The perspective of Tamarinde Haven, PhD student VU Amsterdam, on the academic climate and possibilities for growth.
What is the main subject of your PhD?
My PhD is focused on the role of the academic research climate in fostering research integrity. Important questions regarding this topic are: “What is the influence of the academic research climate on research integrity? How is this research climate perceived across academic ranks and disciplinary fields? Do publication pressure and the research climate play a role in explaining research misbehavior? And what is a responsible research climate?”
Looking at the academic culture. How do you perceive the system that is built around it? In my opinion there is something wrong with the idea that universities are mega-companies, where everything works with output-indicators and as efficiently as possible. Thing is: doing research is not predictable. Working in a system where you are valued based on the quantity of your output increases the chances of people getting sick and burned out. Next to that there is a lot of pressure when it comes to publishing your outcomes. This pressure to publish can incentivize safe choices, moving away from hard research questions and focusing on what sells. Lastly a couple of values are in clash with each other. For example, on the one hand we describe doing research as a learning trajectory, and on the other hand we expect people to publish in the best places, because otherwise it is not worth it. Also in the relationship between the PhD student and the supervisor I see a clash between two values. On the one hand they expect you to be honest throughout the whole process. Then again as a student you are fully dependent and loyal to that person who is going to give you a go and decide if you can move on with your research.
Where do you see opportunities for development? I see opportunities for change in the relationship between the PhD student and the supervisor, which is almost a master-companion relationship. The potential for growth lies in enhancing the soft skills of supervisors. We expect those people, after years of hard work in solitude, to personally guide students for four years in a very difficult process. There are important (soft) skills to develop in order to do that, like coaching, active listening and giving feedback. Next to that the supervisor is the role model of the PhD student. They have the characteristics you live up to and want to become yourself. So, it is also important that supervisors are aware of their role model function when it comes to displaying responsible research practices.
What question(s) should be asked more within academia from your perspective? Sometimes I am wondering ‘what is yet the good in competition’ (except from giving the money to the people who will perform the best). The competition and the individualistic approach are some of the more important problems when it comes to the research climate, in my opinion. There is a lot of subtle competition, people want to get credit for their ideas and work. The competition leads to a lack of openness. Because: “Can you really share a good idea?” or “ Are you naïve and will someone else take it from you?”. This effect of competitiveness and the individualistic approach causes people to think twice before bringing great ideas to the table, what science should be all about. I see some possibilities in team science to fix this. Therefore I want to raise the question:
“How to develop team science?”
I think it is important to learn how team science exactly works. And ask ourselves: “How can we work as a team? And what is needed in order to do so?”. For example nowadays people are individually rewarded, so there are incentives for people to do things alone. If we want to move towards team science: “How do we reward teams?”. It is hard to address these questions because people often believe that this is just how science works. Phrases like ‘that’s just how it goes’ and ‘that’s how they do it here’, you will hear very often.
Which difficulties are we going to face? The difficulty to create sufficient psychological safety to address the questions described above. It is hard to create psychological safety and openness when there is a lot of competition going on. But, it is necessary. Next to that the academic world is a very hierarchal world.
Just like that there are people who say ‘there is no racism’, people will certainly say ‘ there is no hierarchy’, because they do not perceive it from their perspective.
If you woke up and the academic culture is changed in the way you would like it to be. What would be the first thing you noticed? The first thing I would notice is that PhD students are seen as humans again, not as brains on a stick.