General

(The Dutch version of ‘veelgestelde vragen’ can be found here.)

  1. What does the Recognition & Rewards programme entail?

In November 2019, Universities of the Netherlands (UNL), the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres (NFU), the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and ZonMw published the position paper Room for Everyone’s Talent. The position paper states we want to recognise and reward the work of academics more broadly by paying more attention to the various core domains in which they work. With the road map Room for Everyone’s Talent in Practice, issued in 2023, the institutions set out in concrete terms what they want to achieve in practice in the coming years.

  1. Why was the programme created?

Many academics feel there is an overly one-sided emphasis on research performance, frequently leading to the undervaluation of the other key areas such as education, impact, leadership and (for university medical centres) patient care. As Dutch knowledge institutions, we believe it is important for academics to be able to distinguish themselves in the domains of teaching, impact, leadership and patient care, as well as in research. In addition, the complex academic and societal challenges of our time call for an assessment system that rewards both (multidisciplinary) collaboration and the unique talent of individual academics. In addition, academics experience a high workload because they are expected to be active in multiple domains, although they are judged mainly on their research output.

  1. What does the Recognition & Rewards programme ultimately seek to achieve?

We work together on a culture change towards creating room for academics to develop their range of talents. The guiding principle is that everyone’s talent counts. This requires a modernisation of the system of recognition and rewards, in which we:

  • create more dynamic differentiation in career paths;
  • place more emphasis on the quality of work and less on quantitative results;
  • do justice to individual academic achievements and ambitions as well as to contributions that serve collective goals;
  • encourage high-quality leadership;
  • and stimulate open science.

  1. Why do you speak of a culture change?

The Recognition & Rewards programme represents a major culture change in academia. The ambitions require a unified and integrated approach in which national and international coordination between all parties is essential. Complex change issues, such as reforming the system of recognition and rewards for academics, require a dialogue-based approach to change. This approach starts by creating an open discussion climate in which people can safely speak their mind and are specifically encouraged to express (differing) opinions. The approach to change ultimately focuses on behavioural change, cultural embedding, and new structures and systems that contribute to this.

  1. How is the Recognition & Rewards programme set up?

Following the publication of the position paper Room for Everyone’s Talent, all institutions involved appointed their own Recognition & Rewards committee. These committees are strongly committed to achieving the intended culture change at the institutional level. At all institutions, academic themselves have been able to give direction to Recognition & Rewards through dialogue sessions. Based on these discussions, the local committees translated the ambitions from the position paper into a vision paper that fits their own organisation’s outlook and strategy. These vision papers reveal a great and inspiring diversity in change approaches, albeit with the same goal: realising the ambitions set out in the position paper.

  1. How do the national Recognition & Rewards programme and the local programmes relate to each other?

The Recognition & Rewards programme consists of two layers. On the one hand, each institution involved has its own project organisation and approach to change. On the other hand, there is a national change programme in which the institutions work together. A broad-based steering committee coordinates the joint programme. The national programme team acts as the link between the steering committee and the local committees. Experimentation, inspiration, co-creation, sharing good practices and learning from each other are the core aspects of this joint programme. To promote this, a consultation structure and the online community platform RRview have been created.

  1. Who exactly is involved in the Recognition & Rewards programme?

The initiative for the Recognition & Rewards programme lies with the various umbrella organisations. UNL represents the fourteen universities, while the NFU represents the seven university medical centres. In addition, the institute organisations of the NWO and the KNAW are involved in the programme. The NWO and ZonMw also contribute to the programme as science funders. Lastly, from 2020, the Ideologically-based universities (Landelijk Netwerk van Levensbeschouwelijke Universiteiten, or NLU) has been involved in the programme. This network represents the University of Humanistic Studies and the three theological universities.

  1. How is the Recognition & Rewards programme funded?

Half of the costs are borne by the collaborating knowledge institutions. The costs of the local change approaches are borne by the institutions themselves. As the programme is in line with academic policy priorities, the ministry has made a grant available for the period 2022-2026. The other half of the joint programme is funded out of this grant by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.

  1. What is the duration of the programme?

The Recognition & Rewards joint programme runs until the end of 2026.

  1. How does the Recognition & Rewards programme relate to developments abroad?

Although the Netherlands is an ‘early mover’, similar developments are taking place elsewhere in the world. In the European context, the Coalition for Advancing Research (CoARA) was established in 2022 to reform quality assessment. In addition, there are ongoing developments in Norway, Finland, Latin America and elsewhere that show a clear affinity with the Recognition & Rewards programme. You can have a look at our Recognition & Rewards e-magazine, which highlights some examples.

Content

  1. Does Recognition & Rewards mean that academics must excel in all core domains?

No, this is explicitly not a goal of ours. The Recognition & Rewards programme in fact wants academics to be able to forge their own career path based on their inherent talents. We think it is important that academics can raise their profile in one or more core domains, and that their profile can vary in the course of their career. Because of the close interconnection between teaching and research in the Dutch university system, we assume that academics have sufficient competences in both domains.

  1. What does Recognition & Rewards mean for research quality?

Many academics feel there is an overly one-sided emphasis on research performance, as a result of which activities in other domains regularly fail to receive due appreciation. In addition, the strong emphasis on traditional output indicators (such as number of publications, h-index and journal impact factor) contributes to a high workload. With the Recognition & Rewards programme, we aim to recalibrate and broaden the reward system for academics. In the assessment, we therefore want to place a greater emphasis on quality, content, academic integrity, creativity, contribution to science and/or society and the specific profile in which an academic is active. In this way, we do justice to the various activities undertaken by academics. Following the example of the Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (AWTI), we prefer to speak of quality and research, rather than of a single generic quality standard. How we define quality and how we should assess quality is still undeveloped in the domains of teaching, impact, leadership and patient care. The joint programme monitors developments at the institutions and tries to bring together developments at the national level where possible.

  1. Does this mean that the use of quantitative indicators is no longer allowed?

One of the objectives from the position paper Room for Everyone’s Talent (2019) is: focus on quality. In the paper, we argue that the implicit and overly one-sided emphasis on traditional, measurable output indicators (such as number of publications, h-index and journal impact factor) is partly responsible for the high workload. In addition, we argue that their use can upset the balance between academic disciplines and is inconsistent with the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). This had been reaffirmed with the publication of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (2022). The signatories of this statement have committed to refraining from the inappropriate use of benchmarks based on journals and publications, in particular the Journal Impact Factor and h-index.

This is because while bibliometric indicators tell a story, they do not tell the whole story. Commonly used indicators often give a one-sided picture of academic quality. A lot of research has been done in recent years on the creation, use and negative effects of various metrics. The conclusion has been that the disadvantages often outweigh the advantages. In addition, these indicators are not comparable across academic disciplines. Consequently, they do not do justice to the diversity in academic domains and academic practice. Relying too strongly on such indicators can disrupt the diversity and societal impact of research. At the same time, it impedes the implementation of open science. It is important, therefore, to recalibrate and broaden the system of rewarding research.

As knowledge institutions, we are looking for a more evidence-based approach. In the Strategy Evaluation Protocol 2021-2027 for example, qualitative assessment of research groups is already the starting point. Also, an increasing number of institutions – including the NWO and ZonMw – are working with an evidence-based CV in which academics describe their profile and achievements in a coherent way, supported by key results (evidence) that fit the candidate’s profile, discipline and context.

The evidence-based CV certainly provides space for quantitative substantiation, so it is not the case that the use of quantitative indicators is not allowed, as is sometimes claimed. Quantitative indicators can still be used, as long as it is done responsibly. The principle is that the assessment of science and staff is based on quality. We think it is important for academics to have a conversation about what quality research actually means. When meaningful metrics are a valuable addition and an academic can explain why a quantitative indicator is relevant, this provides far more context and can definitely be included in the assessment.

  1. What does the Recognition & Rewards programme mean for the international position of Dutch academic research?

There are concerns in the academic community about the international position of Dutch science in connection with the implementation of the Recognition & Rewards programme. These concerns have also been expressed in the House of Representatives. In response, the standing committee on Education, Culture and Science tabled a request in July 2022 to clarify how academic quality can be determined. In its letter of advice published in December 2022, the AWTI outlines the ways in which the quality of academic work can be assessed, what the pros and cons are, and which new developments are taking place in this regard.

The AWTI also looked at the international context, stating that another form of academic evaluation does not appear to threaten the international position or reputation of Dutch science. In addition, the international movement which is already underway shows that a new approach to recognition and rewards is inevitable. The Netherlands is a forerunner in this regard, but is not alone. Being ahead offers opportunities to set the direction. The programme is committed to engaging international partners in order to further shape other ways of recognising and rewarding.

  1. How does the Recognition & Rewards programme view the use of university rankings?

University rankings come in different shapes and sizes. League tables are rankings that try to capture a university’s performance in research, teaching and impact in one number. League tables claim this number reflects the overall performance of a university. Universities believe it is important to perform well in international rankings, as many students, academics, businesses and governments consult them.

However, the methods by which these league tables are drawn up and the value assigned to them is at odds with the principles of the Recognition & Rewards programme. Firstly, combining research, teaching and impact achievements into a single one-dimensional overall score is not possible in a meaningful way. Moreover, league tables place special emphasis on research achievements, which are largely determined by numbers of publications and citations. This is also at odds with the Recognition & Rewards programme, which seeks to emphasise different kinds of quality rather than quantity.

  1. Does the Recognition & Rewards programme also cover support staff?

From the outset, the Recognition & Rewards programme has focused on academics. Several institutions have called for a broadening of the national programme. In the Room for Everyone’s Talent in Practice roadmap, the national Recognition & Rewards steering group promised that it would look into how the programme might help other groups within the institutions. In close consultation with – and on the advice of – the Recognition & Rewards project leaders, the steering group does not consider it appropriate in the current phase of the programme to apply steering at the national level regarding developments relevant to (academic) support staff. We have noticed that several institutions are deliberately opting for a broad change approach by also involving other groups in the implementation of Recognition & Rewards. At the same time, we are seeing that some of the other institutions are reluctant about such a broadening, as they feel it would lead to a dilution of the original programme. However, these institutions do regularly organise initiatives for their (academic) support staff, often under the banner of good employership.

The national steering group feels that both approaches deserve support, as they both fit in with the basic principle that good employership is primarily the responsibility of the institutions themselves. Moreover, the challenges facing academic staff are in many respects different from those facing the various other target groups. We therefore take the view that (academic) support staff are entitled to a separate approach that fits in with their situation. After all, if we were to include support staff in the current Recognition & Rewards programme, we would risk losing sight of the issues that are unique to this group of staff members.