Epilogue

What will the future of the university look like? That is the question we focused on when we started this project. We set our horizon mostly on the year 2030, and perhaps - as hope - a bit further into the future. We asked ourselves that question as it relates to how we work at the university, and how it relates to what the university is in its essence. A large number of very diverse topics and answers have passed by over the course of this book. But we see one very clear common thread: the university of the future will be a more open institution. Open in different ways, and in different directions.

The driving force behind this development is primarily the movement towards Open Science. This both causes and necessitates a cultural shift in several areas. The guiding principle and ultimate goal here is that through Open Science, we want to create a stronger connection between the university and society, enhancing the quality and legitimacy of the university’s work in the process. We will do that in a variety of ways. For example, by making research results, research data and learning materials available free of charge, or more accessible. But especially by seeking contact with societal stakeholders to formulate relevant research and education questions together, and to reflect on our own work. This is part of what we refer to as ‘public engagement’.

Public engagement also entails that academics contribute their knowledge to open social and public discussions. Not because they hold the absolute truth, or because their wisdom should be accepted like that of an oracle. They can, however, share their knowledge and insights, gained from the evidence available (which is never complete), to facilitate more reasoned, supportable decisions. A precondition is, however, that academics are open about their own limitations and the uncertainties in science.

This same open discussion will also have to be conducted within the university community, in the form of a dialogue.^[1] Particularly because the major societal issues will increasingly have to be studied in multi- and interdisciplinary contexts, we will constantly have to ask ourselves what contributions all these different disciplines can make Where do their uncertainties lie? But also: what questions do they have about the perspectives and ‘certainties’ of the other disciplines? This requires openness and connection between the disciplines and the experts in those disciplines, and that academics are open to discussions about possible ideological biases of their insights and opinions.

The open conversation within the university has yet another dimension; that of agenda-setting. Given the scarcity of resources, choices will always have to be made. So, who makes those choices? Who determines which direction the university and its constituents want to go? That question is becoming more and more pressing, as the traditional, formal structures of employee and student participation are utilised less and less. At the same time, it is also clear that the younger generations of students and employees have a much stronger sense of urgency about the major challenges we face today, such as climate change, social and economic inequality, inclusion, etc. We will not only have to work on revitalising the ‘traditional’ forms of employee and student participation. We will also have to find new ways of conducting an open debate within the university community, using new (digital) tools. At the same time more responsibility will have to be given back to the university organisation. Professional autonomy must be leading in our decision-making processes. At decentralised level, that will mean not only claiming more responsibility, but also assuming it.

Engaging in dialogues within the university community is not always easy. Certainly not today, when, from parts of one’s own identity (gender, age, colour, political affiliation, etc.) conversation with others who have a different perspective sometimes seems impossible from the outset.^[2],[3] It is up to the university to facilitate these dialogues, but also to educate people. There is a good reason for this being one of the main objectives of the movement towards more ‘Open Education’, as part of ‘Open Science’. It also entails having an open attitude. We are all part of a community that is open in composition and nature. That means an inclusive environment that embraces diversity. In our education and research, and on the campus grounds, we welcome students, teachers, researchers, staff, alumni, local residents, national and international colleagues, and social partners. They can all make a valuable contribution to the multiplicity of ideas and opinions that ultimately determine the quality and legitimacy of our work. And as everyone can be seen and heard, it also promotes the well-being and satisfaction of every individual, and the community as a whole.

The role of the community, society and its various groups (‘audiences’), and their problems and interests will become much more decisive in the future, if only because working in teams will become even more necessary in the future. The complex problems that science and society face cannot be solved by genius loners, as long-standing myths would have us believe. This is not to say that individuals no longer matter. Quite the contrary, in fact! But increasingly we will find that our work is more about how individuals use their qualities, their excellence even, to enhance the performance of teams, of course for the purpose of advancing education and research.

This development will also have major implications for recognising and rewarding the performance of university employees. Unlike in the recent past, excellence in research, in terms of ranking and metrics, will no longer be the dominant factor for building a career within the university. The university is about more than just research that is ‘science for science’. ‘Science for society’, education, and societal impact are of eminent importance. This is now gradually starting to become broadly internationally acknowledged. This all should eventually result in the diversity of necessary qualities also presenting a diversity of excellence and thus career paths, also for the staff without an academic education. Because they too are crucial for what the university ultimately achieves, and what it can offer to society. We have noted that this movement towards Open Science particularly means a cultural shift of essential nature, which will not be easy, and will take time to accomplish. Nevertheless, there is currently considerable enthusiasm for Open Science in academia among the various actors in research and education worldwide, and the transition is already underway.^[4]

Openness to the outside, and openness to the inside, will therefore be the dominant factors that determine the future of the university. In short, the future is open!

1. A conversation can produce various degrees of listening to each other. A ‘debate’ is purely about exchanging views. A ‘discussion’ is based more on equivalence of arguments, whereas a ‘dialogue’ is based on the willingness to understand one another and come to a shared conclusion. For more on this, see: Ritskes, R. & De Beer, R. (2022). 21 Geheimen van een Strategische Dialoog (pp. 10-3). Uitgeverij AanPak. ↑

2. Heinich, N. (2019) Wat Onze Identiteit Niet Is. Prometheus. ↑

3. Mounk, Y. (2023). The Identity Trap, A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time. UK Penguin Random House. ↑

4. See, for example, Coalition for the Advancement of Research Assessment: coara.eu↑