What was your background, before becoming rector magnificus in Maastricht?

My field is international law, and I study victimology as part of it. That means I am mainly concerned with the impact of large-scale violence in war zones on victims, and to what extent the law can contribute to coping processes. It is a more empirical and psychological study than pure law, although I am always interested in what the role of law is in this. It is also about reconciliation processes, and what this means for both victims and the society that has to move on afterwards. I also received a VIDI grant for that combination of law and victimology.

‍

You have now been Rector for over 2.5 years, since September 2016. What is your connection with research now - can you still use that VIDI?

I'm actually very happy with the current situation. In the beginning, in my first year, it was really a bit of a struggle because I was new in Maastricht, and new to a job I knew nothing about. But it's already going a lot better. For example, I recently went on a trip to Uganda for my research and was able to attend seminars. We were also able to write some articles, and in June I will go to Congo for research purposes. The other day, I said to a colleague who is the director of a research group, that it is actually not that different to before because I was already busy with ten thousand things. The challenge is more that I am now in a different job with more personal responsibility for serious matters which constantly require me to make decisions very quickly. So it is more quick-thinking, whereas science is more slow-thinking. And that switching, that doesn't always work out. It is just a matter of good planning. For example, all my days for the VIDI research are already planned up to and including September, and I really have to plan a trip to Congo well in advance - otherwise the agenda will fill up.

Your work shows a strong sense of justice. Did that also influence your desire to take up administrative duties?

Yes very much so. Because I had already received the VIDI, which I was really super happy about. But then I realised that I was especially happy because I was suddenly able to give a contract to a few people in my research group who I really believed in but hadn’t been able to give a contract to before. A long-term contract with a long-term perspective on a subject they were also becoming passionate about. Then I was like: Oh, that's also something I really want to work on. Because when I started, we received a permanent contract fairly easily. I became a professor fairly quickly, whereas nowadays, when I see the younger generation, they just go from contract to contract, from project to project, and I think that's a shame. I didn't have that myself at all. I'm 42 - so it's not as if I'm that old - but things have changed very quickly.

‍

And looking back now on those first 2.5 years, were you indeed able to make a difference there?

Well, yes, that would be very fast. I always want to make these enormous steps and can be a bit impatient. Of course, at the university and the VSNU you have to deal with existing processes, and academics are by nature quite stubborn. So before you've made any progress you've had a lot of meetings. I am also a bit of an unusual rector, a bit different and a bit younger than the average rector. The fact that I have gained so much trust and support in just two years, yes, I am very happy about that. I have been able to make real steps forward in the project of valuing and rewarding, and that was one of the biggest reasons for wanting to become rector.

‍

You refer to the plan you are pulling together with Frank Baaijens (Eindhoven University of Technology) to reset how we value scientists. What's the status of that?

Indeed. In the beginning, I certainly didn't expect that so many directors would unanimously say to Frank and me: go ahead and quickly! I thought that was very cool. The first thing we want to deliver this year is a position paper on the four domains we are going to look at: research, education, impact, and leadership. For each domain, we are going to map out how you can reward and recognise scientists, so that this is more in proportion and the focus is not only on research.

‍

What's going to make the big difference there?

What you see now in a lot of HR processes where managers can judge your contract or promotion is that there is an excessive focus on output in research. This is often purely quantitative: how many articles have you published and in which journals? All the other things you do, which are also expected of you, count for a lot lot less. If they are looked at at all, they are not really appreciated, let alone rewarded. I see this reflected in the way many managers look at science, also at grant providers. They also look mainly at research output. Of course, there are many other tasks, such as teaching, that are super valuable. Currently, if you emphasise that, you are seen as a B-scientist or B-collaborator when in reality we can’t get things done without both. We need to look much more at individual talents and strengths, instead of making everyone jump through the same hoop. That just frustrates people, which is a huge waste of talent and experience. You hear this more and more. Especially among my generation and those following on.

So the focus is too narrow, and we need to broaden the idea of a good scientist. Doesn't that dilute the idea of a top scientist?

Sometimes I do get asked: but are you going to stop giving recognition to the top scientists for their research? No, of course not. But I wouldn't want to burden that top scientist with other tasks as well. On the contrary, you have to turn it around. I would like to look much more from the point of view of: what do we need in this team? You are great at writing for top journals, go ahead. And your colleague is very good at teaching. So they should be able to do that. But then you have to be able to offer people a career path. Admittedly, while maintaining research, because we are still a university. But that means that someone who makes a career via education should not be seen as a 'teaching professor', because then you get the 'Oh, that's the lesser professor'. No, you can become a professor on education and educational innovation, and you can become a full professor as someone whose main focus is research. We have to let go of that image that you are the better academic if you bring in big grants, I don't think that is productive or constructive.

‍

I wish not everyone had to show what they can do on all fronts, but that is the case in the current pressure situation. You see the number of burn-out complaints increasing, you see people complaining more and more, people enjoying their work less. I don't find that surprising, because they have to be able to do everything.

‍

This does potentially make it harder to reward talents. How will you recognise excellence in all these areas?

You always have to weigh things up anyway, so what indicators are we going to establish to allow for these different career paths, so that someone with a focus on education, leadership or impact also has a path to climb? We don't really know what all these other indicators are either, there's not some law for that. Its not as if there is anything which says that we should only look at research, but we do. And that is purely because of the culture within the sector.

‍

There are already quite nice examples of how this can be done, such as Ruth Graham’s model, she’s a scientist from the UK. She made a model that includes all kinds of steps that eventually lead to the highest level of excellence in education. If you achieve that, you really are an enormous educational innovator. She has mapped that process very well, with the steps you have to take and how you can make that transparent with portfolios. This allows you to say: you deserve the title of professor. They are already working with it in Twente, and we are also looking at how to implement it in Maastricht. There is one faculty that already does that, which is also the largest faculty, but now I want to roll it out more widely. And you do see other universities experimenting with it as well. It really is a very nice model.

‍

Another important part of your reform plans is 'team science.' How will this help science?

As part of your career path, you currently have to apply for all kinds of personal grants. And you do so despite knowing that this might not be the career path you would like to take. That means we are all putting a lot of pressure on the whole system, both for those making the grants and on those who write the applications. If you want fundamental science in the Netherlands to remain at the high level it is now, we shouldn't want everyone jumping through that same hoop. It would save a lot of time if we ensure that the pressure is lowered for both the NWO and for applicants. Now you are just wasting money by making everyone apply for the same kind of grants. And that includes people who would prefer to profile themselves in another different area of academic work.

Could you argue that in addition to personal VENIs and VIDIs, there should be a fundamental award for groups rather than individuals?

Yes. For example, it is already part of the NWO Gravity that you have to work with consortia. But I would like to experiment a lot more with team science projects. So that not only the applicant gets recognition, but you are also required to pay attention to how you can do the project as a group. And not like me with the VIDI; I was pretty much put on a pedestal as a goddess and that's nonsense, of course. I wrote it with a group, and we are working on it with a group. Ultimately, I think it's much more important that these others can also make a career out of it, but I'm not being asked to do that at all, it was just about me. I find that really short-sighted.

‍

Do you feel that, as rector magnificus, you can take steps in this more easily or do you think you would have succeeded otherwise?

Of course, I do have more reach now. For instance, I make the HR policy myself, so I can do more with that. In the VSNU I now have an audience, and I also sometimes sit at the table with a minister. You can try all that as an individual academic, but this is a bit more effective. I obviously profile myself very much with the science and diversity team, and people in the organisation know that. Coincidentally, I heard a few colleagues say the other day that they had never thought about the whole team science thing like that, but I talk about it all the time. And as a result, they have now come up with some things. Well that's great. Purely by talking about it, people are already taking action and thinking along. That is really gratifying.

‍

Published on 15 July 2019.