Academia must overcome its ¡°collective narcissism¡± if it is to tackle crises such as career precarity and academic freedom restrictions, members of a transnational collective have said.

In its 15-point?, the Movement for a Free Academia, comprised primarily of researchers working in the Nordic countries, calls for the foundation of a ¡°democratic and autonomous¡± academic system free from ¡°competitiveness, power imbalances, collegial mistrust and unhealthy hierarchies¡±.

Among the manifesto¡¯s recommendations are the decentralisation of power throughout universities, the freedom of academics to engage in advocacy and activism, the establishment of ¡°caring and respecting¡± environments and the elimination of ¡°job insecurity or precarity¡±.

¡°The usual activism from researchers has been to criticise and try to adjust the existing system,¡± co-author Maria Toft told?³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ. ¡°Instead of just criticising, we thought we should plant a new seed that could grow something ideal.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The decentralisation of power, the document states, ¡°could imply rotation of positions, democratic control over finances and governance, the creation of an independent ombudsman, and abolition of long-term management positions¡±, among other suggestions.

At present, ¡°management positions are strived for because they have extremely high wages, more and more centralised power and competencies to decide on everything¡±, said Ms Toft, an independent researcher and former doctoral student. ¡°Universities today suffer from this collective narcissism. It¡¯s more about image ¨C coming up with the right answers instead of asking the right questions.¡± Instead, she suggested, leadership could be seen as a ¡°collective responsibility¡± of the academic community.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Speaking to?THE?last year, Ms Toft said she was forced out of her PhD programme at the University of Copenhagen after campaigning against the exploitation of junior researchers. ¡°I know what it means to go against management and try to say the reality as it is ¨C it can be really dangerous to say these things out loud,¡± she said.

Ole W?ver, professor of political science at the University of Copenhagen and a fellow member of the Movement for a Free Academia, added, ¡°The current system is extremely bad at protecting the most vulnerable groups.¡±

¡°You can¡¯t really trust a centralised system to care about them, because with the professionalisation of leadership, we get a structure where all that matters is the image, the brand of the university and the ability to attract funding and students,¡± Professor W?ver continued.

Excessive institutional control over researchers¡¯ activities by university leadership, politicians or funding bodies, he continued, had a negative impact on scientific output: ¡°Micromanaging of research is never going to produce the most important breakthroughs, because those come from the most unexpected places.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

A decentralised, non-hierarchical academic structure, Ms Toft said, could also address the precarity faced by early-career scientists. ¡°There should not be this asymmetry between researchers,¡± she said.?¡°My personal opinion is that in the ideal system, you act and are valued as a collective and there are no rigid hierarchies.¡±

¡°For many people the most important thing in academia is to become a professor,¡± she added. ¡°That has nothing to do with the whole core [of academia], which is ideas and science.¡±

Professor W?ver said the Gothenburg Manifesto was not intended as a roadmap for concrete reform but, as its introduction states, ¡°an open-ended invitation¡± to promote conversation among researchers. ¡°The idea is not that now we have the definition or the manual for anything,¡± he said. ¡°It¡¯s an ongoing process. These are the kind of questions that we often forget to ask ourselves.¡±

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com