Should everyone, from assistant to full professor, be given the title of ‘professor’? Is today's university too hierarchical? Five researchers shine their light on power relations on the Nijmegen campus. Part 3: Eliana Vassena, Assistant Professor in Experimental Psychopathology and co-chair of Radboud Young Academy

‘At first glance, Dutch academia seems to have little hierarchy. I am from Italy and there, I would for example never address a professor by their first name or use the informal address form. Here in Nijmegen, even the Dean and the Rector are very approachable. This kind of apparently flat organisation makes for a great working atmosphere, where you feel your opinion is welcome.

At the same time, this egalitarian picture is incomplete, because this university also has a strong, albeit less visible, hierarchy. A hierarchy that is sometimes difficult to navigate, especially for newcomers. That hierarchy often becomes noticeable only when you apply for a permanent position, or when you want to be promoted to a higher position.

For researchers, it is often unclear what criteria they must meet to get promoted. These criteria differ not only between universities, but also between faculties, institutes and departments. To avoid arbitrariness, it is crucial to know what steps a person needs to take to move up the career ladder.

To stand a chance of being promoted within the university, you often depend on your supervisor. Without their support, your chances are minimal. At my institute, we recently established an independent promotion committee where people can nominate themselves, without a supervisor being involved. It is a good way to make this procedure fairer.

I think the current hierarchical system is not always in line with how we actually do certain things. The most striking example is the ius promovendi, the power to award the degree of doctor to a researcher. In Nijmegen, only full professors have this right to award a PhD; the full professor is the ‘PhD supervisor’ and the other supervisors are ‘cosupervisors’. And that while the day-to-day supervision of a PhD candidate is all too often done by an associate (UHD) or assistant professor (UD). In my opinion, they do not get enough recognition for their work.

As far as I know, this construction is very specific to the Netherlands. In many other countries, researchers start their own research group as soon as they get a permanent appointment. They then automatically acquire the right to award a PhD. As Radboud Young Academy, we want to make sure that the responsibility and recognition of a PhD defence lies with the entire PhD team, a debate that has not yet been settled in Nijmegen.

In the Netherlands, the titles we use to designate the various academic positions are also different. You are first appointed as ‘universitair docent’ (assistant professor), then as ‘universitair hoofddocent’ (associate professor), and only then are you awarded the title of professor. These titles suggest very different positions, while the work of an assistant professor (UD) or associate professor (UHD) is not all that different from that of a full professor.

In many other countries, you become a professor as soon as you get a permanent appointment as a researcher. You start as an assistant professor, after which you can move up to associate professor and eventually full professor. There is a difference, but you are still called professor from the start by everyone around you. When applying for research grants, this can be an advantage.

To become a professor in the Netherlands, you obviously have to be very good at what you do. You have to be among the top in your field and win important grants. To achieve such lofty goals, you also need a bit of luck, because the grants are so incredibly competitive. And that is not how things should work. Rewards should follow good performance, not luck. I think there are still too many steps in our academic system where luck or chance determine who gets ahead and who does not.

It is important to make the current system fairer, and give people appropriate recognition. Especially if you want to avoid talented people becoming frustrated and leaving academia disillusioned. A danger that will only increase with the upcoming budget cuts.’