Faculty Management at Natural Sciences wants to phase-out iNANO as a department-like centre: "The way it has operated has been dysfunctional"

At the beginning of May, the Faculty Management at the Faculty of Natural Sciences unveiled a decision that, according to Dean of Natural Sciences Birgit Schiøtt, has been years in the making and has been discussed with iNANO's management even before she became dean in May last year.

"The Faculty Management has conducted a long and thorough analysis of how iNANO can be organised in the future. Many options have been considered and analysed, including iNANO as an independent department, but ultimately the Faculty Management has decided to work towards phasing out iNANO as a department-like centre."

This was the message in the news item that accompanied the consultation process concerning the next steps in the phasing out of iNANO as an institute-like centre. iNANO (Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Center) is an interdisciplinary centre with department-like status, but is not an actual department. Founded in 2002, it has since provided the framework for nanoscience research involving several disciplines such as physics, chemistry and molecular biology, as well as nanoscience education and a PhD programme.     

According to Dean Birgit Schiøtt, the background for the decision primarily concerns iNANO’s organisational framework, but the development and size of nanoscience as a research field and the size of iNANO have also been contributing factors.

"The organisation of nanoscience activities has been debated for many years because the way it has operated has been dysfunctional," she says and elaborates:

"It has been dysfunctional in the sense that there has been a mismatch between who has financial responsibility, who sets the strategy, which research fields are supported through iNANO and also external expectations. This is the main reason why we’re phasing out iNANO as an department-like centre."

She also points out that when iNANO was established, nanoscience as a research field was far from as established as it is today, and according to the dean, AU was progressive in establishing iNANO at the time.

“But no one ever said it was meant to operate under department-like conditions forever, and it has been extremely successful in becoming embedded. Today, the vast majority of nanoscience activities are based within the departments and are no longer anchored in iNANO,” she says, explaining the background to the faculty leadership team’s current plan to dissolve the iNANO organisation and transfer nanoscience activities to the departments.

She adds that around 80 per cent of the researchers associated with iNANO are employed at the departments.

The dean emphasises that all nanoscience research activities will continue on largely unchanged terms. The same applies to the nanoscience degree programme, which will in future be offered by the Department of Chemistry. This is also the case for the country’s other nanoscience programme at the University of Copenhagen, the dean points out. However, the independent PhD programme in nanoscience is being phased out. There will also no longer be a department-like management function and its own budget, but research funding will move with the researchers to the departments. For around 15 employees, the decision means that they will have a new HR manager and place of employment, but not a new workplace.

"Everyday life will not change significantly for staff and students. With the new organising, the researchers will have the same colleagues, the same projects, the same premises, the same equipment and they will contribute to the same programmes as before," Birgit Schiøtt says.

New interdisciplinary unit at faculty level

In connection with the announcement of the plan to phase out iNANO as a department-like centre, the faculty management also unveiled plans to create a new faculty-level unit to support interdisciplinarity and innovation promotion activities. But the two things are not directly connected, the dean emphasises. iNANO is not being discontinued to make way for the new unit.

"No matter what, we would’ve discussed iNANO’s organisation,” she says.

"The reason the new unit is mentioned in connection with the phasing out of iNANO is to give employees a clear signal that the 'i' is not going away," says the dean, referring to the new unit's interdisciplinary focus.

"One of the things that iNANO has been really good at is working together across areas, and we need this to be rolled out across the entire faculty so that we can support interdisciplinary collaboration. “We need to do this much better than we have so far. This is not a criticism of iNANO, but as a faculty, we must approach it in a completely different way if we want to move forward and meet external expectations,” the dean says.

A working group headed by Vice-dean Ole Bækgaard Nielsen has been set up to qualify the ideas for the new unit. But the dean explains that it will be a “driving, supportive administrative unit” without academic staff employed, tasked with supporting research groups and acting as a liaison to The Kitchen.

Local liaison committee: Not clear why phasing out is necessary

Staff and students at iNANO are concerned about the decision. The consultation response from the Local Liaison Committee (LSU) at iNANO begins by stating that employees and students don’t find management's argumentation for the decision clear:

"Overall, the consultation has been received with some confusion among staff from the aforementioned groups and students. This is to some extent rooted in the distinction between iNANO being phased out as a department-like centre and the perception of a complete termination and fragmentation of iNANO’s functions. For many, the argument for the necessity of phasing out iNANO has not been clear, especially if the overall goal of the faculty's decision is to strengthen interdisciplinarity, innovation and external collaboration."

Decision came as a shock to several staff

The decision has also come as a shock to several staff associated with iNANO - even those in the centre's management, including Kurt Vesterager Gothelf, Deputy Head of Department at iNANO and Professor at the Department of Chemistry. He was aware that for several years there had been discussions at the faculty about iNANO's organisational status and that a committee had been set up to look at alternative ways of organising iNANO. Despite this, the faculty leadership team's announced decision took him by surprise.

“To me, this looks like a shutdown of iNANO, and I didn’t expect that. The argument that because nanoscience no longer needs support because it’s a well-established field doesn't hold water. That can be said about many fields that are organised as departments. The idea that the decision is purely organisational doesn't work either, because without money, management and representation, you lose cohesion and influence," he says.

Kurt Vesterager Gothelf is not alone in being strongly dissatisfied with the decision and the fact that staff are only being asked for feedback on the further process. Together with eight other professors associated with iNANO, he has written an open letter to the faculty management.    

"Together with my co-signatories, I am deeply shocked by the outcome of the leadership’s decision. We had hoped for a sustainable solution - but it looks to us like iNANO is going to be shut down. We want to protest the decision and not just the process that the consultation alone concerns."

In the letter, the nine professors write, among other things:

“In other words, there is no real opportunity to object to the upcoming decision to phase out, but only to how it will be implemented. This gives the impression that the decision has in fact already been made and that the consultation process is only intended to legitimise an organisational restructuring that the affected research community has had no opportunity to influence.”

Criticism: Staff involvement came too late

Commenting on management's consultation strategy and the process that led to the decision, the joint union representative for the academic staff at Natural Sciences (VI and AC-TAP), Associate Professor Olav W. Bertelsen, says:

"If you are very literal, the management in this case is only obliged to consult LSU at iNANO. In this case, the leadership has opted for a wider scope in the consultation process.”

Despite this, the union representative believes that the faculty management would have benefited from broader involvement in the process leading up to the decision:

"For example, the academic council hasn’t been involved in the decision. So you can criticise the closed nature of the process leading up to the decision, and this may also have contributed to some of the dissatisfaction we've seen," says Olav W. Bertelsen, pointing out that earlier involvement of LSU and the management team at iNANO would also have given the process more credibility and legitimacy.

Birgit Schiøtt responds to the criticism of the late staff involvement:

"I understand that some employees would have liked to be involved earlier, but it's really difficult with a decision like this. The iNANO management has been involved in discussions about iNANO's future for 4-5 years with the Dean's Office. The discussions have focused on both iNANO's future academic focus and iNANO's organisation and relationship with the institutes. The discussions were a direct result of the 2019 evaluation. So the management of iNANO has been in close dialogue with the dean's office for several years, but without us getting any closer to a sustainable strategy where decision-making power and daily responsibility are anchored in the place where academic expertise and finances exist," Birgit Schiøtt says and adds:

"We involved LSU as soon as the faculty management had made a decision on the direction we wanted to take with iNANO. This is fully in line with the collaboration agreement. We also informed the extended management group at iNANO when the decision was ready."

When asked why management has chosen to only send the process out for consultation, both Dean Birgit Schiøtt and Vice-dean Ole Bækgaard Nielsen respond that it’s not custom to put a management decision of this nature to a vote in a consultation.

“If we don’t do what we have decided, then we must do something else to address the dysfunction the dean described earlier. Some would say: close it, others would say: no, keep it open. But it's not a question of yes or no, it's a question of choosing one of several possible solutions. You simply can’t put such a decision to a vote," Ole Bækgaard Nielsen says.

Birgit Schiøtt also points out that discussions about iNANO’s organisation have been ongoing for many years, with the Dean's Office in dialogue with iNANO’s management, and most recently with the faculty leadership since autumn 2024, when a working group prepared analyses of possible organisational models for nanoscience.

"I know that it’s also been discussed among some of the employees at iNANO, specifically where and how, I don't know, because it has been at iNANO."  

She also points out that the reason for the consultation process is that some staff will have new personnel management and organisational support. She emphasises that the consultation has involved more parties than management is obliged to do under the cooperation agreement.

"We have also chosen to involve LSU at stakeholder departments – that is, the departments that have been involved from the start and are financially involved and will receive the employees – as well as the Faculty Liaison Committee and the academic council at Natural Sciences, where the students are also represented. So we've done a more inclusive consultation than we're obliged to because we want to have a good process," she says.

"And then we in the Dean's Office have subsequently participated in several meetings with both staff and students to answer their questions and concerns," Birgit Schiøtt says.

Stuck between departments?

Several technical and administrative staff are also concerned about the announced decision. This is according to Lise Refstrup Linneberg Pedersen, a special consultant in iNANO's secretariat and union representative for technical/administrative staff (TAPs) with an academic background.

Administrative TAPs will either be given new tasks in the future interdisciplinary faculty unit or in a department secretariat. Project TAPs and technical TAPs will generally have their employment transferred to the same department as the researcher leading the project they are employed on. This means that most administrative employees will have new management. But where and how is yet to be finalised.

“It matters where you have your organisational affiliation – you may get a new leader, possibly a new portfolio of tasks, and could become a piece in a new puzzle.” Especially among academic staff in administrative positions (AC-TAPs), I hear concerns that the situation is currently characterised by many unknowns," Lise Refstrup Linneberg Pedersen says.

The upcoming organisational split between several departments is also causing several employees to worry about whether there will be more bureaucracy when the economy is split between several departments, she says:

"Some are worried about being squeezed between the interests of several departments," she says.

Concerns of students 

Among students, the decision to discontinue iNANO also causes concern and uncertainty. Mathias Rod Skovvang Nielsen and David Vu Bui are both studying for their MSc in Nanoscience, and David Vu Bui is a future PhD student.

The students are satisfied with the leadership team's announcement that the nanoscience programme will continue, but they are uncertain about what impact it’ll have that it’ll be placed within the Department of Chemistry going forward.

"Can we trust that the programme won't change when we transfer to chemistry? And who will take care of marketing the programme when it is no longer the responsibility of iNANO?" Mathias Rod Skovvang Nielsen asks, referring to the fact that nanoscience is not a large programme.

Last year, 80 students applied to the programme, and 30 were offered a place – a 30 percent increase compared to the previous year. In the period 2020-2022, the admission has been 16-17 students.

However, the two students, who have both been involved in the student association Nanorama, are particularly concerned that the unique environment at iNANO risks being lost when the centre is closed down. Today, students experience a very close environment where they know each other across classes and work closely with both PhD students and researchers. And they experience an administration that is close to them on a daily basis and supports their events, both Friday bars and professional activities at iNANO:

"What will the possibilities be for future use of the iNANO house when we transition to chemistry administration? What opportunities will there be in the future to draw on the administration to organise social events for students and PhD students? Will we be prioritised in the same way as before?" David Vu Bui asks.

To the students' concerns about the future of the programme and the study environment, the dean responds:

“The fact that some students express concern about the programme’s future following its transfer to the Department of Chemistry is a clear sign of a strong study environment. Of course, we must maintain this. We’ve had several meetings with the students and we have a strong intention to keep everything that works and strengthen the study environment even more. We have several small programmes at the faculty and do a lot to create a good framework and ensure good communication to potential future students," Birgit Schiøtt says.

Malthe Kjær Bendtsen is a PhD student at iNANO and PhD representative in the PhD committee at Natural Sciences. He points out that PhD students have only been involved in the consultation to a very limited extent. The only consultation body involving PhD students is the Academic Council, which includes two PhD students – none of whom represent nanoscience.  

"We feel overlooked as we’re not invited to give a response," he says.

He states that Vice-dean Ole Bækgaard Nielsen has received the PhD students’ consultation response, which was also attached as an appendix to LSU iNANO’s submission.

Among the PhD students, the closure of the PhD programme has caused a lot of uncertainty, he explains.

"How will already enrolled PhD students be distributed after the iNANO is phased out, which title will you receive when you can no longer become a PhD in nanoscience? It has been stated that as a PhD student, you follow your research director. It may seem paradoxical that an interdisciplinary group has to choose one discipline," he says, referring to the fact that nanoscience research groups often embrace several academic disciplines.

Dean Birgit Schiøtt explains that the organisational affiliation of already enrolled PhD students has not yet been decided.

"That's one of the things we want input on in the consultation. But the intention is that PhD students will be admitted to other programmes in the future."

Ole Bækgaard Nielsen adds:

"Nothing changes for the enrolled PhD students; their project is unchanged, their supervisor is unchanged and the same goes for their workplace, collaborators and courses and the title of their certificate."

He continues:

"We recognise that there may be something at stake in terms of identity, but being interdisciplinary - you can be that in all our PhD programmes, it's not specific to nanoscience."

The final decision regarding the process of phasing out iNANO's department-like status will be made in September. The execution is to be completed by 31 December 2026.

This text is machine translated and post-edited by Cecillia Jensen