Science becomes politics

If we look at the implementation of Recognition and Rewards within TU/e, should that program be the same for all departments or should it be implemented differently per department? “There can be differences,” Gómez believes. “For example in valorization, as not all departments are equally close to the industry. And you need to look at individual circumstances, unfortunately we don’t have time for that. A machine can do evaluation based on metrics. But a machine can’t look at the personal circumstances of each individual. The only fair evaluation is a personal one. Should we judge only by output and metrics a researcher with four young kids trying to have a balanced private-professional life and a researcher fully devoted to work, the same? Or a Dutch researcher with a strong network the same as a foreign one just entering the country without a network? If the answer is yes, then we will make a non-diverse university of nerds.”

“More individual tracks means more customization, and at the same time we want to assess everyone objectively and based on the same criteria,” says policy advisor Van der Vegt. “I can imagine that with more individual career paths we will eventually get a system in which we mainly assess someone for a promotion on the individual (performance) agreements in the Personal Development Plan, instead of on a list of generic criteria. I also expect that competences will play a greater role, but I think it is important that assistant professors, associate professors and professors think along with them on what is the best way to do this.”

Brunsveld: “You may need to diversify a bit per department or research field. And also, if we do it the same everywhere, you have to again lower your standards and go for the lowest level. Alpha and gamma problems are now being projected onto the beta sciences. Mulder: “The desired change from NWO comes from social sciences. A narrative CV is a recipe for mediocrity, so that anyone, regardless of academic background, can judge. “We are not telling them that they should stop doing those surveys and that they should look at the facts, either,” Brunsveld says.

Risk of metrics

Education is another topic in the new system, but Gómez wonders how we will measure that properly. “How will you measure being successful in education? By the student’s grades? Via student evaluations? That’s not right either as there is discrimination in those evaluations of female and foreign teachers. We are all (unconsciously) biased, it’s well known. Are we going to create more discrimination in the new system? And how will you measure valorization? By the amount of patents? Or the profit of startups? In the end you’re back at metrics and that could be a serious risk. Metrics are perverse. They do not make the system better, just the opposite, and sooner or later everybody learns how to manipulate them with negative, even dramatic, consequences: A rating system of surgeons in the United States is based on the survival rate of patients a thirty days after surgery” he cites the book The Tyranny of Metrics by Jerry Z. Muller and says. “That causes hospitals not to want to take in the old and/or questionable patients, because if they do the chances are higher for the surgery to go wrong and that will bring their rate down. That risk applies here too.”

Van der Vegt acknowledges that the focus is still on research: “In practice, my colleagues and I see that the focus of assessment committees (BACs) is predominantly on research, for the candidates themselves and the committee members alike. An example: candidates give a presentation during such a BAC and for the majority of them, more than eighty to even ninety percent of that presentation is about research, while, for example, people spend at most forty to fifty percent of the time on research. I hope that Recognition and Rewards will lead to more equal attention for 'the other activities', such as teaching, supervising PhDs and PDEngs and committee work, and that, in addition to paying attention to the 'what', there will also be more room for discussion about the 'how'.”

She adds: “Creating more space for the own, unique talent of our academic staff: that is the goal of Recognition and Rewards. This is a great challenge for the HRM department. Years ago, we took the first steps in the policy 'Excellent People attract Excellent People'. When selecting and assessing assistant professors, associate professors and professors, the committee is already asked to take a broad look at four domains: research, education, valorization and organization & management. This has now been translated by some departments in the Recognition and Rewards program as: research, education, impact and leadership. Including the team contribution here is a new element.”

Need for diversity

“We tend to reward people for things we are excellent at ourselves (again that dammed unconscious bias),” Gómez says. “So we need to make those commissions more diverse in order for the evaluation to be more fair. We should also have tenure trackers and postdocs in evaluation commission, and more women and non-western staff. Young people can evaluate better on topics that will be more important in the future and where seniors are not good at, like if the person being evaluated is good at communicating science in social media for example. That is more important than before, but in commissions and evaluations this is never considered, probably because these commissions are formed only by senior people.”

“We say we want diversity,” he continues “but with the hard numbers we use to evaluate, we are creating the opposite. We only get one profile that way. If you want diversity, you need to remove the numbers. Many students in my group are extremely cooperative. They put the interest of the group before their own. They help other students or colleagues with problems and help me without the management asking. Maybe they publish a couple of articles less than others, but does this make them less good students? No, they are at least as good and they make the group stronger. Maybe we should also start evaluating the evaluators, and base a reward on the result. That will provide an extra incentive to do better and to take the time to look further than the metrics.”

Van der Vegt sees that the movement towards diversity has been started: “Ultimately, TU/e wants to stimulate and facilitate the development of everyone's unique talents. The great thing is that this movement towards more diversity in career paths is already happening; for example, the department of Applied Physics has already taken steps towards a career path focused on education. Ultimately, Recognition and Rewards will make the university more diverse and even more attractive as an employer, but it is really a cultural shift. It’s therefore a long-term process, there are still a lot of obstacles on the way and we really won't finish within a year. There are no easy solutions. The most important thing is that all those involved continue to have a dialogue with each other and that we think in terms of solutions and opportunities. If we keep taking small steps, we can make a big change.”