Universities (too) often use politically charged problem definitions
Universities make themselves and their employees vulnerable when their administrators intertwine political views with policy, argues Jan Bouwens. “The real vulnerability lies in the choice of research subject.”
When a university or research funder explicitly focuses on research that fits within a political agenda – whether progressive or conservative – researchers are indirectly forced to steer their work in a certain direction. This pressure is reinforced when the editors of scientific journals share the same preferences. The problem therefore lies not so much with individual scientists, but with the institutional structures that determine which projects receive funding and which articles are published.
Bias
Individual researchers always bring their own beliefs to the table, but as long as they make their methodology transparent and adhere to scientific standards, this does not necessarily influence the outcome of their research. An example illustrates this: suppose two researchers are studying the same intervention to improve school success. One consciously or unconsciously sees a lack of diversity as a problem, the other does not. If both clearly justify their definitions, measurement methods and analyses, their personal beliefs cannot be decisive in the results of their research.
However, there are known risks, such as p-hacking, whereby data is manipulated until statistical significance occurs, or the selective composition of samples. Such practices threaten the reliability of research, although this risk is smaller nowadays: journals are increasingly requesting raw data, making manipulation easier to control. There is also the method of preregistration, whereby researchers record in advance which analyses they will perform. Finally, the anonymous peer review procedure reduces the likelihood of personal preferences being decisive. This greatly limits the scope for deliberate influence by individual researchers.
The real vulnerability lies in the choice of research subject. Researchers have their own preferences, but it is mainly universities, funders and journals that steer the choices. They may be inclined to hire people or accept publications that fit in with their ideological beliefs.
Political context
An example from The Wall Street Journal illustrates this. Research into the benefits of corporate sustainability reporting was less frequently accepted in leading journals in the United States as the current president's chances of election increased. This suggests that the political context helped determine which studies had a chance of being published.
In the Netherlands, too, there are signs that financiers such as NWO are not politically neutral. The frequent emphasis on “inclusion” as a starting point means that the problem definition is already politically charged. Researchers who want to work from a different perspective are therefore less likely to receive support. In this way, institutional preference limits the freedom of research.
Fashionable themes
The main threat to independence therefore comes not from individual scientists, but from institutions. When they develop structural preferences for fashionable themes – such as sustainability (instead of the hardly controversial theme of “climate change”), diversity or inclusion (instead of the less controversial “participation in society”) – this results in one-sided knowledge development. Topics that do not fit into this trend fade into the background, causing science to lose its diversity. This is a fundamental erosion of academic freedom.
Depoliticisation
I therefore advocate a rethinking of the role of university boards, research funders and the editorial boards of scientific journals. Their task should not be to promote political preferences or impose themes, but to create conditions in which independent research can flourish. This means providing space for diversity of perspectives and exercising restraint in linking funding or publication opportunities to political agendas.
A university that is overly committed to sustainability, for example, inadvertently hinders research into alternative perspectives. Only through depoliticisation can science develop into a domain in which truly independent and widely supported knowledge is created.
Imbalance
When science is driven by fashionable themes, an imbalance arises: some questions receive disproportionate attention, while others disappear from view. If we want to keep science truly independent, institutions must rethink their role. Their responsibility is not to steer research in a particular political direction, but to guarantee freedom, diversity and methodological soundness. Only then can science flourish as a source of reliable and versatile knowledge.
Jan Bouwens is professor of accounting at the UvA.
