council adopted the new doctoral regulations at its regular meeting on November 5, 2013. After a legal examination, it came into force on January 9, 2014. The participation of members of the mathematical and natural science faculty made it possible for the first time to implement binding standards through an internet-mediated cooperative discourse at a university. As explained at the beginning, the regulation on the withdrawal of the doctoral degree was taken into account in the new doctoral regulations. The principle proposed by the Vice Dean in the first phase received full approval (a total of 70 approvals with no dissenting votes) and could therefore be written down in the doctoral regulations. A controversial (95 for and 114 against) principle, such as the abolition of the doctoral grade, was rejected in the second phase. This was done by weighing up the aggregated pros and cons arguments by the Dean's Office. This decision could then be critically commented on, but ultimately was not considered in the final wording. Ultimately, these are just two short examples from a large number of proposals for formulating the redesign of the doctoral regulations. In a final analysis, the quality of the debate and the satisfaction of the participants should be discussed.

Analysis and crit

The results of the evaluation by the research group (see secondary source below) focused in particular on the quality and legitimacy of the results of an internet-mediated cooperative standard setting process, and particularly shows the opportunities and risks of online participation.

Due to the direct relevance of the doctoral regulations, the target group of professors and doctoral students predominantly participated. While the majority of professors commented on the individual proposals (22 percent, N = 790), 28 percent (N = 189) of all the doctoral students concerned in the faculty preferred voting.

The quality of the process of interaction, which solidifies the analysis of 435 comments, was very well received: The evaluation confirmed a respectful and argumentative discourse. For example, comments did not have to be deleted by the moderator during the course of the project and mostly remained in relation to the topic or a previous comment. Furthermore, two thirds of the comments included at least one valid argument. A decisive influence on this can be attributed to the non-anonymous form of interaction. A third of the participants surveyed continue to prefer the use of real names, while the majority (54 percent) of the participants would like to have the choice between participation by real name or anonymously. The quality of the process was also reflected in the satisfaction of the active participants. 84 percent of the active participants were satisfied with the standard setting process. The passive group was much more reserved with an approval of 59 percent. Only about 10 percent of the faculty members affected expressed dissatisfaction.

The same is stated by the question of the quality of the result of the cooperative standard setting. 73 percent of the active participants were satisfied with the new doctoral regulations, while only 64 percent of the passive participants expressed their approval. The professors expressed significantly more dissatisfaction with 17 percent, compared with 3 percent of the doctoral students. However, 44 percent of the target group of professors denied the need for new doctoral regulations (only 16 percent of doctoral students).

The consent to legitimacy points to another indicator of quality. The opening of the entire process described above achieved cross-target approval. The transformation between the first and the second phase, i.e. the formulation of principles and the resulting summary by the dean and the vice dean, was accepted by four out of five participants. The justified acceptance or rejection of individual principles by the dean confirmed the involvement of the participants. Nevertheless, only about 40 percent of the active participants confirmed that their suggestions had an impact on the final elaboration of the doctoral regulations. Nevertheless, it can be stated that the more satisfaction the participants express about the process and the result, the higher the acceptance of legitimacy.

Secondary sources

Escher, Tobias; Sieweke, Jost; Tranow, Ulf; Dischner, Simon; Friess, Dennis; Hagemeister, Philipp; Esau, Katharina (2014): Internet-mediated cooperative norm setting in the university: Design and evaluation of an online participation process to redraft examination regulations. Paper presented at Internet, Politics and Policy conference 2014, Oxford. ( http: //ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/2014/programme-2014/track-a-harnessing-the-crowd ... )