Freedom needs space – even for the unpopular questions
Professor asserts that freedom of research is not only about balancing the researcher’s own methods with external demands. It is also about creating space for new and controversial ideas – which is particularly important for junior researchers but also for students, who should be allowed to be students.
In recent years, the humanities have come under the spotlight in the debate about freedom of research. A few years ago, some researchers were criticised for their work on gender and identity. According to Charlotte Kroløkke, professor at the Department of Culture and Language at SDU, the criticism was not only directed at the individual researchers: it affected the entire paradigm of the humanities.
The balance between freedom of research and external demands
When asked about the balance between freedom of research and the demands that often come in conjunction with funding and collaboration, Charlotte Kroløkke emphasises that it is a delicate balance:
- On the one hand, we have freedom of research – that we can choose our questions and methods – and on the other hand, there are obligations that come with collaboration and external funding. I haven’t experienced an imbalance in this respect, but I do see another challenge: how do we ensure freedom of research in the long term when the recruitment and training of new researchers is becoming increasingly embedded in externally funded projects?
She explains that many junior researchers find themselves in long postdoctoral programmes in which they are primarily continuing work on senior researchers’ questions.
- This is not necessarily a bad thing, but if it becomes the only model, it could prevent the development of a basic research mindset in junior researchers. Freedom of research is all about daring to ask new and sometimes controversial questions, and, as I see it, our system is challenged by the fact that there are fewer permanent positions today. This means that there is less space and time for original thinking or exploring ideas, which permanent positions permit.
Freedom of teaching and employability
SDU’s Declaration on Academic Freedom is good, says Charlotte Kroløkke, and it is positive that freedom of teaching is also included. But it has not changed the way she teaches. Diversity and inclusion are central themes in cultural studies, and her challenges to students are not based on personal opinions. Instead, they are formed through the perspectives and tools of analysis that are facilitated by the relevant theories and methods.
She sees a different area of tension. It lies between freedom of teaching and an increasing focus on employability in the education programmes.
- Of course, it’s good that our graduates get jobs, but focusing too narrowly on employer requirements can inhibit academic curiosity and long-term perspectives. Students should be allowed to experiment with theoretical and historical perspectives without thinking about their future employment.
Humanities under pressure
Charlotte Kroløkke returns to the criticism directed at the humanities.
- The instances in which humanities researchers have been labelled as activists and their research articles called pseudoscience tell me that the humanities are under pressure. When humanities researchers speak out, they must unequivocally convey that they are doing so based on a scientific approach to avoid being accused of activism. Increasingly, the humanities must justify its scientific basis. We work with qualitative studies and critical reflection, which is why we are sometimes wrongly accused of not being scientific.
The humanities provide a deeper understanding of people, culture and history through the study of language, art and society – which are essential components in understanding complex phenomena that are otherwise exclusively associated with the natural or social sciences.
- Take climate change, for example. It’s about more than just CO₂ and temperature curves. It’s also about human behaviour, values and decisions. This is where humanities-based analyses can provide crucial insight.
New challenges for academic freedom
When asked about the challenges facing academic freedom in the future, Charlotte Kroløkke highlights political and societal pressure regarding the topics researchers choose to work with.
- Research on topics such as immigration, Israel–Palestine and Ukraine–Russia evokes strong emotions and populist reactions. Researchers who participate in the debate risk having their academic professionalism questioned or being subjected to personalised criticism. At the same time, misinformation, conspiracy theories and AI-generated content are spreading rapidly and obstructing access to reliable knowledge.
This makes it even more important for universities to protect freedom of research.
- We must safeguard spaces where researchers can ask the unpopular questions without fearing for their career or employment. Freedom demands space – which also includes asking controversial and provocative questions, she emphasises.
Safeguarding democracy
It is a fundament of democratic processes, and universities have to be an indispensable corrective counterbalance in society. Institutions that insist on methodological rigour and academic independence are integral to ensuring that the knowledge produced by research is not confused with opinion or speculation. This is an academic ideal, but it is also a democratic prerequisite.
- Society must be able to distinguish between proven knowledge and unverified claims, between facts and false information. In this respect, institutions are necessary to qualify and verify knowledge before it is brought into the public discourse. This is a prerequisite if democratic decisions are to be made on an informed basis.