Date: 25 August 2020
Time: 10.00-12.00
Venue: Online
Meeting Participants:
Meeting agenda:
The agenda concerned the four topics identified at the previous meeting. A background paper had been circulated (attached) and for each topic, there were three questions:
Topic 1: Research Integrity
Research integrity is a complex topic understood differently by different stakeholders. Moreover, the meaning of the concept has been changing in time. These different concepts and ideas about what integrity means, together with different formal standards (e.g. in international cooperation) can lead to conflicts. We should aim to establish what is the most basic concept of independent research and research independence and work from there towards greater complexity.
After some big scandals which revealed breaches in research integrity in Denmark, some universities developed codes of conduct for collaboration with two types of external partners:
Some HEPP members have been involved in a project Practicing Integrity (PI). In the project, we brought together different people (from Europe, national ministry, institutional leadership and administration, academics and students) who understood the concept of integrity differently. It is important to initiate a cross-generational and cross-sectoral discussions about these matters. Different universities also have different ways of dealing with the topic. A conversation that brings all the players together is important, including teachers.
Teaching ethics and integrity comes up mainly in doctoral studies. We believe that the focus needs to come earlier in the formation of early-stage researchers. However, integrity needs to be considered also outside of these formal courses, and discussions about the commitments involved in being an academic are important throughout an academic career. There is a problem that such courses may normalise some ideasor example, the idea that “small cheating” in the academic race for a career is OK (e.g. with co-authorship).
Open questions:
When a university signs up to do research with external funders, how can we assure that we will do sound academic research, and not compromise research integrity?
How are the commitments to wider society to be reflected in research integrity?
How do we teach integrity and ethics? Junior and senior researchers should talk about it so we reach a similar ethical ground. What infrastructure of integrity is in place at different institutions?
Next steps: There will be an online conference on the topic on 13 November 2020.
Topic 2: Academic Freedom
Denmark has a very circumscribed definition of academic freedom, so each university had to develop new methods to protect its own academic freedom following the law, but few if any seem to have done so. The importance increased as universities now have to negotiate demands from all aspects of ‘surrounding society’ and organise its relations with these social, political and economic interests through contracts.
There is a tension between integrity, freedom and purpose. Freedom should not be in a binary opposition to purpose. The danger is that freedom means not being useful for society. In HEPP, we should not just establish separate activities for each of the topics but really face this tension.
Because of the importance of external funding to university finances, those who get funding have more freedom. Certain topics and areas get more funding.
There is a university in which all contracts ensure that all researchers must publish their findings, even if IPR issues may delay publication. There is a problem in collaboration with China for example as this is affected by rules and organisations beyond the university.
Academic freedom is a social responsibility. Funds are not what allows academic freedom to exist but rather to be furthered and sustained. It is possible to exercise freedom without funding and we need to take creative initiatives. It is important to practice freedom not just on issues where we feel safe, but in issues that are debateable and in boundary situations.
We may need to move from a ‘negative freedom’ (the freedom FROM something) towards a ‘positive freedom’ (freedom TO be able to do something).
Open questions:
Which organs within the university are systematically checking contracts and ensuring the freedom of ‘the institution and each individual’?
With so many people on short-term contracts – what freedom do they have?
There are restricted areas but are there “locks on doors” where they are not necessary?
Do we maybe want to send out a survey focused on teaching freedom? Is it a problem and if, how big a problem teaching and learning freedom is?
How do researchers and academics handle academic freedom? How do they exercise their “professional judgement” (term used in medicine professionals).
What are the purposes and values embedded in our teaching? What do we want to be free to do (we know well what oppression we want to be free from)?
Topic 3: Citizenship
We need a language/vocabulary and a curricular framing of the purpose of universities and higher education that stands in contrast (or at least complimentary) to the policies around innovation and the professionalisation of higher education from socio-economic drivers. How may we reclaim the notion of Bildung in higher education, or reformulate it as ‘academic citizenship’ in order to connect individuals with communities, the institutions with the surrounding society, and the intellectual efforts with a moral awareness – how to create cultural (and not only economic) value through higher education?
Should ‘Bildung’ be the proper term/framework to speak from? Bildung sometimes in the media and societal rhetoric has a tinge of nostalgia and decline-story over it. Sometimes it is attached to the traditional ‘Filosofikum’ at Danish universities, which is more about the history of philosophy than how universities could/should engage societally. Another problem with Bildung is that it sometimes is connected to elitism and privilege – we should be aware of the implicit (potentially) negative social connotations. If Bildung/dannelse is to be referred to, it should be reformulated in a contemporary perspective. We should be able to move beyond the nostalgia of Bildung while keeping its central and constructive meanings.
Bildung points at individual and is connected with the European enlightenment project. One member suggested to focus on practice.
In research involving technology, universities develop strategies for the society, as artificial intelligence and others with have a huge societal impact.
How are students socialized in to different ways of participation in society?
How to connect Bildung and academic integrity?
How do we conceptualise sustainability, the common good, and the public good?
Is it management of our institutions that should protect us from entering into dubious contracts?
Topic 4: De-Internationalization
In 2018, Danish universities were forced to cut international places in master’s programmes. The measure was to cut the number of ‘English speaking students’ so that taxpayers’ money would go to educating and supporting Danish students. Another argument was to fund courses whose students entered the Danish labour market, rather than courses aimed for Danish and other students to enter a global labour market. It is unclear if the political agreement is still extant and further cuts could come in the future.
Since the requirement of the command of Danish for entering previously international MA programme has been in place, our members see a drop in the quality of students and a loss of the fantastic pedagogic advantages of internationalisation. Some disciplines can be international and others by definition have to be.
We often speak about the economy and employability etc. but you can see the eye-opening effects of an international milieu on students, academics and academic citizenship. We’re missing the bigger discussion.
Education is still seen as privilege. It is needed to shift the focus to seeing education as something that benefits all (within a wider community, within humanity) and how it benefits workers - not as mere personal privilege. This is part of the academic citizenship debate: How do we contribute to society rather than just to the individual economically?
Open questions:
What are the curricular implications of this change for learning and teaching practices?
