Eleven academics from various universities are openly protesting against the PhD defence of a Groningen doctoral candidate, arguing that the dissertation fails to meet quality standards. They urge the University of Groningen (UG) to distance itself from the work.
The letter and subsequent responses were recently published on a national dyslexia website. The eleven signatories, including educational psychologist Peter de Jong from the University of Amsterdam, addressed their letter to the UG’s PhD Board and the supervisors (Wander Lowie, Ben Maassen, and Hilde Hacquebord) the day after the defence, which took place on November 7. They refrained from intervening earlier, as the thesis had already been approved by the committee in the summer.
‘We regard such approval as a promise to the candidate that the doctorate will be awarded. At that stage, we felt it was inappropriate to obstruct the process. Moreover, the responsibility for quality control lies with the University of Groningen, not the doctoral candidate’, they wrote.
Technical reading
In his dissertation, titled Redzaamheidslezen, doctoral candidate Luc Koning tested his own reading instruction method for elementary school children. He claims that speed drills are unnecessary for improving technical reading skills and even suggests they might be harmful. According to him, children using his method make fewer errors when learning how to read.
The dyslexia experts criticise this work, stating that data is missing and that the standards Koning used are outdated. Furthermore, they suggest that Koning may have a financial interest in scientifically validating his self-developed method.
Lack of background
The critics argue that rigorous scrutiny was especially critical in this case because Koning had not published his research in any academic journals prior to his PhD. Additionally, two members of the assessment committee lacked a background in dyslexia research.
‘By approving the dissertation, the University of Groningen has effectively endorsed the scientific validation of the conclusions drawn in the thesis’, the scientists claim, calling this ‘objectionable and concerning.’
Carelessness
In their response, the supervisors acknowledge some errors. ‘The dissertation contains several inaccuracies, but these do not undermine its scientific quality’, they state.
They note that parts of the data will be reanalysed. They also describe the use of outdated research tables as a ‘slip-up’ that will be corrected with updated tables. However, they assert that reanalysis using the most recent evaluation standards does not alter the conclusions.
Nuances
In the lay summary of his dissertation, Koning plans to include more nuanced statements about the limitations of his research. He will also revise suggestions that speed drills are not only unnecessary but potentially harmful. The supervisors deny that Koning had any financial interests in the method.
The letter writers remain unconvinced. They argue that the dissertation was, at best, ‘defensible’, but not ‘adequate’. They also criticise the committee for dismissing the identified issues too readily, claiming that further analyses and refinements are necessary.
‘We observe that the supervisors are effectively distancing themselves from several key conclusions of the dissertation’, they state. ‘In short, we express our concern about the quality control process for this dissertation and urge the PhD Board to ensure that the University of Groningen publicly distances itself from some of the conclusions.’
Agreements
According to UG spokesperson Sophie Dannenburg, discussions have taken place with the Faculty of Arts, Luc Koning, and one of the supervisors. ‘Agreements have been made, but their exact nature is not yet clear. We hope to provide clarity on this later this week.’
As to whether the UG’s Scientific Integrity Committee will examine the matter, Dannenburg says, ‘No formal complaint has been filed. This has been handled informally, so it’s still unclear.’