The freedom of researchers to research what they want, write about what bothers them, and teach what they think is important is a basic democratic right. However, in many places this academic freedom is under pressure. From governments silencing critical voices to academics censoring themselves in a hostile atmosphere… Researchers do not always and everywhere feel free in their profession.
In the last 5-10 years, politicians and decision-makers, but also many sociologists, political scientists and other researchers have been concerned about this. For example, in 2017, researchers at the German Friedrich-Alexander-Universität decided to create ‘Academic freedom Index’ make. It is a global overview of how many free researchers there are in all countries of the world. A year later, the European Parliament took action by issuing a resolution on academic freedom. Two years later, the Council of Europe organized a “global forum” on “academic freedom, institutional autonomy and the future of democracy”. In short: policy makers meet regularly to discuss academic freedom get.
Two reflexes
While the discussions have been fascinating, I think they have also been marked by two less helpful reflexes. First, these European decision-makers and researchers too often assume that the academic unfreedom is exceptional in Europe. It is generally thought that the limitation of academic space is rather a problem of authoritarian regimes, far from here. Second, discussions on this topic focus far too often on ideology and far too little on money.
Those two reflexes are the problem. In my historical-sociological dissertation research, I showed that academic freedom and financial dependence are not an easy duo in Europe at all. During my research, I delved into the history of European research funding. I saw, for example, that over the past fifty years, researchers have become increasingly dependent on external funding institutions.
Since the beginning of the 2000s, especially young researchers appointed on fixed-term contracts have had to work in regional agencies such as the Flanders FWO, national organizations such as German Research Association or international bodies such as the European Research Council. Whether they are biologists, historians or literary scholars, most (post)docs have no choice but to look for money or another field.
growled
In college dining halls and department halls, this addiction regularly leads to grumbling. “So little time for research, so much time for money! So much job insecurity!” And also… So many regulations, criteria and guidelines. Indeed, my research shows that there are now more rules and governance involved in redeeming funding than ever before. The government’s priorities, standards and ideals for researchers.
Governments implement their science policy through all the aforementioned financial institutions. When in the past a lot of power was held by university boards and department heads, now financial institutions decide how long the project can take, what it can be about and who gets the money. Is there a need for research on viruses, migration or climate change? Then a new search opens, which (young) researchers can answer. Will we see an increase in terrorist attacks around 2015? Then, influenced by new political priorities, the historical study of extremism, terrorism and interfaith tolerance reaches its peak.
Behind the valorizationspeech
That in itself is not wrong. Science must exist in the world and politicians must participate in science policy. Scientists often also want to do research that serves society. But behind the discussion of “social significance” and “science in society” lies a lot of government intervention. Academic freedom, which guarantees researchers to focus on what they want, is endangered.
By looking at how the European Union commissioned policy-driven historical research from 1994 to 2022, I was able to determine how little space explorers are given in these types of funding programs. Decision makers define the research questions, determine which disciplines should work together, and often define the specific output of the project. During the period I examined, the guidelines of the Directorate-General for Research also became stricter. In 1994 there was an “open call” with one small explanatory paragraph. Today, such a document easily consists of several pages of text, supplemented by “appendices” and “special conditions” that applicants must read. Anyone who wants money has to follow certain political priorities and government rules much more than before.
The story doesn’t end there. Also the so-called When funding blue sky research, where researchers can choose their own topic and sky / is the proverbial limit, financial institutions and governments are intervening in subtle ways. For example, financiers are increasingly asking questions about the “social value” of research. Application files often expect a science communication plan before the research is even done. And it has an impact: both of my studies like others suggests that researchers switch subjects to ensure they can keep their jobs.
Request for (ir)relevance
That’s why I worry about the freedom to do “irrelevant” research. Freedom to ask questions that decision makers do not (yet) find interesting. The freedom to say, “Well, this is for the experts.” Because scientists cannot always say in advance what their research will produce. In addition, collecting and transferring information without immediately solving problems is valuable. Universities are also places where people formed and where they learn to think critically. It may not seem “useful”, but it certainly is.
Marie-Gabrielle Verbergt competes for the Flanders PhD Cup 2024. Read more about this research at www.phdcup.be.