1 Ararr

Acknowledgements Dissertation Uk Athletics

A Dutch university (Wageningen University) prohibited a PhD student from thanking God in his thesis acknowledgments. The student, Jerke de Vries, wrote, “My Father God, thank You, it’s the most wonderful thing to be loved and honoured by You.” The university refused to grant him his thesis unless he deleted this reference to God. The university argues that science should be independent from politics or religion (political statements are also banned). The student refused to delete God from his acknowledgments and instead tore the whole page of acknowledgments out altogether.
Is the university right to state that science should be independent from politics and religion, or is this a case of discrimination against religious persons? The university has refused to clarify their decision.
One hypothesis is that the university still holds a pre-postmodern view on independent research, and thinks that research can be entirely objective. Just as there are some dubious cases of research done for the pharmaceutical industry that are motivated by profit, most research is funded by some organisation, and politics often has a huge say in which research will be funded. So how can research be independent from politics? In previous blog posts, I advocated for researchers to make their normative assumptions explicit: if someone has a strong political or religious view on the world, I might like to read about it in the ‘declaration of interest’ section, or in the acknowledgments, if it is relevant for the topic. With the publications of Heidegger’s latest notebooks, it became increasingly clear that he had a strong affinity with Hitler’s politics. Does that mean we should disregard his whole philosophy? Some think we should. I would have preferred an explanation from Heidegger himself about how his political views informed his work, or vice versa, and how his political views might have changed over time. Now we will never know.
Another hypothesis is that the university thinks that religious statements make a work less credible. This is based on a certain view on religious thinking that views it as contradictory to scientific thinking. Before the Enlightenment, knowledge was thought to be revealed by God, and the Bible was an important source of knowledge. Doing research was seen as doubting God’s wisdom. But later, another view emerged within the Church claiming that the best way to honour God was to study his creations. Although many important scholars are religious, and some non-religious scholars claim that they got some of their insights through ‘revelations’ during the night or while relaxing in the bathtub, the view is still persistent among some people that religious people are less scientific.
Even if a religious statement in the acknowledgments makes people seem less scientific, the same counts for certain other acknowledgments. Acknowledgments are mostly used to outline which scholars one collaborated with, and in this sense, they say something about the professional relationships the researcher has. A small paragraph showing that one has a social life outside the academic career adds to an exposition of skills as well: one is more than a scientist alone, but has a social network as well and a good work-life balance. Wageningen University has a policy on political and religious statements in acknowledgments, but not about acknowledgments that are too personal and not professional enough (for example, thanking one’s pet, or being too affectionate in thanking one’s partner). I once read an acknowledgment wherein someone thanked scholars whom that person never collaborated with. The thanked scholars were surprised to be in the acknowledgment. Can I thank Nietzsche or Foucault in my acknowledgments? Their works have changed my life, but isn’t this a little bit misleading? Is this a kind of fraud that a university should develop a policy on? There are no other known cases in Wageningen University’s history of censoring these kind of acknowledgments (that is, ones that are too personal or misleading).

In all of the above scenarios it seems wise for the university to reconsider their policy. They have several options for this: 1. abolish their current policy and instead encourage people to be explicit about their political and religious thoughts if this is relevant for their work. 2. abolish their current policy on religious statements because it is informed by a wrong view on religious people, 3. Extend their current policy to encompass other statements that are too personal as well.

A fantastic acknowledgements page had the academic twittersphere talking. Penned in the preliminary pages of an arcane book on dispensational modernism, Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed wondered aloud if it might be the best book acknowledgement ever.

In case you missed it, here it is:

“I blame all of you. Writing this book has been an exercise in sustained suffering. The casual reader may, perhaps, exempt herself from excessive guilt, but for those of you who have played the larger role in prolonging my agonies with your encouragement and support, well…you know who you are, and you owe me.”

It was written by Brendan Pietsch, assistant professor of religious studies at Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan. “After almost 10 years of working on it I couldn’t possibly come up with a full list of all the people who had helped,” he said.

By this author: A history of cats and academia
By this author: The weird world of academic Twitter

Such oddness in acknowledgements is not new. Researchers have thanked everyone from Rocco Siffredi (an Italian pornstar) for his “constant support”, to the thrash metal band Slayer for “continued advice and inspiration”, to Jon Frum (a cargo cult god). A couple of Barcelona fans working in the US managed to sneak in their home football chant, “Visca el Barça!”

“Unacknowledgements”, such as those in Pietsch’s book, are rarer than their positive counterparts, and are often as biting as they are amusing. The first such grumbling in an academic work appears to have been by three Italian researchers, who included an unackowledgements section in a paper:

“This work is ostensibly supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research…The Ministry however has not paid its dues and it is not known whether it will ever do.”

Unsurprisingly, there are a few that relate to funding.

Sci-fi historian Adam Roberts wrote: “Let me record that I am not in the least grateful to the British Arts and Humanities Research Board – a plague on their house. That this book was ever completed owes nothing to them at all.” Evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen, who was “considered unconventional even by eccentrics”, wrote: “I thank the National Science Foundation for regularly rejecting my (honest) grant applications for work on real organisms, thus forcing me into theoretical work.”

Others explain the occasionally unusual circumstances surrounding their work:

  • “Most of the paper was written during my daily commute from Vancouver to Surrey, Canada, and I would like to acknowledge TransLink, Metro Vancouver’s regional transportation authority, for making the task of writing in buses and trains such an enjoyable exercise.”
  • “If the book is not a success, I dedicate it to the burglars in Boulder, Colorado, who broke into our house and stole a television, two typewriters, my wife Helen's engagement ring and several pieces of cheese, somewhere about a third of the way through Chapter 8.”
  • “…would also like to thank the U.S. Immigration Service under the Bush administration, whose visa background security check forced her to spend two months (following an international conference) in a third country, free of routine obligations – it was during this time that the hypothesis presented herein was initially conjectured.”

Chandler Davis was serving a prison sentence for refusing to cooperate with the House Unamerican Activities Committee when he wrote: “Research supported in part by the Federal Prison System. Opinions expressed in this paper are the author’s and are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Prisons.”

Many include passive-aggressive nods towards those who they feel have wronged them:

  • “We appreciate the very candid critical insights of 2 anonymous reviewers, M. Gompper, and K. Beard.”
  • “We would like to thank Karla Miller for sleeping late one morning, leaving Tim and Steve a bit bored.”
  • “I thank Graham Higman for allowing the dust of Oxford to rest on my unopened manuscript for thirty months.”
  • "We do not gratefully thank T. Appourchaux for his useless and very mean comments”

Caleb M. Brown helps us to end on a more positive note. He used his acknowledgments in a Cell paper to propose to his girlfriend – a fellow researcher at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Alberta, Canada. She said yes.

 Glen Wright tweets @AcademiaObscura (send any other amusing acknowledgements his way). The Academia Obscura book is coming soon.

Leave a Comment

(0 Comments)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *