Everyone´s a professor

In Wageningen, too, there are proponents of expanding the professor title.
Photo Guy Ackermans

A lecturer who can say they´re a professor, be a supervisor and wear a toga? No problem at the TU/e in Eindhoven. Their colleagues at Wageningen think WUR ought to follow that example.

The TU/e suddenly acquired hundreds more professors on 1 November last year. The number quadrupled. Not because the researchers were suddenly promoted en masse to full professorships, but because the university’s Everyone´s a professor initiative took effect then. That brought to fruition the wish of the Eindhoven professor Kees Storm, expressed in his inaugural lecture in 2018.
Storm’s Everyone’s a professor initiative aims to modernize the Dutch academic world and make it less hierarchical, and above all to align it better with the norms in neighbouring countries. A central point is what is known as ius promovendi (supervision rights): being entitled to act as a supervisor, independently guiding a PhD candidate and helping them reach the finishing line. In the Netherlands, that right was reserved until recently for professors. They handle the supervision of PhD projects whereas the co-supervisors – largely assistant professors and associate professors – generally deal with the day-to-day guidance. Since 2017, the law has given scope to deviate from this rule, though. Storm’s attack on system was well timed. The idea has simmered away at universities since then.

Equality

In Wageningen, Ellen Van Loo and Frederic Ang are fervent proponents of expanding supervision rights. Van Loo is and associate professor in Marketing and Consumer Behaviour and Ang in Business Economics. Both have Belgian backgrounds. It is no coincidence that they in particular want the topic on the agenda at WUR. ‘In Belgium, every lecturer and associate professor can call themselves a professor too,’ says Van Loo. ‘But that term is merely one aspect of showing that you’re an expert in your field: it’s about the hierarchical structure that needs changing. Everyone’s a professor is about equality, recognition and the rights that go with the obligations. It´s about responsibilities that are commensurate with what you do.’
‘I’ve worked in England and Belgium,’ says Ang, ‘where a tenure tracker has supervision rights virtually from day one. And that matters a lot. As a tenure tracker, the idea is that you should be building up your own independent profile as a scientist. Supervising a PhD candidate is a significant part of that. The system in Wageningen splits the supervision rights from the guidance, though: you have to do the latter, but only a professor can be a supervisor. That makes it all heavily dependent on the professor, which runs counter to the desired independence.’
‘The everyday guidance in a PhD project is quite an obligation and it can be intensive,’ adds Van Loo, ‘so why shouldn’t it come with supervision rights? The responsibilities and the rights don’t match.’

Rules

The two Belgians’ arguments are backed up in part by Wageningen Young Academy, the group of younger tenure trackers. ‘The way supervision rights currently work creates a lengthy and sometimes very unnatural dependency relationship between the younger and the older and more experienced researchers in supervising PhD candidates,’ says Nico Claassens, associate professor at the Laboratory of Microbiology. ‘Despite often having the idea for a project, bringing in the funding and doing most of the guidance, you have to bring someone else on board because you don’t have supervision rights. That feels wrong. Not just for us, doing the supervision, but for the PhD candidate too. I have one PhD student who has two experienced coaches who don’t have supervision rights. Even the supervisor asked, “What do you need me for? I’ve hardly got anything else to do with this research.” Well, those are the rules… Not that it’s always like that, of course. There are plenty of supervisors who bring a lot to the table. And in some cases it’s really good to have a supervisory team with a wide range of skills. It’s about being obliged to do it a particular way.’

It’s the candidate who suffers if you get it wrong

‘It’s about the pool of people with supervision rights being too small,’ says Tim van Emmerik, an associate professor of Hydrology and Environmental Hydraulics. ‘In Wageningen, day-to-day supervision of PhD candidates is done by at least two people and ideally, one of them would have supervision rights. We have to make that pool bigger and develop a good system to ensure that, independently of your place on the academic ladder.’

Accountabilities

Everyone’s a professor has been bubbling away in Dutch academic circles for some time, since the Young Academy embraced the idea of Eindhoven’s Prof. Storm two years ago. In Wageningen, it is on the agenda of the Academic Board, says Dean of Research Wouter Hendriks. The Academic Board advises the governing board about inter alia PhD candidacy matters. ‘Opinions about Everyone’s a professor in the Academic Board are divided,’ says Hendriks. Personally, he is against expanding supervision rights further, beyond what has already been done (see inset). That allows someone in the last phase of tenure track to be a supervisor, or even one phase earlier in special cases. They must then have seen at least three complete PhD projects through as a co-supervisor to acquire the experience. ‘Our Academic Board thinks it’s a big responsibility,’ explains Hendriks. ‘That´s why that rule about three supervision projects was made. Guiding a PhD candidate is quite an onerous responsibility. You take it on for four years, guiding a PhD candidate in becoming an independent scientist. You’ve got to take it seriously. Supervision rights are about more than guiding a PhD candidate; it’s the candidate who suffers if you get it wrong. If there are problems and the project overruns by a year, who pays? The supervisor is responsible and you’ll have to get it sorted. Are you up to that? Do you have the resources, the network or the capabilities? An assistant or associate professor often has fewer options for finding solutions. So you end up knocking on a professor’s door anyway.’

In Belgium, Germany, the UK and the USA, they seem confident you’re capable

Ang and Van Loo think it is weird to link supervision rights to a minimum number of PhD projects managed. Van Loo: ‘A tenure tracker mostly has plenty of experience with writing articles, setting up research and supervising students. I don’t see the guidance as a problem.’ Ang: ‘You also have to look at it in the international context. In Belgium, Germany, the UK and the USA, they seem confident that you’re capable of supervising others from the start of the tenure track. Are the differences between assistant, associate and full professors big enough that you arbitrarily assign supervision rights to a restricted group? I don’t think so. Belgium is a good example of how it can be done without that unnecessary hierarchy.’
Wageningen Young Academy is making the case for having a broadly based committee examine the current system critically. ‘A letter about that was sent to the governing board in June 2023,’ says Claassens. According to him, that committee should include not only professors but also PhD candidates, tenure trackers and other academic staff. ‘As yet, there´s been no response to the request.’

Expansion
Since 2018, both associate and full professors have been able to act as supervisors at WUR. To show they are competent to do so, the former must have guided at least three PhD projects in Wageningen. Within the new Academic Career Framework, that is a requirement for reaching the last tenure track phase before promotion to a full professorship. Three years ago, around a hundred associate professors at WUR had supervision rights. How often they actually took on the supervisory role last year is not known. There was one PhD graduation in December that did not involve any professors: neither the supervisor, the co-supervisors nor the opponents were full professors. Some assistant professors have also recently become able to request supervision rights. The same requirement of at least three PhD projects supervised applies.

Toga
In Wageningen, the right to wear a toga is reserved for professors. The rules are more flexible elsewhere in the Netherlands. Since November last year, all Eindhoven’s academic staff have been allowed to wear togas at formal ceremonies. Despite that, sources at the toga maker say business is quiet. In Nijmegen and Utrecht, not only the supervisors but also the co-supervisors are allowed to wear togas at the graduation. Elsewhere, the rules vary. The opinions at Wageningen Young Academy are divided, says Nico Claassens. ‘Some see only the professors being allowed to wear a toga as a sign of inequality. It’s about what the toga represents: does it symbolize status and hierarchy, or the neutrality of science? If you’re in the latter camp, it’s strange that only the professors have togas.’

Also read:

Leave a Reply


You must be logged in to write a comment.
  1. Great article! I do think the translation to English here is a bit ambiguous: promotor is not equivalent to “supervisor”, in fact that is the main argument made by the interviewees: co-promoters or daily supervisors often do the bulk of the supervision and hence are the main “supervisors” yet get a smaller role in the final promotion. The latter is reserved for the promotor. I think the word supervisor should consistently be replaced with promotor in this article in order to be correct

  2. While I agree with much what has been said, I also have experienced that one of the more difficult elements of guiding a PhD to a successful conclusion lies in the supervisory team guiding the dissertation to a coherent portfolio of chapters that together is more than the sum of the parts. This requires integration and reflection that goes beyond supervision of individual papers / chapters or MSc theses. Reserving the Ius Promovendi to supervisors who successfully supervised a fair number (e.g. three mentioned above) PhD dissertations, provides some guarantees that there is always someone in the supervisory team who has been involved in getting that part of the PhD trajectory up to good standards. I was really glad to learn this from having experienced full professors on board for the first couple of PhD candidates I had the honour to supervise.

  3. Great article, on a very important topic.

    I am surprised to read that the Academic board, has never even reacted on the request of WYA in June 2023 to set up a committee exploring the current system, and coming up with recommendations. Why did they never react?

    Also on the condition of 3 supervised PhD projects, there is so much unclarity. Some say these all have to be at Wageningen, while others say, that successfully PhD supervision at former universities also count. more clear guidelines are definitely needed.

  4. I concur with other commentators that this is an extremely important topic of discussion that should not be ignored by the Board. I was happy to learn that in some cases also assistant professors at WUR should be able to get Ius Promovendi if they have supervised three or more PhDs (hence, have demonstrated capacity). I would like to know more about the route to achieve this. As I see it: Having contributed in no small measure to the successful completion of 5 PhDs from different parts of the world and interacting with several different promotors (not all at WUR) gives me a good frame of reference to fulfill such a task with the required sense of maturity and responsibility- and I am sure this holds for many more people at WUR.

  5. Having worked at Wageningen University for 24 years (of which 10 years as a Chair) and now being employed as a Chair in the US education system at Cornell University, I can see the assets and liabilities of the two systems. At Cornell, there is a lot of discussion around what they call “mentoring”. How do you ensure that newly appointed Assistant Professors (usually appointed fresh out of a postdoc with very little supervisory, financial, and managerial experience) are able to fulfill their jobs in the best possible way? Doing this all on your own is extremely challenging. In the US system, newly appointed junior faculty are expected to be fully independent. They are almost always recruited externally and usually have very few connections in the institution in which they are hired. Junior faculty are almost totally on their own in dealing with the challenges of supervising PhD students. Most people go through a very steep learning curve and learn by experience. Cornell is trying to figure out how junior faculty can be better supported in the early career phase to avoid some of the issues that regularly pop up, including those related to financial and personnel management. They are strongly encouraging departments to have a solid mentoring system for their junior faculty. A mentoring committee consists of several more senior colleagues whom junior faculty can rely on for consultation and advice. In my department, the chair of the mentoring committee writes a report every year that the Chair uses in the yearly performance review with each faculty member.
    I personally think that only allowing Full Professors to serve as promotors is overkill and that Associate Professors are well able to fulfill this role, certainly if you apply the rule that they must have co-supervised at least three complete PhD projects from beginning to end. However, I understand the reluctance to award promotor rights to Assistant Professors without them having gained significant experience. It is a huge responsibility that can best be shared amongst two (or more) people.

    1. Thanks for your comments. Good to see someone contributing who has also experience in the US system.

      As you pointed out, there are indeed costs and benefits to each approach. I also agree with you that PhD supervision is a huge responsibility. Here, we clearly see the difference in vision between Wageningen University and Cornell University. In what follows, I assume that PhD supervision quality is protected in both systems for the sake of argumentation.

      Wageningen University assigns the duties of PhD supervision to a promotor (UHD1 or higher) and usually one or more daily supervisors. On the other hand, the benefits are mainly transferred to the senior through the promotion right, while the more junior daily supervisor is not fully credited due to the lack of promotion right. Those with promotion right have an incentive to amass a large number of PhD students, as they reap the benefits, but can share the costs with the other PhD supervisors. On the other hand, the junior academic needs to supervise, but has no promotion right and is a result de facto dependent on the senior promotor. This may create a tension with the independent profile expected from that junior academic.

      Cornell University immediately grants the promotion rights to early career academics. The costs and benefits are aligned; the supervision duty is aligned with the promotion right. Of course, the initial costs are high for assistant professors: PhD supervision is hard, especially in the beginning. Their solution is that more senior members bear some of the costs through mentoring, without real benefits for them. The early career academics reap the benefits from the promotion right and can create an independent profile.

      At Wageningen University, the underlying assumption seems to be that the senior academic knows best, with less trust in the junior academics. As pointed out in the Resource article, this is symbolized by the exclusive right to wear a gown (“toga”) and use of the professor title for full professors. At Cornell University, junior academics are trusted and empowered to become the leaders in their field, with the expectation that they give back through mentoring when they become senior.

      Ultimately, it boils down to the following question: do you think that assistant professors are assistants to professors or professors themselves?

      As the tenure track system (and now the academic career framework) at Wageningen University is designed to create independent profiles (that are of course still embedded within a collaborative institutional environment), a less hierarchical structure that grants promotion rights to early career academics do occur to me as logical. It would make the system at this great university consistent with the international standards. TU Eindhoven shows that such change is possible.