ARTES Newsletter July

Even at a research school like ARTES, the concept of valorization leads to heated discussions. It is the subject of confusion, and rejection, but just as often of hilarity. For new non-Dutch speaking colleagues at this faculty the very word might be the first one that is easily stored in their new Dutch lexicon, since they are aware of its importance to the Dutch academic world and its relation with the government, whilst simultaneously excited by the alienating significance of the concept’s Dutchification. In last month’s newsletter, Christian Noack has explicated the bottlenecks for our faculty since ‘valorization’ needs to be assessed. In reply to his call for an internal discussion about what we consider as output of valorization, I would argue that, before turning to the output, we first need to return to a basic understanding of where the very concept of valorization originates from. By doing so, we will note that the desire to valorize is inherent to our profession as scholars situated at the Faculty of Humanities and to our intrinsic motivations. Actually, it is quite fun, to valorize.

In the everyday ARTES life, the valorization storm often generates quite hilarious situations, if only by the confusion the word provokes. In a working ambiance characterized by the use of a plurality of languages and with English as its lingua franca, it becomes much clearer how strange the Dutchification ’valorization’ is. The word doesn’t exist in English in the way we give meaning to the concept of valorization at Dutch universities. In Dutch as well as in English, the noun ’valorization’ and the verb ’to valorize’ refer to a redefinition of value so that production becomes profitable again, or to taking measures in order to generate a good price. Remarkably, a new meaning has been added to the latest edition of the Van Dale dictionaries. Somewhere in between 2001 and 2015 ’valoriseren’ in Dutch has also become to be defined as ’harnessing [scientific knowledge]’, and that is the kind of valorization creating the fuss in Dutch academia - and especially in the Humanities. It is a definition that has only very recently been introduced to Dutch research policy.

In essence, a closer look to its definition shows that valorization is about the process of valuation, and only in second place about the product. How valorization is evaluated, is thus open for discussion. This is exactly where the new Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) - that was the occasion for Noack's reflection in the previous newsletter - is pointing us to. The 'relevance to society’, as the assessment part ’valorization’ is described, is determined by means of a self-assessment: in the form of a narrative, but also by self-defined demonstrable products and marks of recognition. Although Noack describes the definition of valorization as ’(deliberately?) vague,’ I believe that the openness of the concept, its process-oriented focus, is exactly its strength.

In my search for the role valorization can have in the academic practice, I have consulted our ARTES PhDs. Educated in the time period between 2001 and 2015, in which the concept of valorization has apparently entered our universities, they are unfamiliar with the supposed non-valorizing policy-era for which our faculty supposedly longs with nostalgia. Two things stand out: A consultation with our ARTES’ PhDs shows first of all that it is not difficult to meet the by the SEP suggested societal outputs, that are ’targeting specific economic, social or cultural target groups, [...] advisory reports for policy, [...] contributions to public debates, and so on.’ Especially public lectures, debates and events, articles for newspapers and popular magazines, lectures at, among others places, high schools, and curating exhibitions, are produced in equal numbers as - or maybe even to a greater extent than - thesis-chapters.

Second, together with these 'outputs', the PhDs name the difficulty that is associated with the concept's terminology. One PhD argues that we can never ’win’ the debate as long as we keep using the word valorization. It will always linger in a discussion about the question if our research produces practical, economically interesting results. Several of the PhDs explain that for them, valorization is about the interaction between the academic and the every day lived experience of the non-academic world, about translating academic research into accessible knowledge and about sharing your work to the public space, in order to engage in public debate and to share knowledge and sources. Apart from to individual research related outputs, valorization shows a second trend. At least half of those outputs considered by our PhDs as valorization, are related to wider social issues, such as the Bed, Bad & Brood discussion, accessibility to university education, multilingual education, new nationalism and European integration issues, and thus demonstrate features normally addressed to the ’engaged researcher’.

Valorization is as much a process to raise awareness for the why-question of our research, as well as for the why-question of our academic life and position in general. Formulating the relevance of specific research, is a skill that goes to the heart of science. However, the question about the function of a scholar is often overlooked. To me, these two questions seem to be intertwined with each other. It might be that such an awareness is a matter of course for PhD students, given the stage of their careers. Yet I cannot imagine that these PhDs are so different from other (ARTES) scholars. It is remarkable that at a research school which is intrinsically rich in potentially valorizing research themes - if only by its relatively modern and contemporary research times and socially critical research topics - the whole idea of valorization remains such a sensitive subject.

Let us please move away of the tendency at Dutch universities to focus on an ‘output’ and production discourse when discussing valorization. The concept is inherent to exactly that which academic scholars - and in particular scholars from the Humanities - are, what we do, what encourages us. This doesn’t mean that everyone constantly needs to ’valorize’ everything - certain projects lend themselves easier than others. Yet, it is allowed to be proud of this task to ‘valorize’ our research, it is the core of our profession.

Names of participants to this PhD research are withheld by the editorial board.

Do you also want to learn how to valorize your research? Ask for a course by the ARTES PhDs. For more information, you’re welcome at Bushuis D303.