Why the Academic Career Track leads to despair and dropout for some

When it comes to social safety, assistant professors in the Academic Career Track (ACT) find themselves in a vulnerable position. That is the conclusion of the Delft Young Academy (DYA) Board after talking to assistant professors across faculties. In response to Delta’s questions, the Board speaks of 16 cases in which ACTs are ‘unfairly affected’ after ‘(routine) disagreements lead to “social safety” complaints by, for instance, PhD candidates who they guide’. In 13 cases the complaint was filed by a PhD candidate, in three by a student.

Abrupt measures

The mechanisms that the DYA Board identified align with the stories of four ACTs who talked to Delta. They explained that in most cases, the report is communicated verbally to the ACT’s managers, the ACT is then quickly excluded from the conversation and many people in the hierarchy become involved without anyone having a clear adjudicating role. In the meantime, senior managers respond with abrupt measures such as temporarily removing tasks and blocking contact between the reporter and the accused. The latter ends up in isolation, not knowing what the report entails and what the follow-up process will be, and without any influence on the outcome.

All four report a severe impact on their well-being, health and careers

Over the past few months, Delta has spoken to four people who found themselves in this situation: three women and one man, all internationals. Three shared documents, such as emails and notes. No one dared speak on record, sometimes because they are bound by confidentiality, but in all cases because they fear further consequences for their careers, after managers made threats about this. Delta can therefore only describe their specific stories in very general terms and cannot ask for a rebuttal of their cases.

Severe consequences

Their stories are painful. All four report a severe impact on their well-being, health and careers. They lost access to their projects, their work went unacknowledged and their funding was assigned to others. One of them was barred from a conference without clear explanation, was denied access to her office, and was forbidden from talking to her PhD candidates.

She was only able to tell her side of the story after irreparable damage had already been caused. The above-mentioned and other measures had already been taken, and she was struggling with suicidal thoughts. Good support from a confidant kept her going. The life she was building in the Netherlands was interrupted by circumstances beyond her control. The experience left her with severe PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), she tells Delta, and she said that healing may take a lifetime.

Forced to resign

Another ACTer is also experiencing trauma and depression because of what
happened. When she was finally able to tell her side of the story, she was questioned intensely, only to feel intimidated, disbelieved and unheard. Later, she felt coerced to resign.

The other two are still working, with varying experiences. One was temporarily stationed at another university abroad to distance himself from the negative work environment, while the other remained at TU Delft. Her documentation shows that she eventually had her side of the story heard, but at the cost of much effort and frustration. They all experienced a lack of duty of care by TU Delft.

Data at a glance

After questioning by Delta, the Delft Young Academy has now issued a statement. It  shows that these issues were already on DYA’s agenda. The DYA Board identifies 16 cases across all eight faculties. The number of cases is likely to be higher, writes the DYA, because people may be afraid to speak out, fearing retaliation or because they may not know how to contact the DYA.

Partly for this reason, the DYA wants TU Delft to compile available data on the status of ACTs in relation to social safety: for example, how many ACTs are on sick leave, how many have left TU Delft (forcibly or voluntarily), how many are the subject of internal investigations, and how many conflicts with ACTs have led to legal proceedings.

Female ACTs are disproportionately affected in the 16 known cases

On the reference date of 31 December 2025, Tableau’s figures show that there were 508 assistant professors in the Academic Career Track. More than two-thirds come from abroad, and around 40% are women. The DYA notes that female ACTs are disproportionately affected in the 16 known cases: 13 out of 16. This is particularly painful, states the DYA, because women are already underrepresented and more likely to drop out of their academic careers as they progress, which is known as the leaky pipeline effect.

Helplines

The lack of social safety and issues surrounding academic integrity often overlap, as the cases known to the DYA show. At the same time, helplines like the Complaints Committee for Undesirable Behaviour and the Scientific Integrity Committee have a specific focus which, according to the DYA, ‘prevents the drawing of a clear overall picture and results in only part of the issue being resolved’. The DYA also repeats what the Dutch Education Inspectorate observed in 2024: internal reporting points are not sufficiently independent, or at least are not perceived as such, and only have an advisory role.

The DYA Board says it has already raised these issues in recent months with the Works Council, TU Delft’s DEWIS women’s network, the National Network of Female Professors, and some of the faculties’ Graduate Schools. The plan is to also inform the Board of Doctorates, the Council of Professors and Rector Magnificus Hester Bijl.

‘There is a need for faster and more transparent conflict resolution practices’

According to the DYA Board, the solution is clear: administrators and managers must be more aware of the vulnerable position of ACTs. In addition, reporting processes must be improved: there is a need for ‘Faster and more transparent conflict resolution practices, where decisions, steps and responsibilities are properly communicated to all parties and where everyone is given a chance to be heard, should be non-negotiable.’

Hester Bijl: ‘It is important to talk about this’

Delta sent this article to Rector Magnificus Hester Bijl before publication. During a brief interview she explains that she is open to this sort of feedback from within the organisation, and is keen to engage in dialogue with the Delft Young Academy about its findings and about the PhD process in general. “It is important to talk about this.”

The article continues under the photo.

She recently met with the Manager of the Integrity Office, Olivier Sueur, and the Pro Vice Rector of Doctoral Affairs, Bart van Arem. They agreed that the entire PhD process must be analysed to see what can be improved. “And we’re doing that from all angles, so the DYA’s input is very important in that regard too.”

A delicate process

“Obtaining a PhD is a delicate process,” Bijl observes. In her view, this applies to everyone involved: the PhD candidate, the ACTer, and the supervisor. “It is a small group of people, often highly ambitious, who work very closely together and some of whom depend on one another for their careers. Tensions can arise within that working relationship. When that happens, these kinds of issues are often so complex that everyone involved suffers.”

‘There often is another side which is no less distressing’

Bijl cannot comment on the specific examples in this article, but does not believe that ‘this is a widespread issue’. “I do not get the impression that this applies to all supervisors. Moreover, situations often have another side – for example, that of the PhD candidate – which is no less distressing.” As Rector, she considers herself responsible for everyone involved.

Clarity helps

She believes that social safety is ‘crucial for good education and research’. “What helps is clarity: about what you can expect from one another, everyone’s role in the process, and support, facilities and procedures, always with an eye on all those involved.” She points to the channels available should problems arise: confidential advisors, the social safety and integrity reporting point, and formal committees that can investigate transgressive behaviour or academic integrity.

Does she also see a lack of coherence in the handling of cases when different support channels are involved? “We now have the social safety and integrity reporting point,” says Bijl. “This already gives us a better overview of the various components. We are also working to further clarify and improve the coherence between the different channels for handling reports and complaints.”

Better support

Bijl says that complex problems need to be unravelled, and transgressive behaviour and academic integrity must be considered separately. “If you mix the two, it doesn’t improve the process. Also because, in the case of a complaint about academic integrity, you can no longer take the next step and approach the LOWI (the National Body for Academic Integrity, Ed.). But perhaps we are not explaining this well enough and we are not talking about it often enough.”

‘It is very important that the manager is well-informed’

Ultimately, Bijl knows that different procedures always converge on the people involved. “That is why it is very important that the manager is well-informed about the various perspectives and conducts the conversation effectively. In any case, clear communication is incredibly important, as is support. We recognise that those who are the subject of reports or complaints can sometimes be better supported, for example by having their own confidential advisor. That is something we are focusing on.”