The University of Groningen (UG) is considering a new governance model that could lead to a mega-merger of faculties. But let’s also keep an eye on alternative scenarios, argues Henk van Putten – such as making smaller faculties bigger by adding programmes to them.
In recent weeks, the university’s board of directors has made clear its preferred direction for the future governance of our university: they’d like to see a reduction to four SSH faculties (Law, Arts, Behavioural and Social Sciences, and Economics and Business), alongside the existing faculties of Medical Sciences and Science and Engineering.
This would mean that the faculties of Religion, Culture and Society (RCM), Philosophy, Spatial Sciences, University College Groningen (UCG), and Campus Fryslân would cease to exist independently, instead being merged into some other ‘cluster.’
The most common arguments I hear in favour of this plan are agility and alignment with national academic domains. Also mentioned is how it promotes better collaboration. Cost-cutting seems to be less of a focus—it’s unclear whether this plan would save any money at all.
After all, replacing a faculty board with a management layer just swaps one expense for another. And that’s not even taking into account the less visible cost: the inevitably greater distance between faculty leadership and the work floor.
Replacing a faculty board is just trading one cost for another
Line 7 of the Main Agreement Action Plan (HLA), which addresses the governance structure of the UG, had already been explicitly removed from the cost-cutting agenda. The expectation is not direct financial gain, but rather: a smaller meeting table. Reaching consensus with eleven faculties hasn’t always been easy for the board of directors—especially when interests clash.
The task of the process manager is written down as follows: ‘The task of the process facilitator is to arrive at a sharpened SSH vision, a structure of in principle four SSH faculties, or an alternative governance structure that fits better.’ That final clause—‘or an alternative…’—was only added after intervention from the university council; prompted by the staff faction and most student parties, the mandate was broadened.
This addition is meant to create space for alternative lines of thinking. Because what exactly are the criteria for the best governance structure? Agility—for whom, and at what cost? Alignment with national domains—do we really want to model ourselves after other universities, or do we prefer to remain autonomous and distinctive, as we are now? Collaboration—is bigger really better than small-scale?
I have doubts on all three fronts. I hope there will also be attention paid to scenarios that, as far as I know, haven’t been seriously investigated in this process—for example, the idea of making smaller faculties bigger. The Faculty of Religion, Culture and Society could, for instance, incorporate Middle Eastern Studies and Art History (the idea of transferring ME Studies to RCM was already floated around fifteen years ago).
The small scale attracts students who don’t feel at home in a mega-faculty
University College Groningen (with its Liberal Arts programme) aligns well with Philosophy. Together, the faculties of Religion, Philosophy, and UCG could retain their unique identities more effectively while reducing the number of boards by two. The combined unit would still be relatively small—about the size of Spatial Sciences, which is also slated to be absorbed by its larger neighbour, Economics and Business.
In any case, the proposed mergers overlook four important aspects: uniqueness, history, small scale, and quality. The UG is unique for still having standalone faculties dedicated to the study of philosophy and religion. Their independence makes them valuable academic partners (consider the recent collaboration between the Rijksmuseum and RCM).
These faculties also carry over four hundred years of history—they’re the oldest at the university. Their small scale, also true for Spatial Sciences, clearly attracts a group of students who don’t thrive in large faculties.
Additionally, smaller faculties tend to function better from an organisational standpoint. And finally, in terms of quality, the programmes offered by small faculties often score highly—perhaps precisely because they are small. Just look at the National Student Survey and the Keuzegids rankings.
My scenario is just a preliminary idea—it’s the direction of thought that matters. The decentralised character of the UG is sometimes seen as both a strength and a weakness. Let’s use this process to reinforce that strength, minimise the weakness, and continue to honour our history and uniqueness. Decisiveness through quality.
Henk van Putten is a member of the staff faction in the university council and affiliated with the Faculty of Religion, Culture and Society. This op-ed reflects his personal opinion.