Germany’s New Minimum-Length Research Contracts Offer Temporary Relief, Not Systemic Change

What Germany’s Draft Law Actually Changes for Early-Career Researchers

Germany’s cabinet has approved a draft law that would guarantee employed PhD researchers a first contract of at least three years and postdoctoral researchers at least two years. The legislation also strengthens protections for academics taking parental leave or caring for relatives. The Federal Ministry for Research, Technology and Space stated the aim is to “provide greater security for scientists” after years of criticism over temporary contracts that can stretch into researchers’ forties or fifties.

Under the current system, researchers often cycle through short, fixed-term appointments tied to individual projects, leaving many uncertain whether their funding will last to the end of a doctorate. The proposed minimum terms are designed to remove that immediate cliff-edge. For a PhD candidate starting a project that might naturally take three to five years, a mandatory three-year initial contract ensures at least a foundational period of stability. Postdocs, meanwhile, receive a guaranteed two-year span to produce results before renegotiation.

The draft still faces parliamentary approval and may be amended before becoming law. But even at this stage, the debate has shifted from whether government should intervene to how meaningful such interventions can be. While the rules offer a clear administrative fix for a visible problem, experts are already pointing to the deeper structural weaknesses they leave untouched.

Why Longer First Contracts Alone Won’t Fix Academic Precarity

Frank Ziegele: No Systemic Shift Without Permanent Non-Professorial Roles

Frank Ziegele, executive director of the Center for Higher Education in Germany, described the measure as an improvement, not a transformation. “It’s not really a systemic change. It just makes the conditions in the current system better,” he said. Ziegele argues that the real bottleneck is the near-total absence of attractive, secure university roles outside the traditional professorship track. Universities, he says, need to invest heavily in professional development for temporary researchers and build out positions in areas such as teaching and learning, research management, and specialist research support.

He pointed to instructional design as one emerging field where some universities are beginning to hire permanently. These roles focus on the didactics of online teaching—a function that grew during the pandemic and still shows demand. Without such alternatives, Ziegele warns, the debate over whether contracts last two, three or six years merely rearranges deckchairs on a ship that lacks enough permanent cabins for its crew.

Francesco Maurelli: Structural Instability Persists Beyond the Initial Contract

Francesco Maurelli, co-chair of the Global Young Academy, acknowledged that longer initial contracts help researchers avoid a scenario where they start a doctorate but run out of funding before finishing. “The reforms are partially significant but I don’t think they dramatically change much,” he said. The core problem, he stressed, is the cascade of short-term dependency: one professor with a permanent chair atop a pyramid of young researchers scrambling for the next contract. Giving those at the base a slightly longer first step does nothing to alter the shape of that pyramid.

Maurelli noted that unpredictability itself drives mobility; researchers forced to move every two or three years may gain breadth but struggle to build a stable research programme. “You have a little bit of bread for two to three years but that doesn’t address what happens after, particularly the chances of getting a permanent position in research,” he said. In his view, the draft law addresses the initial funding cliff without offering a realistic path toward a lasting research career.

The Invisible Hand of Third-Party Funding

Both analysts underscored the role of third-party grants—often limited to three-year cycles—in sustaining temporary contracts. Universities that secure a project grant can only hire researchers for the grant’s duration, making it legally and financially difficult to offer permanent employment. The new law does not alter this funding mechanism. Ziegele emphasized that as long as universities depend on short-cycle project money, contract lengths will remain structurally capped, regardless of any statutory minimum.

For Universities and Policymakers: Building a Real Career Ladder in Research

The draft law gives university leaders and research funders a window to couple regulatory compliance with genuine reform. Concrete steps that flow from the experts’ analysis include:

• Create permanent non-professorial roles. Frank Ziegele specifically identifies instructional design, research management and specialist research support as functions where universities can offer stable careers, absorbing postdocs who will not become professors.
• Align third-party grant terms with long-term employment. Where project funding runs for three years, institutions should negotiate with funders to allow bridge financing or lump-sum budgets that support indefinite contracts, rather than automatically generating temporary posts.
• Extend parental leave protections beyond the first contract. The draft law strengthens rights during the initial contract; universities should voluntarily apply equivalent safeguards to subsequent contracts to prevent career disruption for caregivers.
• Invest in professional development from day one. Ziegele’s call for heavy investment in researcher development means every temporary researcher should leave a contract with documented skills and qualifications that are marketable both inside and outside academia.
• Lobby for funding models that reward stability. University associations and the Federal Ministry should explore whether project-based grants can be restructured so that a portion of overheads is earmarked for permanent staff, breaking the cycle where every project creates only temporary positions.