The AOb (Dutch general union of educational personnel) is warning of possible negative effects of the national programme 'Erkennen en Waarderen' (Acknowledge and Appreciate), such as more competition in the field of education. Scientists at Radboud University understand that fear. ‘The danger is that we are now going to expect every academic to be a five-legged sheep.’

For a long time, the academic world was focused too single-mindedly on the research achievements of scientists: universities and research funding bodies would seem to be in agreement on that. Too much competition has been created and that has an adverse effect on the quality of the universities.

The national programme Erkennen en Waarderen is aimed at bringing new balance: ‘less emphasis on the number of publications’ and more appreciation for teaching, team accomplishments and good leadership. The objective? Less pressure of work and higher quality of knowledge and education institutes. But there are shortcomings in those plans, the AOb states in editorials recently published in ScienceGuide and on Voxweb.

According to the AOb, the proposals could conversely lead to more pressure of work unless a real change in culture takes place. Members are afraid that education will also become more competitive, that hierarchy will continue to result in an unsafe work climate and that more instruments will be introduced for measuring the many tasks on which academics are assessed. The union therefore advocates fewer ranks and grades and more permanent contracts.

Average achiever

The AOb editorial was read with enthusiasm within the Radboud Jonge Akademie (RJA), says co-chair Eelke Spaak. He shares the AOb’s concern that the implementation of the Erkennen en Waarderen programme will lead to a new competitiveness. ‘It used to be that as a scientist, you had to make sure you had a good research CV. We wanted to tackle that competitive system. But now, you also have to be good in teaching, impact, management and other tasks. There is a danger that we will expect every academic to be a five-legged sheep.’

One good thing about the Erkennen en Waarderen programme, according to Spaak, is that it emphasises that excellent researchers with many scientific publications are not by definition the best academics. And he agrees that the system needs redesigning.

The lecturer and researcher calls Radboud University ‘an average achiever’ in that transition. Spaak: ‘Since the national report Erkennen en Waarderen, there have been some changes, but it’s often young academics who have to take the lead.’ Why that is? He laughs. ‘The most cynical interpretation is of course that older scientists don’t really acknowledge the need for a change in culture. They became successful in the old system and have already achieved what they wanted to.’

‘Quick wins’ and patience

In 2020, Radboud University set up its own Erkennen & Waarderen commission. The commission drew up a discussion paper and held talks with faculty boards, deans and scientific staff. The outcomes of those talks are intended to result in a vision paper. It will be ‘a kind of catalogue of things the university can improve upon, with recommendations to be taken into account in the implementation,’ according to the chair of the commission, professor Paula Fikkert. ‘Because the last thing we want is to have the measures result in more administration, pressure of work or new perverse stimuli.’

‘There are naturally ‘quick wins’ to be obtained,’ she continues. ‘For example, you can help staff conduct better annual reviews. Other matters require a change in culture, such as the focus on performance of teams rather than of individual scientists. You can allocate tasks in a team by not having everyone do everything. For example, some scientists are good at implementing scientific insights in society while others enjoy focusing wholly on research. And others are born leaders. The university needs all those people.’

The Erkennen & Waarderen commission is focusing on the welfare of the employees. According to Fikkert, there is plenty to be gained by that. ‘The pressure of work is high. Academics have many tasks which go unnoticed, such as management, writing reviews or extra tasks that belong in education. Those extra tasks are really necessary if the academic world is to flourish, but staff get very little recognition for them.’

For that reason, she praises the initiatives that have been set up in recent years in the field of education, such as the Teaching and Learning Centre. However, those changes are not yet felt everywhere, she adds. ‘Everyone agrees that good education is important, but in the end, it’s often the research output that decides the success in job interview procedures.’

Educational achievements

The one-sided focus on research is slowly becoming less, partly thanks to Erkennen & Waarderen. For two years now, academics have no longer been required to submit their scientific publications when applying for grants, but rather to describe why they’re the right choice to carry out the research. There is also more focus on educational achievements. But according to the AOb, that new focus can lead to ‘education becoming increasingly competitive, just as research’.

RJA chair Spaak understands that concern. ‘For example, I’m all for education grants but they mustn’t encourage individual competition.’ He sees that happening in the University Education Prize at Radboud University. ‘The prize has been in existence since 1996 and was awarded to teams in the early years but lately, it has gone more frequently to individual lecturers.’

Fikkert agrees. ‘You have to make sure that a grant doesn’t become a perverse stimulus. It’s not a problem unless a grant becomes a pre-condition for a contract as is often the case now with research grants. Not only that, it’s hard to know exactly what good education is. You can’t base it solely on student evaluations. It’s well-known that they’re not that reliable. If lecturers are consequently judged on those evaluations you’ll be creating even more unfair competition.’

‘Less hierarchy won’t solve everything’

Fikkert herself says she agrees with the problems the AOb signals in the area of pressure of work and temporary contracts. She also acknowledges that dependency relationships can lead to unsafe situations, but she doesn’t believe that the solution can be found in doing away with ranks. ‘Less hierarchy is a noble ambition but it doesn’t solve all the problems,’ she says. ‘Unsafe situations can arise in horizontal organisations too. Good leadership, on the other hand, can ensure social safety. It’s just that leadership is now automatically placed with professors, and they’re not always the best leaders. If you ask me, the crux of the matter is to give people the tasks that suit them, regardless of their titles.’

The AOb’s proposal to work more with permanent contracts gets Fikkert’s approval. ‘Unfortunately, there are fewer jobs than applicants, so you can’t eliminate competition,’ the professor says. ‘But if you select someone you have faith in, you should offer them a permanent contract as soon as possible, whether or not they bring in research funding. Young researchers shouldn’t be given just a year to prove themselves. Don’t be experimenting with people.’

Spaak also likes the AOb’s idea of distinguishing only two phases in an academic career. In your ‘early career’, you can prove yourself as a researcher or a lecturer. After that, you can immediately apply for a permanent position. Spaak: ‘I agree with the AOb that a more radical change is needed than the Erkennen & Waarderen programme aims at. Baby steps are not enough.’

Spaak also believes, as do the AOb members, that the distinction between scientific and support staff can be less rigid. ‘That’s also our starting point. RJA is the only Young Academy which also has members who are support staff. You don’t have to climb the classic ladder in order to have a worthwhile academic career.’