The institutions are united in their support for the core values of the Recognition & Rewards (R&R) programme, yet implementing these values in practice remains a challenge. That, in short, is the outcome of a survey of deans at Dutch universities. On Thursday 5 June, researchers from the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) presented their findings during R&R Broad. Participants discussed the results and their implications and shared good practices from their faculties and institutions. It was an educational and inspiring day.
Over seventy people travelled to the R&R Broad event on what is perhaps the greenest campus in the Netherlands. This year we were guests at the spacious Omnia building, the conference and meeting centre of Wageningen University & Research (WUR). Among the participants were not only project leaders and ambassadors from the R&R community, but also several university leaders and deans, who took time to reflect on the day’s central theme: the use of quality indicators. By this we mean the qualitative and quantitative criteria that demonstrate a researcher’s performance in areas such as teaching and research.
Opening
Shortly after 10am, Carolien Kroeze, rector magnificus of WUR, warmly welcomed participants to the campus, where fundamental science, applied research and business go hand in hand. In her opening remarks, she spoke about the Academic Career Framework (ACF) that WUR has developed as part of R&R. The ACF provides three career paths, allowing researchers to choose a profile and emphasise their strengths. For each domain, indicators have been developed to assess academic performance. The university is now fully engaged in implementing the framework.
Next, Sanli Faez, who recently started as the new national programme manager for R&R, briefly introduced the programme and served as chair for the day. He stressed the importance of voicing any dissatisfaction about R&R’s progress and making it part of the dialogue.
Survey results
Tjitske Holtrop and Inge van der Weijden from CWTS then presented findings on the use of quality indicators in institutions. This spring, a survey was sent to around 100 deans at all Dutch universities to gain insight into developments across faculties. In total, 65 deans completed the survey.
One key finding is that deans strongly support the R&R programme, particularly valuing its focus on the diversity of academic activities. Yet here lies a striking paradox. While many deans believe their appraisal systems accommodate diverse career paths and aim for clear, transparent criteria, they also acknowledge the challenge: consistent assessment of academic performance proves complex, leading to uncertainty among researchers. Deans also report tensions between individual academic ambitions and team or institutional goals. Many faculties are still grappling with how to effectively implement R&R in practice.
The survey also asked which quality indicators faculties use. Key observations:
-
Research: Articles and reviews in academic journals remain the primary measure of quality. Notably, some faculties explicitly stated that citation counts are not used as a quality measure.
-
Teaching: Beyond portfolios, the Basic Teaching Qualification (BKO) and student supervision skills are considered most important. Several faculties explicitly discourage using student evaluations in performance assessments.
-
Impact: Faculties tend to give researchers flexibility in choosing quality indicators that match their profile. Unlike in research and teaching, indicators in this domain are often optional.
-
Leadership: There is broad consensus on required indicators. PhD supervision, team leadership and fostering collaboration are highly valued.
According to the deans, faculties are making good progress with R&R: nearly half are actively transitioning to new assessment policies, while about 20% have fully implemented new appraisal approaches.
Panel discussion
This was followed by a panel discussion chaired by Sanli Faez. Panel members included Isabel Arends (science dean, Utrecht University), Marike Knoef (dean economics & business, Tilburg University), Wiro Niessen (dean medicine, University of Groningen), Leoniek Wijngaards (dean social sciences, Utrecht University), Jeroen Geurts (rector, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), and Peter-Paul Verbeek (rector, University of Amsterdam). The audience also contributed via a Mentimeter poll.
The discussion focused on two main themes: leadership and strategic workforce planning (SWP).
-
On leadership: panellists agreed that strong leadership is key to achieving other R&R ambitions. Wijngaards noted that leadership is more than supervising PhD candidates: it requires a broad vision, empathy, and creating a safe environment. Verbeek equated leadership with taking responsibility: “Strategic workforce planning helps empower people.”
-
On SWP: Arends described SWP as offering “a hopeful perspective”, though she noted the tension between what teams want and what they can achieve. Knoef highlighted the strategic puzzle of R&R: enabling diverse talents to thrive, despite gaps in expertise on impact and leadership. Verbeek emphasised SWP’s dynamic nature — teams must continually adapt to shifting goals, which Geurts argued makes clear upfront agreements on individual focus areas essential.
World café
After a short break, participants joined a world café session. Groups of five tackled real problems shared by one of their members, working together to propose solutions. The format — in two rounds — generated lively discussions and valuable insights.
Jeroen Geurts closed the morning with a reflection: while enthusiasm for R&R among participants is clear, it is important not to paint an overly rosy picture. Many colleagues on the work floor have a different view of progress. Institutions should foster open conversations on this, and the national programme team is ready to support.
Show & Share
After lunch, participants attended Show & Share sessions where institutions presented R&R-related tools:
-
Bianca Langhout & Anna Smulders (Erasmus University Rotterdam) shared their bottom-up approach to career path development and the tools created for the economics faculty.
-
Martyna Janowicz (Tilburg School of Economics & Management) outlined their staff policy and appraisal protocol, which allows researchers to focus on one or more core domains (research, teaching, impact/funding, leadership) while meeting baseline requirements in others.
-
Maarten Voors & Erwin Bulte (WUR) explained their jointly developed research output culture document, supporting a shift from quantity to quality in research publications.
-
Menno Hurenkamp & Caroline Suransky (University of Humanistic Studies) reflected on their appointments as professors with a focus profile (impact for Hurenkamp, teaching for Suransky), showing that such roles are not consolation prizes but strategic choices.
-
Narratives in practice: Patrick Anderson (TU/e) and Sanna-Mari Kuisma (ZonMw) discussed the use of narrative CVs and biographical sketches in appraisals. Participants exchanged experiences on the added value and challenges of narrative assessments, including the extra effort required and the need for consistent evaluation.
Conclusion
The day demonstrated how essential it is to give meaning to Recognition & Rewards together. Only through collective reflection, dialogue and sharing of practices can we create real movement towards lasting change.
