In a short article recently published in Tietessä Tapahtuu, a science-policy journal, Jaakko Kuorikoski and I argue that two policies recently introduced in Finnish higher education compromise academic autonomy.

These policies outsource researcher evaluation to extra-academic agents, and result in absurd demands on academic review panels. If implemented, they can lead to significant harm to the quality of Finnish research and self-regulation of the academic community.

Here’s an AI summary (light edits):

Kuorikoski and Reijula argue that recent efforts to increase objectivity in academic hiring —- though well-intentioned – may actually threaten the quality and autonomy of science. They critique developments in Finland such as the Research Council of Finland’s guidelines on responsible evaluation and the University of Helsinki’s partial outsourcing of doctoral school admissions, which emphasize standardized and administratively controlled processes.

The authors introduce the concept of “HR-objectivity”, referring to a managerial model of objectivity that seeks to eliminate bias through formal, measurable criteria and external oversight. They contrast this with the epistemic objectivity of science, which relies on expert judgment, peer consensus, and tacit knowledge within research communities.

Kuorikoski and Reijula caution that treating academic evaluation like a typical HR process neglects the complexities of scientific quality and risks marginalizing expert intuition and contextual understanding. They emphasize that while fairness and transparency are important, over-reliance on procedural formalism can lead to superficial assessments and reduced academic freedom.

Ultimately, they argue that a misguided view of objectivity in hiring undermines science itself by eroding the community-based mechanisms that safeguard research excellence.