DEMOCRATIC UNIVERSITY wants a Senate that...

• represents the entire university in its diversity of subjects and perspectives

  • Our list is committed to ensure that the University of Innsbruck - even in times of increasingly scarce financial resources - clearly positions itself as a comprehensive university and that all governing bodies support and strengthen the autonomy and heterogeneity of the faculties and subjects.

• proactively sets topics and shapes debates on the development of the university

  • Our list advocates a senate that has a voice regarding all central university policy issues and works constructively on the development of a future-oriented university.

• creates and secures a democratic space for the university community
  

  • Our list promotes transparent forms of communication and wants to strengthen the co-determination and democratic participation of all university members.

• actively helps to shape a sustainable, scientifically powerful, responsible and resilient university

  • Our list works for a democratic university that takes on important societal tasks and responds appropriately to new challenges with contributions from all academic disciplines, promotes the transfer of knowledge to society and positions itself internationally while remaining regionally anchored. [overview]

DEMOCRATIC UNIVERSITY stands for ... 

• cutting-edge research in all subjects and disciplines

  • strengethening the role disciplinary expertise in hiring procedures and regading the support of early career researchers. 

  • sufficient financial and administrative support for all research agendas and approaches

• future-oriented and ambitious teaching

  • attractive studies and curricula

  • continued development of teaching activities with a focus on skill orientation, appropriate teaching loads, student needs and interactive as well as inspiring learning environments.

  • didactic and technological support for the entire teaching staff

• a transparent Senate that is in permanent exchange with the university community

  • openness to concerns from the entire university community.

  • constructive and appreciative cooperation with other governing bodies and the various organizational units and departments

• a modern and service-oriented administration

  • organizational development of service units

  • organisational development of administrative procedures
    

• mutual appreciation of all university members
  

  • appreciative support of all university employees

  • ensuring inclusion, gender equality and diversity

  • further development of personal and institutional evaluations [overview]

What do we want to achieve? 

• Improve the transparency of the Senate

  • Publishing the agenda of Senate meetings on the Senate's website

  • Publishing short summary reports of Senate meetings on the Senate's website

• Improving support by the Senate
  

  • Supporting the development of curricula (e.g., improved coordination of feedback-loops, regular exchange with curricula commissions, improved and documented workflows)

  • Legal and procedural advice from the Senate to the appointment and habilitation committees

• Shaping internal debates at the university
  

  • Regular information and discussion events on key topics

  • Events with keynote talks and debates on the future development of the university

• Imputs on current issues, e.g.
  

  • Central role of universities in educating teachers

  • Design of access regulations for selected study programs

  • Meanigful integration of artificial intelligence into university teaching etc.

• Development and improvement of university bylaws

  • Contemporary handling of academic honours

  • Flexible and user-oriented design of evaluations in teaching, which focuses on the exchange of information for the further development of courses

  • Adaptation of the organisational plan towards a service-oriented university administration [overview]

DEMOCRATIC UNIVERSITY has strong representation because its members ... 

• come from all 16 faculties and represent the professors of all different contract categories (§ 98, § 99(1), (3), (4) and (5));

• consistently reflect the subject cultures at the university and gender diversity, and the list consists equally of colleagues at the beginning of their tenure and colleagues with a longer experience;

• have experience in cutting-edge research in all subject cultures (Cluster of Excellence, START, ERC, SFB, doc. funds, D-A-CH projects, FWF referees, management of FFG consortia, etc.);

• have experience in the management of various organizational units (universities, faculties, institutes, research centers, platforms and areas, curriculum commissions);

• have demonstrated the ability to work constructively in the Senate as well as the experience in leading the Senate;

• are involved in diverse academic and non-academic networks. [overview]

What did we achieve?

In cooperation with the other members of the Senate, we accomplished ...

• an adaptation of university bylaws regarding programs of advanced training and validation of prior qualifications;

• guidance for the formulation of qualification profiles and learning outcomes in curricula to support revision processes;

• development of model curricula for BA, MA and PhD programs to support processes of curriculum development;

• measures to improve Senate communication (homepage, information events);

• reform of university bylaws on hiring committees (streamlining procedures, reduction of administrative requirements (reports) and more flexible number of committee members);

• withdrawal of a rector's representative in hiring committees (Berufungsbeauftragte) and more support of hiring committees by the Senate;

• participation in the production process of the development plan 2025 – 2027;

• initiation of a revision of the organizational plan. [overview]

In a short (non-representative, non-incentivized) survey as part of a mailing and on our website, we asked a few questions about the Senate. The results refer to the 31 completed questionnaires submitted until June 10, 2025: 

• How well informed do you feel about the Senate? (min. no star, max. 5 stars):
  • Mean 1.79, standard deviation 1.18
• To what extent is your work supported by the Senate? (min. no star, max. 5 stars):
  • Mean 1.73, standard deviation 1.11
• How well do you feel represented in the Senate? (min. no star, max. 5 stars):
  • Mean 1.93, standard deviation 1.2
• How well is your subject represented in the Senate? (min. no star, max. 5 stars):
  • Mean 1.97, standard deviation 1.15
• Are there enough debates on university development at the UNiversity? (min. no star, max. 5 stars):
  • Mean 2.52, standard deviation 1.24
• Does the Senate take a sufficient stance on university policy issues? (min. no star, max. 5 stars):
  • Mean 2.52, standard deviation 1.34
• Does the Senate take a sufficient stance on current social issues? (min. no star, max. 5 stars):
  • Mean 2.55, standard deviation 1.15

Unfortunately, there were only 4/6 questionnaires in which also our two open questions have been answered. Here is a brief list of the issues raised: 

• Which debates should the Senate consider?
  • AI, workload (especially administration)/debureaucratization, fully-funded comprehensive university, chain contracts/career prospects for junior staff
• What should the Senate change?
  • Hearings for members of the Rectorate, appointment procedures in line with international standards, transparent communication and inclusive or democratic structures.

By far the most prominent issue raised was the problem of increasing bureaucratization.

Of course, this survey does not provide any reliable information about the university community's assessment of the Senate. However, we believe the results provide valuable food for thought for the coming term of office.