A Brief History of the University

In the beginning...

The university, as an institution, has a long history. It traditionally began in the year 1088, with the founding of the University of Bologna.^[1],[2] But the origins of the university actually go back much further, to the year 859, when the University of Al-Qarawiyyin was founded in Fez, Morocco.^[3] Since then, the institution has enjoyed an extraordinarily successful rise in Europe and the rest of the world.^[4] All this time, the justification for the institution of the university as such has never been called into question. The same can’t be said for the idea of the university, however. What purpose should the university actually serve? The answer to that question has always been subject to debate and revision, even up to the present day.^[5]

In Europe, universities initially offered education in theology for the benefit of the Catholic Church, under the patronage of a secular ruler.^[6],[7] The founding of the University of Leiden in 1575 illustrates how the creation of a university often also had political motivations, and was primarily considered in the context of state government and political identity. William of Orange deliberately intended Leiden to serve as an alternative to other, more Catholic-oriented universities. One of the new university’s missions was to train resilient and discerning citizens, ‘so that the enemy would never again impose his searing tyranny and oppression of religion, or the liberties of the country, whether through force or through cunning’. To make that possible, training was needed not only ‘in the right knowledge of God’, but also in ‘the liberal arts and sciences’.^[8] Universities had already become imbued with the understanding that society, as well as central and local administration, needed more than just theological knowledge. Professional training had already been offered to doctors and lawyers, and for administrators in general.^[9],[10] Even then, these courses were not merely education aimed at a specific profession, at least in the early phase. It is striking how many medieval universities had a similar basic curriculum for all study programmes. This included general education and language mastery, with a special focus on proficiency in Latin, rhetoric -speaking and writing with persuasive power-, and logic.^[11],[12] The emergence^[13] and embrace of Aristotelian logic in particular, which focused on autonomous systematic thinking, ensured that universities began to function more independently from ecclesiastical and secular authority. This development was reinforced during the Renaissance that followed the Middle Ages. By drawing on sources from classical antiquity and focusing on the best literature of the time, the moral dimension of education shifted. The formation of virtuous people was still the priority, but virtue was defined not so much in the eyes of God, rather than in terms of aptitude to fill responsible positions in society and public life.^[14] The rise of humanism, with its focus on the value of human beings, critical thinking and evidence, and its wariness of theological dogma, has had enormous significance in this regard.

Enlightenment

During the Enlightenment period of the eighteenth century, a fundamental change took place: thinking became dominated by ‘reason’. Science, and with it, universities, definitively freed themselves from religious norms, and even some secular norms, by focusing entirely on objectivity.^[15] Two principles arose that are still considered to be core values of universities today: independence and neutrality.^[16] This period also witnessed the rise of civic culture; church and nobility no longer set the tone, but rather ‘ordinary’ citizens. The organisation and actions of the state became objects of analysis and criticism. Much more attention was paid to ‘the people’, their history, language, and ideology, and this had practical consequences for the university and university graduates’ role in society. In the words of Verbrugge, they increasingly became incubators for journalists and revolutionaries.^[17]

Bildung with research

This brings us to another milestone in the history of university development, namely that of ‘Bildung’. A tremendous amount of ink has been, and still is being, spilled on the idea of Bildung from different (idealistic) perspectives. Here, we follow the line set out previously by Francot and De Vries.^[18] They point to the work of Horlacher, in which Bildung is seen as a holistic concept aimed at realising a better society; economically, morally, and politically.^[19] University education was considered to be vital for the realisation of this ideal. The ideal of Bildung is forever linked to the academic and statesman Wilhelm von Humboldt, who argued that the most important function of the university is to unite students in a community dedicated to science, and to secure their total freedom to exchange knowledge and insights and develop themselves in an environment steeped in science, without being subject to coercion or constrained by direct purposes.^[20]

Von Humboldt was given the opportunity to put his ideas into practice as a senior official in Prussia’s Ministry of the Interior. To this day, the foundation of the University of Berlin (now known as Humboldt Universität) in 1810 is considered one of his most important legacies. But his ideas are just as pertinent today. A few elements deserve special attention. First is the idea, which actually dates back to the Enlightenment, that education should be free from state interference. It is also important that education should focus on individual, inner self-development, such that individuality should be developed through the exchange of experiences with others. Social bonds and interaction are therefore crucial in education. Finally, and this cannot be emphasised enough, because it is often left out of discussions about the ideal university education, according to Von Humboldt the university should guarantee an optimal climate for Bildung precisely through the union of education and research.^[21]

Von Humboldt’s enduring significance lies in this institutionalisation of the combination of education and research in the university. At the same time, the university developed from a disseminator of existing knowledge into an institute in which new knowledge was acquired. He saw this combination of education and research as the distinguishing feature of the university.^[22] As we will illustrate below, this essential combination in Von Humboldt’s thinking has occasionally been forgotten in the years that followed.

Research without Bildung?

Today, Bildung is mainly seen as an anachronistically romantic ideal for education. But people often forget that an essential component of Von Humboldt’s ideal of Bildung includes scientific research. Some say that the founding of the University of Berlin mainly marked the rise of the ‘research university’. Expanding knowledge became the university’s primary mission.

“The university’s primary task became providing the financial, logistical and other resources that facilitate the production of new knowledge. Starting in the late 19th century, research seminars, graduate schools, specialised research institutes and laboratories were created at almost all European and American universities”, according to Van Bommel.^[23] This development continued into the twentieth century. Knowledge also expanded in the natural sciences, biomedical sciences, agriculture, and engineering. This was enthusiastically encouraged by governments, especially after World War II.^[24]

According to Van Bommel, nothing has changed our perspective on academic training more radically than this redefinition of the university as a research institute:

“The academic status of modern university teachers rests not on their ability to form students intellectually and morally, but on the ‘innovations’ or ‘discoveries’ they have to their credit.”^[25]

Although Van Bommel’s point is debatable^[26], it is undeniably true that general education gradually received less and less attention from universities. This has had consequences for the status and role of the social sciences, and especially the humanities^[27], which had played such a dominant role at universities in the past, especially in the context of general education. The loss of status of these research areas was further exacerbated by the fact that they were able to make less obvious or spectacular discoveries, which in turn had negative consequences for their funding. We will return to this topic later on in the book.

In addition to the issue of the relationship between the different areas of science, people began to pay more attention to the relationship between teaching and research as core university tasks. Teaching became a ‘burden’, in part because university careers were mainly built on the basis of research performance. This development has contributed to an existential crisis in the university world. But there are several interrelated facets to this crisis that should be taken into consideration.

Prelude to fundamental questions for the university

The university’s nature and significance changed substantially in the 1960s, as its doors opened to students who no longer solely came from the ‘upper class’. Finally, intelligent students from all walks of life could benefit from the best education, which also gave access to the best, or at least highest-paid, jobs in society. The result was a massive influx of students. This had a relatively short-term effect and a long-term effect. The short-term effect was a growing focus on social problems, national politics, and the state of the world. This in turn led to demonstrations, occupations, protests and demands to reform curricula, and the discontinuation of contacts with universities in countries with a dubious human rights record.^[28] With the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s, this type of idealism became less iconic. What remained, was the question of how to govern a rapidly growing university, which included groups with new and different ambitions. Before, the university had been characterised by professors’ self-governance, with the assistance of a few part-time professional administrators. The professionalisation and democratisation of university governance were necessary, but they remain a difficult combination to this day.^[29]

The influx of students also led to the emergence of an extensive support apparatus. Such bureaucracy naturally brought with it rules, procedures and accountability obligations.^[30] This development was further reinforced by the fact that the necessary funding of the universities lagged behind the influx of students, so universities had to think even more in terms of efficiency. This was compounded by the Dutch government’s implementation of a succession of austerity measures starting from the 1980s. The time in which to complete a degree was limited and, under pressure from the government, some study programmes were scrapped.^[31] Eventually, the Dutch government only financed the nominal duration of studies, making every ‘long-term student’ a burden on universities, not only in terms of financial resources, but also a threat to the quality of education due to the dilution of resources. The pressure on research funding was increased, as research funds were removed from direct government funding and put into a separate organisation, initially called the Organisation for Pure Scientific Research (Organisatie voor Zuiver Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), which was re-named the Dutch Research Council (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, NWO) in 1988. Researchers could then bring in research funding by competing according to conditions set by NWO.

These developments, certainly also in the Netherlands, had major consequences for universities’ internal functioning. Inadequate government funding forced universities to think of ways to increase efficiency, which in turn led to economies of scale, centralisation, and further bureaucratisation.^[32] This all resulted in questions about what room was left for academic independence and freedom and the professional autonomy of individual staff members.

The funding shortage also led to a search for other financial sources, such as the business community. In the 1980s, the concept of the ‘entrepreneurial university’ emerged in the Netherlands. In acknowledgement of science’s practical importance for society, people began to argue that the university should do more with its scientific knowledge. Critics soon saw this as a form of kowtowing to the business world.^[33],[34] This was of course not so surprising, considering the context of the austerity-driven Lubbers cabinets in government at the time. While attention to greater social relevance is not entirely inappropriate in principle (about which more later), from the outset the context of the funding issue coloured the quest for external funding as a threat to the university’s academic values.

In the field of research, seeking external funding has become the driving force. This is true in general, whether the funding comes from the government or businesses. But it applies especially to funding in the form of NWO and European Research Council (ERC) grants, which have become very dominant for individual career prospects - and are perceived as prestigious. Such funding is often allocated thematically, with the result that certain researchers, themes, and disciplines are less likely to receive funding. This has led to an imbalance in the funding of research fields, with medical, technical, and natural sciences attracting by far the largest share of funding in the Netherlands and around the world. In the Netherlands, for example, 70% of the academic staff are employed in these fields.^[35],[36]

The quest for external funding, including private funding, has made the university a highly competitive environment. Under the influence of neoliberalism, which emerged in the 1980s, and the ideas of New Public Management, which sought to control quality by formulating it in terms of measurable units, certain ‘metrics’, such as the Hirsch index^[37], became dominant measures for the allocation of research funding.^{[38],[39],[40]} All this has led to a certain culture of publication and assessment, which not only limited the scope for setting one’s own research agendas, but also created an academic ‘king of the hill’ competition; those with the most and the highest awards sat at the top of the hill, and were seen as leaders whose example had to be followed. It has also contributed to a sense of loss of autonomy, increased workload, and also sometimes feelings of unsafety within the research domain. The leadership culture has also been explicitly identified as a cause.^[41],[42] In many fields of research, but again especially in the medical, technical, and natural sciences, the main incentive for scientists became to start their own research group as soon as possible, and to make it as successful as possible in terms of numbers of publications, financial resources and staff. This all affects the relationships between individuals. Universities became more characterised by a culture in which academic status and age dominated decision-making processes. In this context, some also argue that universities have developed from a democracy into a gerontocracy, in which vested interests predominate, with the resulting serious risks for innovation.^[43]

The difference in external financial incentives and accountability regimes made it seem logical to separate teaching and research organisations within the university. That undermines one of Von Humboldt’s ideals: linking research and education based on the idea that academics are formed by acquiring new knowledge. This organisational division has had major consequences for university HR policy and the relationships between staff members. As careers were built on research performance, for many teaching became a ‘burden’ that you had to ‘buy out of’ if at all possible. For a long time teaching became work for the ‘junior employees’, who took on the bulk of the work on temporary contracts, without time for research. It was easy to predict that this would create dissatisfaction among teachers, and that it would affect the quality of academic education.

One development that unmistakeably had major consequences for the university is the trend towards internationalisation. In a way, this trend returns the university to its roots, because universities originally had strong international ties - at least in Europe - with considerable mobility among both students and staff, facilitated by the fact that they shared a common language: Latin. In the nineteenth century, universities became more nationalistic, with more focus on their own history and language.^[44] This has only changed in recent decades, in part because the European Union, in an effort to promote European unity, began to encourage student exchanges through programmes such as ERASMUS.^[45] But a much more important motivation was the realisation that research is by definition universal, and that its quality and development benefit enormously from international contacts and cooperation. That even applies to disciplines that ostensibly have a primarily national frame of reference, like law or language studies. Here, too, appearances can be deceiving. Much of the research that takes place in these fields has an international context and international significance.

This ‘internationalisation’ has had positive effects on the quality of education and research. In many disciplines, an ‘ international classroom’ contributes enormously to students’ understanding and academic education and development.^[46] The effects of internationalisation on the quality of research are even less controversial. One area of debate remains, however, that internationalisation should not only result in international publications; that there should still be plenty of room for research that pays attention to specific national, regional, or local issues.^[47]

Internationalisation also has some less positive effects. The influx of more students puts even more pressure on the teaching organisation, exacerbated by the fact that EU students are allowed to enrol under the same (financial) conditions as Dutch students. Only non-EU students (or to be precise: non-EEA students) may be charged higher fees.^[48] Internationalisation has further intensified competition between researchers. International collaborations between universities were mainly motivated by success in that competition, as measured by the ‘metrics’ discussed earlier. As a result, official collaborations are largely limited to the ‘high-ranked’ universities based on the Western model which is discussed in Chapter 2. In-depth collaborations with universities from developing countries are rare. This is all the more remarkable because universities’ mission statements often include the goal of contributing to solutions to the ‘grand challenges’; the most pressing problems we face at both the national and global levels.^[49]

This touches on the university’s fundamental role and legitimacy in society. By appealing to the Enlightenment ideal of independent research free of value constraints, universities have mainly argued: ‘leave us alone and then we’ll do what’s right’. This claim has proved problematic for several reasons. First, in the field of science itself. The fixation on metrics and the desire for and necessity of scoring in ‘high ranked journals’ have made academics much more focused on their own needs above the needs of society. To put it bluntly: it has become ‘Science for Scientists’, rather than ‘Science for Society’.^[50] But it would be going too far to place all the blame on universities’ shoulders. Governments and other external financiers have also made big contributions to these problems. The fixation on spectacular ‘discoveries’ and economic effects^[51] has resulted in a university dominated by the medical, engineering, and natural sciences. Even though for the analysis and solution of the major problems society faces, such as poverty, inequality, nutrition and health, coherence, the functioning of democracy, raising the young, sustainability, climate change, etc., other disciplines are also explicitly needed, in particular the social sciences and humanities.

This cocktail of issues has brought the university into a state of crisis that has become especially acute since the early twenty-first century. Universities now face existential issues. Have we become too focused on research, at the expense of our education mission? Has the urge for efficiency, with its many rules, procedures, and accountability obligations, eroded the autonomy vital for scientific research? Have we focused too much on economically/financially quantifiable and measurable activities? In other words: has the ‘financialisation’ of the university simply gone too far? And the most fundamental question of all is: are we still doing what’s right, in the light of our role in society and our responsibility regarding society and its problems?

Final Consideration

The existential crisis atmosphere has prompted many to reflect on the situation. Remarkably, it was mainly a group of Dutch academics who took initiative to fundamentally address these problems and to the identify potential solutions.^[52],[53] It has set in motion a movement that, if the signs are not deceiving, is leading to a major cultural change in the university, and is now known worldwide as the movement towards Open Science.

In essence, Open Science is about strengthening, or perhaps even restoring, the connection between science, and in particular science in universities, and society. On the one hand, the goal is to make society’s needs much more central to university education and research, locally, regionally, and globally. The intention is to draw society inside the walls of academia. But also to give more back to society by making the results of our work freely available, in the form of publications and data. This bypasses the commercial publishers, who profited immensely from the system in which research prestige was mainly based on publishing in a few highly regarded journals. The quality of these journals was determined in part by the reputation of the peer reviewers and the academics in their editorial boards. But of course they can still continue their work outside of a commercial context. All this is based on the idea that the results of research funded by the public should also be freely available to the public.

Open Science also concerns education. This isn’t limited to making learning resources, developed at universities, available to the general public. Open Education also involves educating students in the Open Science philosophy and fostering an open attitude to activities like seeking partnerships in and for society, involving multiple disciplines to find solutions for problems, promoting open debate, being open to different audiences (including inclusivity and continuing education for professionals), and last but not least, appreciating the importance of education in these contexts.^[54]

New ways of recognising and rewarding the achievements of university staff is crucial in the context of Open Science. The number of publications and researchers’ place in the ‘rankings’ should no longer be the main determining factors for an academic career. Teaching performance and public engagement should be given much greater weight. We should also pay much more attention to ‘team science’; the quality of teaching and research is determined by collaboration in groups; not only between academics, but also with those often referred to as ‘support staff’. Alleviating individual competition should foster an open academic culture. All of this will of course have consequences for leadership at the university.

We see the development towards Open Science as both fundamental and irreversible.^[55] With that in mind, in the following chapters we aim to explore what the university might look like in the future.

1. To avoid misunderstanding: this was not the year that science was born. Science arose much earlier, in other parts of the world such as China, Egypt, Babylonia, and, of course, Greece. There were also various teaching systems, some more organized than others, e.g. the school of Aristotle. See: Cohen, H. F. (2010). How Modern Science Came Into The World: Four Civilizations, One 17th-Century Breakthrough (pp. 3-4). Amsterdam University Press. ↑

2. The founding dates of universities are actually the subject of several historical myths. For example, Rüegg & De Ridder-Symoens demythologise the foundation of the University of Bologna: “no such event took place in 1088”; see Rüegg, W. & De Ridder-Symoens, H. (1994). History in Europe, Vol I (p. 4). Cambridge University Press. ↑

3. Hoque, M. N. & Abdullah, M. F. (2021). The World’s Oldest University and its Financing Experience, a Study on Al-Qarawyyin University (859-990). Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(1), 24-41. doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp24-41 ↑

4. The World Higher Education Database (WHED), compiled by the International Association of Universities and UNESCO, includes data on more than 20,000 universities (including approx. 5,000 in Europe), and more are added every year. See: whed.net ↑

5. See also the aptly titled collection of essays: Verbrugge, A. & Van Baardewijk, J. (Eds.). (2014). Waartoe is de Universiteit op Aarde? Boom. ↑

6. Verbrugge, A. (2014). De Universiteit en de Zorg voor de Hoogste Kennis. In Verbrugge, A. & Van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de Universiteit op Aarde? (p. 208). Boom. ↑

7. Van der Zwaan, B. (2017). Haalt de universiteit 2040? Een Europees Perspectief op Wereldwijde Kansen en Bedreigingen (p. 32). Amsterdam University Press. ↑

8. Quotes obtained from: Van Stipriaan, R. (2021). De Zwijger: Het Leven van Willem van Oranje (p. 441). Querido Facto. ↑

9. Verbrugge, A. (2014). De Universiteit en de hoogste zorg voor kennis. In A. Verbrugge & J. van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de universiteit op aarde? (p. 209). Boom. ↑

10. Langereis, S. (2021). Erasmus: Dwarsdenker: een Biografie (p. 87). Bezige Bij. ↑

11. Van Bommel, B. (2014). De Teloorgang van Algemeen Menselijke Vorming. In A. Verbrugge & J. van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de universiteit op aarde? (p. 175). Boom. ↑

12. Cohen, H. F. (2010). How Modern Science Came into the World: Four Civilizations, One 17th-Century Breakthrough (p. 81). Amsterdam University Press. ↑

13. Cohen, H. F. (2010). How Modern Science Came into the World: Four Civilizations, One 17th-Century Breakthrough(p. 79). Amsterdam University Press. ↑

14. Van Bommel, B. (2014). De Teloorgang van Algemeen Menselijke Vorming. In A. Verbrugge & J. van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de universiteit op aarde? (p. 176). Boom. ↑

15. That is a label we affix from a largely retrospective point of view, as we often interpret historical developments through concepts that were little- or unknown at the time. ↑

16. Van der Zwaan, B. (2017). Higher Education in 2040: A Global Approach (p. 34). Amster dam University Press. ↑

17. Verbrugge, A. (2014). De Universiteit en de hoogste zorg voor kennis. In A. Verbrugge & J. van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de universiteit op aarde? (p. 209). Boom. ↑

18. Francot, L. & De Vries, B. (2010). Adieu von Humboldt? Over Domme Organisaties en Slimme Mensen. In L. J. Dorsman & P. J. Knegtmans (Eds.), Het Universitaire Bedrijf: Over Professionalisering van Onderzoek, Bestuur en Beheer (pp. 74-7). Verloren. ↑

19. Horlacher, R. (2004). Bildung – A construction of a History of Philosophy of Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 23(5/6), 409-26. ↑

20. Francot, L. & De Vries, B. (2010). Adieu von Humboldt? Over Domme Organisaties en Slimme Mensen. In L. J. Dorsman & P. J. Knegtmans (Eds.), Het Universitaire Bedrijf: Over Professionalisering van Onderzoek, Bestuur en Beheer (pp. 75-6). Verloren. ↑

21. Francot, L. & De Vries, B. (2010). Adieu von Humboldt? Over Domme Organisaties en Slimme Mensen. In L. J. Dorsman & P. J. Knegtmans (Eds.), Het Universitaire Bedrijf: Over Professionalisering van Onderzoek, Bestuur en Beheer (p. 76). Verloren. ↑

22. Van der Zwaan, B. (2017). Higher Education in 2040: A Global Approach (p. 35). Amsterdam University Press. ↑

23. Van Bommel, B. (2014). De Teloorgang van Algemeen Menselijke Vorming. In A. Verbrugge & J. van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de universiteit op aarde? (p. 178). Boom. ↑

24. Miedema, F. (2022). Open Science: The Very Idea (p. 1). Springer. ↑

25. Van Bommel, B. (2014). De Teloorgang van Algemeen Menselijke Vorming. In A. Verbrugge & J. van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de universiteit op aarde? (p. 178). Boom. ↑

26. The importance of education as a primary task of the university, including the significance it should have for academic careers, has (once again) been widely endorsed in recent years. That was already the case in some places even before the emergence of Open Science. See Chapter 3. ↑

27. This division of fields of science is actually a later innovation. ↑

28. For a recent reflection, see Kennedy, J. (2022). Back to the Sixties? Community Engaged Learning and The Future of the University [Inaugural lecture]. Utrecht University. Retrieved from: uu.nl ↑

29. See also Chapter 6, Section 2. ↑

30. On the consequences of that reporting obligation, see: Van de Donk, W. (2023). Bakens en beweging, Over universiteiten [Speech] (p. 13). Tilburg University. ↑

31. The first is the result of the Two Phase Structure Act, and the deletion of courses was based on the paper ‘Selective shrinkage and growth’; more on this in Chapter 6, Section 2. ↑

32. Van der Zwaan, B. (2017). Higher Education in 2040: A Global Approach (p. 61). Amsterdam University Press. ↑

33. See Alexander Rinnooy Kan’s fascinating speech at the opening of the academic year of the University of Twente on September 5, 2011, entitled: Naar een ondernemende universiteit: u nadert uw bestemming? As the spiritual father of the term ‘entrepreneurial university’, he mentions the former rector of the UT, Prof. Harry van den Kroonenberg, who first used the term in a 1985 article. Of course, this development also tied in to the emerging neoliberal thinking in the West, with UK Prime Minister Thatcher and US President Reagan as important political predecessors. ↑

34. We actually agree with Dorsman that the focus on efficiency which accompanies neoliberal thinking is not inherently a bad thing. The concern is mainly how to prevent its excesses. See: Dorsman, L. (2023). Universiteit in Crisis? De universiteit Utrecht 1986-2021 [Inaugural lecture] (p. 32). Utrecht University. ↑

35. Miedema, F. (2022). Open Science: The Very Idea (p. 7). Springer. ↑

36. Van der Zwaan, B. (2020). The Transformative Power of the University. In L. E. Weber & B. van der Zwaan (Eds.), The University at the Crossroads to a Sustainable Future (p. 233). Association Glion Colloquium. ↑

37. A discipline-dependent indicator, which aims to measure the scientific impact of someone’s publications by the number of citations of an article. ↑

38. Lorenz, C. (2014). Feiten Fiksen, Over Tellen, Meten en Zeker Weten. In A. Verbrugge & J. van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de Universiteit op Aarde? (p. 77 et seq.). Boom. ↑

39. See also Chapter 2. ↑

40. Dorsman, L. J. & Knegt, P. J. (2010). Het Universitaire Bedrijf: Over Professionalisering van Onderzoek, Bestuur en Beheer (p. 8). Verloren. ↑

41. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). (2022). Rapport Sociale Veiligheid in de Nederlandse Wetenschap. knaw.nl/publicaties/sociale-veiligheid-de-nederlandse-wetenschap-van-papier-naar-praktijk-0, in which the organisational structure and its power differentials are considered to be important causes for social unsafety. ↑

42. Naezer, M., Van den Brink, M. C. L. & Benschop, Y. (2019). Harassment in Dutch Academia: Exploring Manifestations, Facilitating Factors, Effects and Solutions. Landelijk Netwerk van Vrouwelijke Hoogleraren. Retrieved from: lvhn.nl ↑

43. Miedema, F. (2022). Open Science: The Very Idea (p. 11). Springer. ↑

44. Verbrugge, A. (2014) De Universiteit en de hoogste zorg voor kennis. In A. Verbrugge & J. van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de universiteit op aarde? (p. 210). Boom. ↑

45. And with TEMPUS (‘Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University Studies’), this ambition for exchange extended far beyond Europe. See: European Commission. (1990). Trans-European Mobility for University Studies (TEMPUS). CORDIS – EU research results. Last edited: May 30, 1990 Retrieved from: cordis.europa.eu ↑

46. Sawir, E. (2013). Internationalisation of Higher Education Curriculum: The Contribution of International Students. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 11(3), 359. doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.750477 ↑

47. Wilkinson, R. (2013). English-Medium Instruction at a Dutch University: Challenges and Pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges (p. 324). Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. ↑

48. For the broader financial and economic perspective, see: Bolhaar, J., Kuijpers, S. & Nibbelink, A. (2019). Economische Effecten van

    Internationalisering in het Hoger Onderwijs en MBO. Centraal Planbureau. Retrieved from: cpb.nl ↑

49. Leebron, D. W. (2020). The Global and the Local: Constructing a Distinctive Role for Universities in Shaping the Future. In L. Weber & B. van der Zwaan (Eds.), The University at the Crossroads to a Sustainable Future (Glion Colloquium Volume #12, pp. 180-1). Association Glion Colloquium. Retrieved from: glion.org/the-university-at-the-crossroads-to-a-sustainable-future-2/ ↑

50. We will deal with this in more detail in Chapter 2, Inset 2.2. For more information, see: Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. & Stilgoe, J. (2017). Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society. In G. E. Marchant & W. Wallach (Eds.), Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance (pp. 117-26). Routledge. ↑

51. See the ‘top sectors policy’ from 2015, which aimed to promote public-private partnerships between business, ministries and knowledge institutions. According to the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is responsible for the policy, this entails that “public knowledge institutions - in addition to their public duties [are] encouraged to deploy part of the research resources on themes relevant to business.”

    See the Letter to Parliament by Minister of Economic Affairs Eric Derk Wiebes and Maria Cornelia Gezina Keijzer, ‘Naar Missiegedreven Innovatiebeleid met Impact’, July 13, 2018, DGBI-I&K/18148309, p. 1. ↑

52. Huisman, F. G., Dijstelbloem, H., Miedema, F. & Mijnhardt, W. (2014). Wetenschap in Transitie. Zeven Zorgen voor de Universiteit. In A. Verbrugge & J. van Baardewijk (Eds.), Waartoe is de Universiteit op Aarde? (pp. 111-24). Boom. ↑

53. Dijstelbloem, H., Huisman, F., Miedema, F. & Mijnhardt, W. (2013). Science in Transition, Waarom de Wetenschap Niet Werkt Zoals het Moeten wat Daaraan te Doen. Retrieved from: scienceintransition.nl ↑

54. Wijngaards-De Meij, L., Zunderdorp, K., Groenouwe M., de Knecht S. (2023). Memorandum ‘Plan of action Open Education’. Retrieved from: uu.nl ↑

55. Miedema, F. (2022). Open Science: The Very Idea. Springer. ↑