The academic intimidation and harassment of scientists at Flemish universities in Belgium
The issue of academic intimidation is frequently discussed, yet there is a paucity of data regarding its extent and nature. Therefore, Prof. Pieter-Paul Verhaeghe examined the problem among academics at Flemish universities. The results reveal that nearly half of the scientists have experienced intimidation at some point during their academic career. The research was carried out independently under the auspices of the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR). There are five take-aways from his research.
1đź’ˇ Approximately 45% of academics have encountered intimidation during their academic career, with 15% experiencing it on a regular basis. The most prevalent forms of intimidation include receiving provocative and offensive messages (trolling), attacks on academic credibility directed at superiors or funding institutions, or demands for resignation. Fortunately, the most severe forms occur less frequently: legal threats (6%) or threats of, or actual (sexual) violence (1 to 3% of academics experience this). Nevertheless, each case is unequivocally one too many.
2đź’ˇ The longer one has been involved in the scientific community, the higher the likelihood of experiencing intimidation. However, women, ethnic minorities, and particularly individuals with disabilities or chronic illnesses encounter significantly more academic intimidation. There appears to be no significant correlation with one's sexual orientation or religiosity.
3đź’ˇ Prof. Verhaeghe distinguishes three types of intimidation:
Firstly, circa 24% of the academics indicate that they have experienced at least once moderate or severe forms of intimidation by colleagues or other academics from the own or other universities. The intimidation could be related to academic freedom and integrity (e.g. using particular concepts, interpreting results or authorship issues), the work pressure in the academia (e.g. pressure to publish or teach more), and to toxic behaviour at work (e.g. bullying, emotional abuse or verbal aggression).
Secondly, around 9% of the scientists have already experienced moderate or severe forms of intimidation by people they do not or barely know, public figures, organized groups, parties or associations (the so-called “outside world”). This includes politicians or opinion-makers publicly targeting specific academics or organized campaigns against academics on social media. Especially academics from the humanities, social sciences and biological sciences are more likely to report intimidation by the outside world. This often occurs when a scientist presents results on a socially sensitive issue (e.g., climate change, COVID-19, or migration and diversity). Common forms of intimidation here are publicly attacking the academic credibility, asking for the resignation, trolling and being offensive. Several respondents also mention the sexist or racist tone of intimidating comments on social media.
Lastly, around 5% of the scientists indicate that they have experienced moderate or severe forms of intimidation by students from the own or other universities. This refers to denigrating comments in student evaluations on the one hand and verbal aggression and legal procedures by students with respect to their study results on the other hand.
4đź’ˇ Academic intimidation has serious consequences for academic freedom and science. Researchers who feel intimidated are more hesitant to communicate their results or explore certain topics (the so-called 'chilling effect'). Intimidation also has a more significant impact on women and ethnic minorities, contributing to their underrepresentation in news programs or newspapers. For some, it is even one of the reasons to permanently exit the academic world.
5đź’ˇ There is broad support among academics for a policy against academic intimidation. Personally, Prof. Verhaeghe advocates for a combination of preventive and reactive measures. Victims need to hear clearly and unequivocally: You are not alone! They deserve support in potentially filing a complaint, dealing with legal threats, and psychological support. This is a shared responsibility of both the university and the department, as well as the group of immediate colleagues. Therefore, he also advocates expanding bystander training, currently used to combat sexism and racism, to all forms of intimidation.
There is also an issue with the work culture in many departments, labs, and scientific domains regarding unhealthy work pressure, toxic behaviour, and academic integrity. Changing this requires a collective responsibility of all academics. Changing the current work culture does not contradict free scientific debate and the pursuit of academic excellence. On the contrary, a healthier, warmer, and safer work culture enhances robust debate and scientific excellence.
Certainly, steps have been taken in the right direction, but the work is far from complete.
This is only a summary; the complete report with more research findings is available here.
Photo: Chris Sabor
