PNN sounds the alarm: no independent evaluation of PhD education experiment

The PhD scholarship experiment, which is primarily taking place at the University of Groningen with 850 PhD students, is currently being evaluated. The purpose of the interim evaluation is to determine whether the experiment should be halted. However, the University of Groningen (UG) appears to view a (positive) interim evaluation primarily as an opportunity to expand the experiment with another 800 PhD students. PNN (Netherlands Institute for Public Health and the Environment) warns: the interim evaluation, conducted by research agency CHEPS, is characterized by interference and (the appearance of) bias. After repeatedly raising the alarm internally to no avail, PNN feels compelled to come forward.

Background

The PhD scholarship experiment has caused considerable commotion and led to parliamentary questions. While PhD candidates in the Netherlands are normally university employees, within the experiment they are appointed as grant-bearing students. The University of Groningen's self-evaluations are very positive , but PhD students voice different opinions . They argue that the promised benefits of the experiment, such as greater research freedom and no teaching responsibilities, are disappointing in practice. The disadvantages remain: PhD students lose out on over €20,000 compared to employed PhD candidates, do not accrue pension rights, and are not protected by the collective labor agreement. Previously, parties such as the PhD Network Netherlands, the Intercity Student Consultation, and the Council of State have been highly critical of the experiment.

The interim evaluation

To protect the young researchers involved in this experiment, an interim evaluation will be conducted to determine whether the experiment should be halted. This interim evaluation is currently being conducted by the research agency CHEPS (University of Twente) on behalf of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.

However, there is no independent interim evaluation, as evidenced by documents PNN provided to NRC Handelsblad . CHEPS bases its research primarily on previous self-evaluations and surveys conducted by the University of Groningen, without access to the underlying raw data. Despite repeated requests, the research agency has failed to conduct structured quantitative research among PhD students.

In addition to the RUG data, interviews were conducted with a handful of stakeholders: primarily RUG policy officers and administrators, but also several representatives of PhD candidates, students, and the University Council. PNN received complaints that these individuals, who were approached (and partly selected) by the RUG, were encouraged to be positive about the experiment: “ We hope that a positive interim evaluation will be sufficient reason for politicians to grant the expansion of the current quota we desire. […] I know that the current Minister appears to have a negative view of the PhD program initiated by the previous Minister. Therefore, it is especially important that this interim evaluation proceeds well .” It is also notable that the RUG policy officers and administrators were sent a list of topics to be discussed in advance so they could properly prepare for the interview. Many of the potentially critical individuals were not given this opportunity.

Following complaints about this situation, PNN was asked to assist in organizing a roundtable discussion with PhD students. However, participating PhD students indicated that the research agency CHEPS was controlling this. Moreover, much of this criticism expressed by PhD students appears not to have been incorporated into the evaluation or further investigated, as revealed in a draft report reviewed by PNN.

No independent research

This course of events means that the interim evaluation is likely to become primarily a repetition of the RUG's own findings—a party with a significant interest in a positive outcome—supplemented by interviews whose objectivity is highly questionable. According to PNN, there was no independent interim evaluation by CHEPS, which would be a violation of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity . Furthermore, the RUG's conduct of the experiment is questionable. An experiment demands independence and objectivity. PNN believes these basic conditions have been violated. An experiment cannot be considered an experiment if its outcomes are predetermined by active influence and attempts to suppress unwelcome opinions.