“Starter and incentive grants need not be a divisive issue”

The minister assembled his fiercest critics together with administrators in a committee to comment on the distribution of the scholarships. These took longer than planned, which raised the question: Will they reach a conclusion?

The work was “substantively complicated and challenging, both because of the difficulty of the subject matter and the multiplicity of perspectives within the committee,” wrote Leiden professor Remco Breuker of WOinAction on Twitter. “That this multiplicity worked in our favor is really due to our chairman, who listened and analyzed like no one else. I have (become) allergic to leadership, but this is the kind of leadership I would sign up for.”

That chairman is Bert Weckhuysen, Professor of Catalysis, Energy and Sustainability at Utrecht University. He previously wrote a KNAW opinion on “rolling grants,” the inspiration for the starter and incentive grants. 

Are you satisfied with the starter and incentive grants created by the minister?

“You are not the first to ask. Look, for those rolling grants, we had a different budget in mind: about twice as much as the €300 million available now. And €300 million is still a very nice amount! But then it turned out differently.”

The advice comes while the distribution is already underway. Aren't you too late? 

“The cabinet wanted to distribute the money as quickly as possible. Then the question arose: how are we actually going to do that? That's where our committee came in. After all, this is an entirely new instrument. We know the sector plans and funding through NWO is also a tried and tested recipe. This has a different dynamic.”

Your committee missed the first deadline and asked for a three-month extension. Why was that?

“Delay was necessary to form a good committee. We talked a lot at first without drawing any conclusions. As chairman, I wanted to prevent members from thinking: I have to push my opinion here right now.”

What were your guiding principles?

“We gave priority to doing independent research as well as reducing the workload. Because if you start making substantive choices - what research is or is not? - then you end up with all kinds of small NWOs within the universities and we shouldn't have that. We wanted as few new structures and distribution systems as possible. There is already a faculty board and a participation council, so we should let it run through them. The lower down in the organization, the better the employees can assess the workload."

You also advocate a strict separation of starter and incentive grants. What do you mean by that?

“Most universities do not get enough money to give all university teachers starter grants when they join. Some universities filled the shortfall with the incentive grant budget. We understand that, but it is not good because in doing so you undercut your incentive grants. You should not start mixing the two amounts for the starter and incentive scholarships, or you will not give the system a chance to mature. Give them both full attention.”

New universities in particular receive a proportionately larger share of the €300 million than the rest. The minister thus wants to address the grievance that new universities receive less basic funding than older ones. But is that not an odd mixture of policy goals?

“That is nicely worded, but we're not saying anything about that. That's something for a conversation between the universities of the Netherlands and the ministry. But it does mean that the dynamics in different universities are very different. Some can distribute more starter and incentive grants than others. That may be annoying, but it may also be a reason for the older universities to reconsider the distribution of their research money.”

One has a grant, the other does not...could the distribution lead to lopsidedness in the workplace?

“That's the reason we are asking the minister for extra money for the transition. We write that would send a 'nice signal.'”

But then again, scholarships could also be a divisive issue. 

“I think that is not so bad if it's really about combating workload and free spending. Because people know quite well which colleagues do a lot of work and could make good use of such a scholarship. Then later you yourself will qualify for such an incentive grant. That is where we have to go. Above all, we must also prevent people from having to start writing proposals to qualify for a starter or incentive grant, or from being obliged to hire a PhD student, for example.”

Speaking of proposals, the grants are intended, among other things, to reduce the application pressure at NWO. Still, if it were up to your committee, researchers with starter grants would simply be allowed to apply to NWO.

“Yes, because these starter and incentive grants are part of the initial flow of money (the direct funding of universities, ed.). You have to fundamentally separate those from the second money stream (funding through competition at NWO, ed.). If you start mixing the two, we think that misses the goal.”

But soon you will have two UDs. One gets a grant and has a bit more time for research, the other does not. Then the former will also have more time to apply to NWO and the difference will only widen.

“That might be possible in some cases, but where does it stop? There is also money coming through the sector plans. Should you then also say: those who get money from those sector plans are no longer allowed to apply to NWO? So we say: Actually, you should give every researcher entering the workforce a starter package: some funding to spend as they see fit, from whatever source, for a good start to the academic career.”

You also note that most universities charge 20 percent in overhead costs: that's €60,000 of a grant of €300,000, so handing out one scholarship almost requires hiring a full-time employee.

“And we have an opinion about that. We thought: are we going to put an amount on that ourselves? But we did not want to sit in the chair of the board.”

But then you can not say anything about the real cost of distributing scholarships?

“You can ask what the real cost is. In any case, the current rationale is not sufficient to legitimize 20 percent overhead. Conversely, we also don't want to give the impression that there is nothing involved and that there are no indirect costs.” 

Can they really not give those grants in their entirety to a researcher?

“We have thought: Should there be zero overhead? But a university has to think about how it wants to set up the system. If that involves some overhead, we understand that. But you don't have to set up an incredibly large office for it. We also say: If you can't get it right, distribute the scholarships by drawing lots. With all due respect to a lottery: it can’t really be that expensive.”

Was it political ingenuity on Dijkgraaf's part to put such a motley crew of administrators and activists on one committee? He gathered all the critics at once.

“I do not think you should underestimate Minister Dijkgraaf; let's leave it at that. He is a sensible man and this was not a wrong move on his part. Then again, it could have turned out completely differently, if we hadn't reached a conclusion.”

Then he could have said: The people from the field can not figure it out, so I will make the decision.

“That is a good analysis, but we did make a decision. It is a unanimous opinion of all members; I attach importance to saying that.”