The position of professor by special appointment deserves robust and transparent rules
The title of “professor by special appointment” is not sufficiently protected by robust and transparent rules, argues Anouk van Dijk. There are structural gaps in the current policy: in the job requirements, the safeguards against conflicts of interest and the oversight of public use of the title. “We cannot afford to have the title of professor called into question.”
How is it possible for someone to use the title of professor by special appointment to publicly endorse a controversial, insufficiently researched treatment, I wondered after watching the Dutch programme Boos, which focused on the controversial youth clinic Yes We Can Clinics. Former clients and parents spoke on the programme about negative experiences with the clinic, ranging from damaged self-esteem to trauma and even suicide.
Peer van der Helm, professor emeritus at the UvA, defended the clinic. He led a study into the clinic’s environment, which clinical psychologist Pim Cuijpers, professor emeritus at the VU University, described in the programme as “really very poor research”. Furthermore, Van der Helm spoke to the Boos team off the record and defended the clinic in a letter to a lawyer, in which he cited more than a hundred scientific articles on working environment and a PhD programme at the UvA. As far as I can ascertain, there is not a single peer-reviewed article or PhD programme that specifically supports the treatment provided by Yes We Can Clinics.
Bridge-builders
How is it possible for someone to use the title of “professor by special appointment” to publicly support a controversial, insufficiently researched treatment? This is possible because the current policy regarding professors by special appointment contains loopholes. To clarify: the position of professor by special appointment is not a rank above that of ordinary professor; “special” refers to the form of appointment. These professors hold a temporary part-time appointment (five years, with the possibility of extension) and are primarily affiliated with an external employer, which provides the financial backing for the chair.
This dual affiliation makes these professors bridge-builders between academia and society. They provide socially relevant education, bring questions from society to the university and encourage the application of scientific knowledge. Many professors by special appointment do this with integrity and to great effect. It is precisely for this reason that it is worrying that current policy does not sufficiently protect this role – and the reputation associated with it.
Quality
Firstly, the formal job requirements for special professors are lower. For ordinary professors, the standard job profile with 74 criteria applies. In the current UvA policy, this profile for professors by special appointment has been replaced by five broad criteria: a doctoral degree; authoritative academic publications; the ability to deliver teaching; a national or international reputation; and the promotion of the connection between science and society. A basic teaching qualification and experience in supervising PhD students are desirable, but not mandatory.
Many professors by special appointment will largely meet this so-called UFO profile, and where this is not the case, there may be a valid explanation. However, without an explicit, fully-fledged job profile, it is possible for someone with a relatively weak academic foundation to be awarded the title of professor. This can entail risks for the quality of teaching and research and thereby undermines the credibility of other (extraordinary) professors.
Conflict of interest
Secondly, professors with additional roles are vulnerable to conflicts of interest. This became apparent in 2022, when several UvA professors of tax law were simultaneously found to be working at Zuidas law firms (in Dutch). The tension is particularly acute in the case of extraordinary professors, because the external employer is not a secondary role but the basis of the chair. The risks vary by employer: a commercial entity with a direct financial interest is quite different from an academic hospital or public research institute.
Former Minister Dijkgraaf therefore emphasised the importance of transparency regarding external positions (in Dutch). Universities subsequently took steps, such as establishing a public register of secondary activities for professors. This is a step forward, although professors themselves are responsible for reporting their secondary positions and transparency in itself is no guarantee against conflicts of interest.
Supervision
Thirdly, there are gaps in the supervision of special professors. As they are not employed by the university, quality assurance is carried out via a board of trustees, which at the UvA is composed of representatives from the external party, the faculty and the university. Without clear and verifiable criteria for supervision, it is questionable to what extent such a board of trustees can truly make independent judgements. In many cases, both the external party (which wishes to retain the chair) and the university (which values the external connection and resources) have an interest in continuing the arrangement.
Furthermore, emeritus professors – including special professors who retire during their temporary appointment – are permitted to continue to use their title after retirement. At the same time, they are removed from the register of secondary activities and the university’s quality assurance ceases. This is particularly problematic in the case of special professors, given the increased risk of conflicts of interest.
Fully-fledged
The position of professor by special appointment is a valuable role that deserves robust, transparent rules. Not to cast suspicion on special professorships as such, but to make unnecessary risks and incidents – such as the case involving Yes We Can Clinics – less likely. I therefore advocate for a fully-fledged job profile for extraordinary professors. In addition, it is important that clear, publicly accessible criteria are established for the ongoing monitoring of the secondary activities and public communications of extraordinary professors and emeritus extraordinary professors who continue to hold the title.At a time when fact and opinion are increasingly becoming intertwined, we cannot afford to have the title of professor called into question.
Anouk van Dijk is assistant professor remedial education at the UvA.
