The promise of the ACT

There comes a time when you think you have made it in academia. After years of being a doctoral candidate and post-doc you become an assistant professor. You now really belong. You have a place in the system. And for a couple of years now that system has a clear path: the Academic Career Track (ACT).

It all sounded so reassuring. Start as an assistant professor 2, after four years a midterm, and, if you have achieved enough, move to assistant professor 1. In principle, the path is then open to become an associate professor and perhaps a full professor at some point. Diagrams and flowcharts make it clear. Transparent, open, predictable.

At least, that’s what it looked like. Until things began to clash somewhere between promises and reality.

The criteria – which are at the heart of the process, and definitely if you want to progress to associate professor – have become more hazy. They have become more flexible and more personal so that every individual can excel in their own way. And to be clear, I support this. One person is an inspirational teacher, another a researcher that makes an impact, and another excels in outreach or leadership. Recognising the differences is both logical and desirable. But it does make the system hard to track.

What do I need to do to be promoted? The truth is uncomfortable: nobody knows exactly

If everyone may excel in their own way, what is the bar? When are you ready for the next step? The answer is flexible, and this is where the problem lies. A system for academic career paths can be a source of worry and frustration when it gives little certainty, as described by Delta. This is not because people do not want to achieve, quite the opposite, but because they are not sure what they are evaluated on.

That uncertainty is felt everywhere. New colleagues almost immediately ask the same question: “What do I need to do to be promoted?” The truth is uncomfortable: nobody knows exactly. So we tell each other that it will be fine and that quality is noted, while we prepare ourselves for R&D discussions with a nagging feeling and wondering if we are doing things right. Is this enough?

What makes it even harder is seeing what happens around you. Colleagues who, insofar as the criteria are clear, seem to meet all the criteria to become an associate professor, but are still stuck. They publish, get research financing, teach really well and make a strong contribution to TU Delft. And yet, it is not enough. At the same time you see others who do get promoted while, from the outside, not all the criteria seem to be met.

And this is where things seem to go astray. The idea behind the ACT is that different profiles have just as much chance of being promoted. But if this is not the case in practice, the problem apparently does not only lie in the criteria, but also in its interpretation and the person doing the interpretation.

This gives rise to an uncomfortable thought which is strongly worded in a Delta column: ‘it has to be granted to you’. I don’t really want to believe this as it clashes with the idea of TU Delft being a meritocracy. But if criteria become vague, objectivity is stretched, and subjectivity unavoidable. This leads to worry and frustration. So the ACT should therefore not be a system on which you pin your hopes, but something you can build on.