Deconstructing togetherness: The case of UiS and ECIU

Denne teksten er et debatt­inn­legg. Inn­holdet i teksten uttrykker forfatterens egen mening.

The continuation of the ECIU University at UiS has been polemic enough to give room for a dialogue that should have occurred before the reports assessing the issue would be considered as final. 

In a recent post, Haus-Reve and Kallevig, who have led one of the reports, acknowledged room for different perspectives on the topic, and shared that they want respect to be the tone continuing the conversation. Respectful dialogues are only possible in this context if we promote humility, empathy, and intercultural communication awareness to secure diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

Therefore, the UiS community must prioritize enough room for dialogue and protect students and staff who think differently from decision-makers, protecting them from being targeted and/or mobbed if speaking up.

Debatt ● Silje Haus-Reve og Joachim Gümüs Kallevig

ECIU-saken ved UiS: Sammen i uenighetsfellesskapet

In the recent public exchange between Biswas, Haus-Reve, and Kallevig, there are at least four arguments at stake: a) that user involvement had room for improvement in the assessment; b) that there is no consensus among students and staff around the rector's recommendation; c) that it is essential to focus on the case we are defending, and not on the individuals defending them; d) that the budget could benefit of context. 

I will expand upon the first two arguments. Regarding the third one, I hope for more conversations across departments, faculties, and committees at the university so there are fewer unreachable hierarchies and more co-creation. As for the fourth point, I invite the workgroup to explain the calculation of both costs AND contributions by ECIU, as portrayed in different documents. 

Haus-Reve and Kallevig admit that user involvement had room for improvement in their report, and I applaud their humility in that statement. Yet, such «room for improvement» was experienced as a form of silencing for many of us, which calls for compassion and repair. 

Debatt ● Tanu Biswas

UiS-styret bør ikke stemme over ECIU-saken nå

The global landscape of academia nowadays sheds light on the urgency of securing, as explicitly as we can, democracy and academic freedom in universities. 

I am sure that all leaders at UiS are on board with that mission, even if in practice this involves the tedious work of listening to arguments that differ from our own, or an extra round of analysis of the methodological processes that ground decision-making to secure these are inclusive enough. 

Such commitment is crucial if we want to shape an organizational culture that is innovative and welcoming. We are in this together, and togetherness is making room for everyone, e-mail by e-mail, meeting by meeting, debate by debate, report by report, apology by apology, and invitation after invitation. 

universitetsallianse

150 ansatte med opprop mot UiS-rektorens forslag: — En kolossal feil

Let's be clear: the process that led to the ECIU report in mention cannot be called co-creation, as the invitations to the «høring» in February did not arrive to their VIP guests: the breadth of students and staff at UiS in favor and actively working for the ECIU University. 

I want to believe the failure in involvement was primarily motivated by a lack of time rather than by a lack of will, as I was told the workgroup's deadline hindered leaders' ability to map the situation thoroughly or secure diversity, equity, and inclusion. Many of us became, sort of, involuntary participants in a «study» to which we had not given our consent.

We did not have a fair chance to provide input on our courses, projects, and collaborations, or voice what we actually need from the administration. 

Debatt ● Silje Haus-Reve og Joachim Gümüs Kallevig

UiS fortsetter å satse internasjonalt

In my case, this had consequences: the work I had carried in favor of ECIU University for about two years vanished in that document. The report says my faculty has not registered any contributions to contacts with the EU or applications, and this is far from the truth, as I submitted an ERC application and was part of a COST application with DCU in 2024. The statement about my faculty also suggests minimal network building in ECIU, ignoring the work I have carried out bridging DCU and UiS. 

Most importantly, the report does not mention the ECIU courses from my colleagues, nor those I'm leading this autumn, developed with the 150.000 kr funding I received from ECIU in 2024. Is this information gap due to methodological weaknesses in formulating questions, forgetfulness, or silencing? 

In Biswas' response, she points to the CoARA agreement, a document that should be at stake at every meeting, committee, and report at the university, yet has become an elephant in the room at UiS for the time being. 

Debatt ● Tanu Biswas

ECIU University og UiS: Sviktende tallgrunnlag og tillit i styringskulturen

The ECIU report that has sparked controversy discusses some grant applications, publication, and other metrics that CoARA urges to balance with qualitative criteria in the form of, among others: collaboration, open data, cooperation between academia and industries, mentoring, training, and, nonetheless, diversity, equity, and inclusion. CoARA also calls for mindfulness around young scientists and indicates that those being assessed, not only those «assessors», should be part of developing assessment criteria. 

Again, is this information gap due to methodological weaknesses in formulating questions, forgetfulness, or silencing? 

If we were to continue suggesting that withdrawing from the ECIU University is a fair move now that we have pointed out the missing data, then we would, unfortunately, threaten the dignity of students and employees. Almost 200 students, staff, and colleagues have signed an open letter to support the continuation of ECIU University. This number of people is larger than those whose opinions had a say in the report. 

Debatt ● Olga V. Lehmann

The ECIU University alliance is an emerald UiS forgot

Therefore, I invite the Business School and TekNat, Haus-Reve's and Kallevig's faculties, and the faculty of Social Studies, the faculty where I work, to publicly explain to the UiS community why they have circled an additional document arguing for the dismissal of the open letter, based on their assumption almost 200 signatures (many from students and staff from these faculties, and beyond) are not perceived to be «statistically significant». 

Representatives of StOr, the student organization at UiS, have signed the open letter and stated publicly their support for the continuation of the ECIU university. Both Utdanningsutvalget and Læringsmiljøutvalget have also recently voted to continue this endeavor. 

Debatt ● Trym Holbek

UiS lukker døren til Europa for å gå i økonomisk balanse

If we want to promote respect in the context of diversity, equity, and inclusion, these almost 200 signatures are an urgent call to write a new chapter in the history of UiS, one where we all, in the strength that our differences provide, co-design an innovative organizational culture, together. 

Therefore, the workgroup could consider withdrawing their report from the table, and re-write a new one with us, instead of recommending the withdrawal from the ECIU University based on a text that had room for improvement, and room for inclusion.

statsregnskapet

Vendte underskudd til overskudd