The University of Groningen (UG) is standing by the conclusions of the dissertation Redzaamheidslezen (Self-Sufficient Reading), defended by Luc Koning on November 7. Eleven academics from five different universities demanded that the university disassociate itself from the thesis.
In his dissertation, Koning concludes that speed exercises are unnecessary for improving technical reading skills. However, the critical academics argue that this conclusion is overly simplistic. They claim Koning used outdated standards, lacked sufficient data, and that the dissertation committee lacked the necessary expertise.
Although the dissertation supervisors admitted in their response that the evaluation criteria were outdated and that some data required reanalysis, they maintained that this did not affect the validity of the dissertation. There was no reason to deny Koning his doctoral title.
‘Nothing unusual’
UG rector magnificus Jacquelien Scherpen also supports the dissertation. ‘We have discussed this matter with several people,’ she says. ‘But nothing unusual happened during this PhD process. The supervisors approved the dissertation. It was then sent to three experts in the field, who also approved it and deemed it defensible.’
Subsequently, a PhD committee with seven members—following standard procedure—was formed. This committee unanimously reached a positive decision. ‘Everything was handled according to the quality standards we uphold,’ says Scherpen.
The only role the PhD committee can play is to verify that procedures were followed, Scherpen explains. The content and scientific quality must be judged by the PhD committee, and this was done. ‘Therefore, we see no reason to distance ourselves from the public conclusions,’ says Scherpen.
Not happy
Scherpen expressed dissatisfaction with how the academics made their criticism public. They sent their letter to the PhD committee on November 8, shortly after making it public. ‘It would have been more elegant and ethical to await the UG’s detailed response,’ she wrote to the critics.
Moreover, Koning’s supervisors were aware of the planned letter before the PhD defence. At that time, they proposed organising a symposium to facilitate a scientific debate on the matter, followed by publishing several articles in relevant journals.
Protest
The critics were also asked to present their concerns to the PhD committee before the defence, so a decision could be made on whether to halt the PhD process. ‘On November 6, you declined this,’ Scherpen wrote.
However, it became evident that Koning, in his own communication, had drawn conclusions stronger than what the dissertation justified, suggesting that speed exercises in reading education are ‘harmful’. ‘Mr. Koning has decided to adjust his communications (including his website),’ Scherpen noted.