What kind of university do we want to be?

Tilburg University wants to raise more money from external parties. Conducting research costs money, Gijs van Maanen knows. But according to him, the university must constantly ask itself whether it wants to collaborate with a particular party. ‘Should you, as a research group, align yourself with companies related to war crimes?’

Time equals money, as they say. And this credo applies at the university as well, where money is needed to cover the costs incurred for research.

Unfortunately, the Dutch university finds itself in rough waters following the previous cabinet’s round of budget cuts.

In response to this, work is underway in Tilburg on a plan to increase the amount of external funding from 9 percent in 2024 to 19 percent in 2030. The money that we no longer receive directly from the Dutch government must, in other words, be sought elsewhere. Although at first glance there is nothing wrong with this attempt to replenish the university coffers, it is good if those affected by this policy—including researchers and support staff—engage in a structured dialogue about it.

These conversations should focus on (a) the amount of research funding research groups need, (b) the nature of the funding to be sought (which funders; which themes), (c) what all this means for the research group and the department they aspire to be, and (d) the extent to which ‘the plan’ supports them in this.

Such bottom-up forms of self-organization are indispensable when policies are rolled out that affect virtually everyone working at the university, for the following reasons.

Firstly, research shows that the type of research funding and funder influences the degree of academic freedom enjoyed by researchers. The phenomenon of ‘ethics washing,’ in which researchers consciously or unconsciously legitimize the interests of research funders (think tobacco industry; think tech industry), is a good example of this.

Secondly, questions must also be asked about whether one should always want to collaborate with every funder. The discussion surrounding a collaboration between the VU and UvA with Huawei, a tech company involved in the genocide against the Uyghurs, is a good example here. But also consider the recent intensification of military collaborations at virtually all Dutch universities. Should a research group or department associate itself with companies related to war crimes or genocide?

Choices in this area are typically made by individual researchers in consultation with ethics committees. However, besides the fact that such ‘ethical’ evaluations are only partially suitable for assessing the often complex political-legal issues involved, they also overlook the long-term consequences of research funding on the character of a research group, department, or discipline. For what to do when a large number of small collaborations with external parties on popular themes (AI, anyone?) lead to less ‘relevant’ or financially attractive forms of research being scrapped?

In other words, the relationship between academic freedom and research funding is more than just the ethical and ‘independent’ conduct of individual researchers. It is a collective matter of ‘positive’ academic freedom in which the focus is not solely on those who are best at dancing to the tune of funders, but in which a healthy distance is maintained between research, education, and the market by cultivating a form of self-governance regarding what kind of university one wants to be.

For if we do not do it ourselves, others will do it for us.

Employees of Tilburg University, unite!

_Advertentie.