Scientist is not the sheep with the five legs
A scientist can be successful in many areas, but not all successes are recognized and appreciated equally. According to science financiers and knowledge institutions, things have to change. The Education Magazine asks those directly involved how this is going.
Science funders and knowledge institutions published the position paper at the end of 2019 Room for everyone's talent in which they indicate how they will more widely recognize and value the work of academic staff. Less emphasis on publications, more emphasis on education and impact. It was agreed that universities would develop a national framework for assessment, development and promotion by 2020 and include it in a revised university job classification system, which should come into effect in 2021.
'Different career paths must be possible'
Bianca Langhout-van den Bulk is project leader Recognition & Appreciation at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
“Tackling the workload at universities from the inside was one of the reasons for me to apply for this job. In my previous position as a postdoctoral researcher, I was primarily engaged in scientific research and I saw that many scientists experience work pressure and that there is a strong competition when it comes to securing grant grants. Naturally, these subsidies remain an important part of the range of duties. I do hope that we can at least make it clear that not every scientist is the sheep with the five legs, but that it is better to complement each other's skills and talents.
It is better to complement each other's skills and talents
Just before the summer of 2020, we started this committee at Erasmus University to formulate a vision on the recognition and appreciation of scientists. We discuss what is really important to us as a university. The framework used in the position paper we use it as a basis for this. It is important to us that different career paths are possible for scientists, with a focus on education, research or social impact. Ultimately, we want to roll out this movement throughout the university. That is why it is important to create broad support: delegates from every faculty are involved.
Important services such as HR and Academic Affairs are also connected, because recruitment must also be done in a different way. You cannot impose such a big change in thinking and acting from above and we do not want that either. There are also major differences between faculties, which means one size fits all difficult. It is really a long-term process, I assume that we will be working on this cultural change for about six or seven years. You better be realistic about that. Fortunately, more and more scientists are realizing that something needs to change, also worldwide. ”
'Education is at least as essential as research'
Paula Fikkert is chair of the Recognition & Appreciation Committee of Radboud University and Radboud.
“In science we seem to have forgotten what it is really about. A lot of what we do consists essentially of stacked traditions, of which no one knows exactly why we do it that way. A shame, because a lot of potential talent is lost in this way. That is why it is not a matter of replacing one list of criteria on which scientists are assessed by another, fairer list. We can only deal with this unhealthy situation by tackling everything. Work pressure, the lack of diversity and appreciation, not everyone's individual skills can deploy; it all fits together.
We can only deal with this unhealthy situation by tackling everything
In general, everything in science follows a fixed pattern: you make a career, eventually become a professor on the basis of your research and you automatically receive more and more managerial tasks. Regardless of you skills in that area. We need to go to a university where we work better together.
It is important to do something about the pressure to publish and scientists spend an awful lot of time applying for research funding. That causes frustration. Scientists fear their position if they cannot do enough research. And the people who would like to grant their applications, but don't have the budget for it, also get frustrated.
We all think research is important, but education is just as essential. The tendency now is that scientists who won grants did not 'need' to teach, which has created the impression that education is subordinate to research. Even when filling vacancies, the image arises that you as a candidate are judged purely on your publications. While as a university you desperately need your employees who flourish in education. Flexibility is essential in this. From everyone, in all departments. Everything is now divided into hours: you get so much for teaching, so much for applying for a grant. You don't get any hours at all for certain activities, such as reading a thesis. Yet it must be done. I am hopeful that we can change this. ”
'Current system is a very tight jacket'
Frank Miedema is a specialist in infectious diseases, former professor at UMC Utrecht and leader of the Science in Transition action group.
“I see the current university system as a very tight jacket, from which we are now slowly but surely working out. It is nice to see that universities themselves are increasingly open to looking at academic work in a different way. For years, we have focused on the counting of scientific publications. While: if you ask the average scientist what they think is important, then that means something for society.
Yet you see that they also enjoy being able to focus on a certain number of publications. At least that's clear. Our ego, of course, likes to be with a latenight show to talk about groundbreaking research, but does that really benefit society? These talk show tables are often mainly about something striking, of which we still have to wait and see if and when we will notice the effect.
We said: This is going wrong, we publish a lot, but no one reads it
The knowledge economy has had its day. I got involved in this around 2013, along with three other men who had been around for a while. We said: This is going wrong, we publish a lot, but nobody reads it. All over the world, we have seen this discussion ignite in recent years. Now it has yet to unfold in practice. The difference is sometimes difficult to explain, but I like to use the example of when I was researching HIV in the XNUMXs, at the height of the AIDS epidemic. In discussion center De Rode Hoed I enthusiastically told what I was doing, until a boy walked up to the microphone and said: 'Interesting story, but I wonder: I am HIV positive and my steady partner is too, should we use condoms if we have sex? ' An essential question, but that was not what my research was about and it is not a question that arises in the lab.
While those were the things the population was busy with. We need to stop looking down on applied research and focus on a fair system that values people for who they are and what they can do. If you want to give fantastic education now, this is possible, but then you also have to do research in the evenings; after all, you are judged on that. That is the reason for the immense workload at universities. ”
