Ilja comments on his new role: "I am looking forward to adding this position to my research and teaching activities. Within Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, there are interesting developments in research and education; often between different disciplines and in close cooperation with external partners. This could be much more visible. I hope to support these developments and help them along."
Based on a number of questions, he outlines his role within the faculty board and his vision on impact and valorisation in this interview.
It must be very busy for you, since you started in your new role on 1 April?
Yes, it is a crash course in 'Get to know VU Amsterdam well', I have had a lot of meetings this first month and got to know a lot of people. The theme Impact and valorisation touches on many processes within the university, it has to do with education, research, recognising and valorising career profiles of employees, it is about external visibility. There are therefore many people, consultative bodies and teams who are involved in some way in impact and valorisation.
What is your role in the faculty board of the Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences? What are your focal points?
I am responsible for the Impact & Valorisation portfolio. What I see as points of attention are, first of all, creating sufficient attention and visibility for both classic valorisation projects and activities purely focused on social value. Secondly, if researchers want to make social impact, it should be possible at all, be sufficiently supported and lead to satisfaction and appreciation. Finally, the FB focuses on offering a balance between support, frameworks and a faculty narrative on the one hand, and freedom for researchers and staff on the other.
Is this a new portfolio for the Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences?
The Valorisation portfolio has existed for some time, but was combined with the Research portfolio. It is special that at the FGB (as one of the first faculties) Impact & Valorisation is made a separate portfolio and that the FB appoints a portfolio holder for it. It is a conscious choice for the FGB to include the two concepts together in the portfolio name.
What makes this portfolio so interesting is that not everything has been filled in yet. It is therefore good to have conversations with people with a similar role at other faculties to hear how they deal with the subject and what the differences are (in wishes, possibilities and progress) between faculties. I also think it is a very good development that an Impact Board FGB (IB-FGB) has been established, with representatives from the various departments and sections of our faculty.
There are many misconceptions about valorisation and scientists and policy makers use different definitions. What do you understand by valorisation?
Valorisation is often described as a process through which value, often economic, is created from science. Impact has become more fashionable, as it is more explicitly aimed at projects with great social value that cannot directly be expressed in monetary units. The classic route is 'Scientific innovation in a lab setting which is brought to the market and thus gains economic value, in the form of patents, spinoffs and start-ups', i.e. entrepreneurship and economic value. The term impact mainly emphasises social value.
Nevertheless, making an impact still implies something that a researcher initiates himself. I think it is important to really think in terms of a joint process involving internal and external partners.
In addition to the more typical valorisation processes, there are many projects and processes within our faculty in which the focus is on creating social value. Both impact and valorisation are therefore important to our faculty; hence the name of this portfolio.
How do you personally see this interaction / reciprocity?
What is important for this is that a project becomes a co-creative process at an early stage, whereby researchers are in contact with their public and stakeholders. It is then not only that science makes an impact on society, but from the cooperation and interaction between different parties (of which science is one) value is also created for the scientist, such as expertise that contributes to the quality of the research. Impact should not be seen as an additional task to the research activities, but as a benefit for science.
How would you describe the cooperation within the Faculty Board? How do you work together in the FB?
In my experience the cooperation is very constructive, transparent with frequent efficient meetings. There is a real commitment, which is also apparent from the extensive transfer of this portfolio, and we are still in close contact to ensure a good transfer of all files in the field of impact and valorisation.
What is VU Amsterdam's vision on valorisation and how do you see it reflected in the work you do for FGB?
It is certainly similar in the sense that we want to give more visibility to already existing projects and show more initiative and courage in setting up new activities. A difference is that the VU vision has a focus on (social) entrepreneurship and we at FGB - given the nature of our activities - are also more concerned with other types of processes of social impact that are not always strictly entrepreneurial in nature.
Are there differences between faculties in terms of valorisation?
Yes, there must be and that fits well within an overarching vision with sufficient degrees of freedom at the faculty level.
What is your future vision regarding impact and valorisation?
I want to contribute to support, recognition and appreciation. A lot of science operates around social issues, so the social value often already exists but is sometimes not made sufficiently visible. Our inventory shows that there is a great diversity of initiatives within FGB. The point is to make what we are already doing more visible, with more support and to make this more structured. Furthermore, it is important to see recognition and appreciation in career profiles for activities aimed at impact and valorisation.
So what are the first steps?
First make visible what is already there. It is already very motivating if researchers tell each other, read and see from each other. It is also good to know where you can link up with your ideas within your section or department, or who already has contacts with certain social partners in the field. If people want to give explicit substance to impact and valorisation: what support is needed for this, what support is already available (for example via IXA) and how can we offer this more structurally?
It turns out that many researchers already do a lot in the area of impact (e.g. media appearances, development of instruments, academic workplaces), but this is not always explicitly mentioned as important activities for impact. So a lot is already happening, but people often do not know it from each other, and sometimes not even from themselves.
You say: 'Within VU Amsterdam, there are interesting developments in research and education; often between different disciplines and in close cooperation with external partners. Can you give an example of a case study?
Last March we were able to present FGB to the central impact board of VU Amsterdam (IBVU) and especially our activities in the domains of Health, Lifestyle and Well-being, so physical, mental and spiritual health.
For example, there are several valorisation projects within the Demonstrator Lab in which FGB researchers are involved (for instance Meta Grip, Fitsurance and zerophobia). During the presentation we could also present "VU-Ambulatory Monitoring System", "Fair Classification at the Paralympics", and the "Hoe?Zo! show!" to underline the diversity of our faculty once more. And much more is happening within FGB, such as the National Register of Twins (NTR) and National Autism Register (NAR), and also academic workplaces like VIVEON and the newly founded EMPO course are examples of knowledge valorisation through education.
To do justice to such diversity, we will very soon launch a website where these so-called Showcases will be briefly presented. Naturally, we will continue to collect them.
Some say that valorisation is research with social relevance. Do you share that view? Should all scientific work have a social purpose?
In the broadest sense, yes, in the longest possible time, since almost every form of knowledge acquisition can ultimately help society. More importantly, it is not the case that every activity within education or research needs to have an immediate, demonstrable and measurable impact, but within your research and education you should always be aware of who your audience is and which possible stakeholders can be actively involved in the process. Sometimes this also provides important expertise that helps science.
In recent years, corporate sponsors have become increasingly important for financing research. How far can you go as a university and when do you cross the line?
I think that for everything we do within a university, issues such as ethics, privacy, scientific integrity, independence and autonomy are extremely important. So it is not only about the influence of corporate sponsors, but also about possible conflicts of interest between different stakeholders involved in a project. And this also applies to projects in the field of impact and valorisation. It is good to continuously keep an eye on this together and to create clear frameworks. The fact that scientific research is carried out in accordance with a research protocol drawn up beforehand can sometimes help, but reference frameworks such as the recently published 'Reference framework for privacy and ethics in study data' are also important developments in this regard.
How can you integrate valorisation even more into the academic culture?
It mainly requires researchers and lecturers to realise that we are part of a number of important social tasks, such as issues concerning the prevention and treatment of physical, mental and spiritual health.
Many initiatives are currently being launched. It is striking to see that, while valorisation has long been the university's third core task - in addition to research and education - there now seems to be a real acceleration, also within VU Amsterdam. For example, there is now a Chief Impact Officer, Davide Iannuzzi, there is a central IBVU, there are separate portfolio holders for this theme within faculties, and at the FGB we have an Impact Board with members from all departments. So the core task has existed for a long time and there are strategies, but now it is actually being put into practice, on all sorts of levels.
Which person or team at VU Amsterdam would you like to compliment?
The FGB is a forerunner in a number of developments within the design of impact and valorisation. So in that respect, I would like to compliment everyone within our faculty who is already so active in this field and also that this is so actively supported within the FGB, for example by our dedicated business developer from IXA-GO.
What drives you, what makes you enthusiastic?
I find it interesting to be able to contribute to the visibility and relevance of our work on a faculty level, which I already did in my own research and education. For example, I myself am active on social issues concerning education and labour market participation, often in cooperation with municipalities, governments and social partners. What I often notice is that when people from different perspectives and expertise address a common issue, new knowledge, insights and solutions are created. The fact that such synergies can actually be created through cooperation is enormously motivating.