Column: Bureaucracy should support, not hinder, research

"Bureaucracy" is a form of governance characterized by hierarchy and rule-based management.

The word is not negative in its original sense but has acquired a clear negative connotation in modern usage, often implying an excess of bureaucracy.

In the research field, many feel uneasy when terms like “collaboration agreement,” “data processing agreement,” and “GDPR” are mentioned, but there are (at least) two sides to the bureaucracy these terms represent.

Bureaucracy Secures Research

On the one hand, bureaucracy in research has undoubtedly made it more ethically sound (especially via the Helsinki Declaration) and contributed to the necessary protection of personal data.

If we, as researchers, do not adhere to these basic rules, a fundamental “contract” with society and its citizens (research participants) is broken—and our work would cease.

But Where is the Limit?

On the other hand, bureaucracy must not become so overwhelming that it deters researchers from pursuing their work because the administrative burden is insurmountable.

We are not at that point yet, but some would argue we are approaching it. This would break another contract with society and citizens, who rightly expect the university to conduct research.

At the Academic Council meeting on October 24, we welcomed Jakob Rathlev and Søren Broberg Nielsen from AU Research. Together, we had a valuable discussion about finding balance in bureaucracy. According to Jakob Rathlev, the mission for AU Research is to “make it easier to be a successful researcher.” We fully support that mission.

Contact: 

Chair, professor Søren Dinesen Østergaard
Academic Council, Aarhus University
Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University
Phone: +4561282753
sdo@clin.au.dk