Poor communication
All interviewees were asked the same opening question: “What do you know about the merger?” No one questioned the use of the word “merger”; they didn’t correct Observant to say “administrative integration”, the term preferred by the Executive Board. Many interviewees recalled having read something about the merger on the intranet or in Observant, but none seemed to know any specifics. “I do get the feeling that the merger is inevitable, in the sense that it will go through no matter what”, says a professor at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASoS). “At least, that’s the impression you get from the university’s official communications. It seems to be a question of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’.” The general perception is that the decision is being discussed by those in charge, with rank-and-file employees being left out. “I’d like to provide input, but that doesn’t seem to be an option.” Another adds, “We feel quite removed from the matter. It’s something that’s mostly happening ‘on the Berg’. We rarely talk about it here [at the School of Business and Economics].”
Others refer to it as “a Randwyck affair”. A specialist at the hospital, who is also a professor at the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life sciences (FHML), jokingly compares the situation to a spinal cord injury: “What happens in the brain doesn’t always reach the feet. Management overestimates the extent to which information filters down to the lower levels of the organisation.”
A lecturer at the Faculty of Science and Engineering (FSE) is more sharply critical, describing the poor communication as “rather shocking, given that the merger could have significant consequences for the entire community”. One of his colleagues wonders if there’s more going on, “something we’re not allowed to know. It also sends the message that they don’t take their employees seriously, that they think we wouldn’t understand.” If the plan is to succeed, more information would be “desirable and necessary”, argues a professor at the Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience (FPN), echoing a sentiment shared by many.
Eleven interviewees were not aware of the proposed merger at all: it didn’t ring a bell for several randomly approached non-UM-affiliated specialists and medical interns at MUMC+. “People aren’t talking about it at all. At most, it’s seen as ‘just another plan we’ll wait and see about’.” It seems communication at the hospital is even more limited than at UM.
Benefits and opportunities
Although many interviewees hesitate to give an opinion on a matter they know so little about, they do see various potential benefits. It is rather a shame to go from two Christmas gifts (one from the hospital, one from the university) to one, joke several FHML professors who also work as medical specialists at the hospital, but they’re willing to overlook that for the practical benefits – having just one access pass, one email address and one login system. “In the current situation, your UMcard doesn’t give you access to hospital floors where your fellow researchers’ offices are, you can’t use the MUMC+ bicycle storage and you don’t share the same email domain”, explains an FPN professor involved in patient research. The problem of UM emails ending up in MUMC+ spam folders would become a thing of the past.
Various interviewees at FHML, FPN and FSE expect that the merger will make collaboration among researchers more efficient and streamlined, cutting some of the red tape surrounding research proposals. Proposals involving both UM and MUMC+, classified as “multicentre research”, are currently subject to the approval processes of both institutions, requiring separate presentations, ethics reviews and legal contract assessments. “It’s a nightmare. There are so many rules to follow, which just means more work”, sighs one researcher. “Hiring staff across both institutions is such a hassle when it comes to things like payroll”, explains another interviewee. “It’ll be so much easier once we’re all under the same Collective Labour Agreement (CAO).” However, it’s not at all certain that this will be the case. The hospital offers more generous terms which, according to insiders, will cost UM an additional €20 million annually.
Some believe the merger will also lead to easier access to labs as well as patients. Maastricht-based research will definitely gain more visibility, says a professor at FPN. A professor at FASoS is unsure whether a merger would make much difference, but she hopes that it will make researchers at the hospital and the university more aware of each other’s work. “Currently, hospital researchers in Randwyck often find our research by chance. They often seem surprised to learn that we are working on topics relevant to them and that there is valuable expertise available right here in the city centre. The hospital can learn from us, and we can learn from the hospital.” Examples include research on medical anthropology and medical recycling.
Concerns and drawbacks
While some see opportunities for closer collaboration across all kinds of disciplines (“It will benefit research”), others suspect that little will change. Most of the latter are clinicians already working closely with the hospital – the people who stand to benefit most from the merger, according to others. “We already work together. I don’t see how this would make much difference.” When it comes to teaching, “we’re practically already merged”, according to two lecturers in the Medicine programme. “People with complementary knowledge on specific topics already seek and find each other”, an FHML professor points out. He dismisses the idea that a merger would lead to more collaboration as “a hollow argument”. Another interviewee adds, “It’s mostly symbolic, like this is what it takes to become a ‘real’ university medical centre.”
Would the merger lead to more collaboration with faculties in the city centre? Take health law, for example. “This field is important enough for both faculties – FHML and Law – to maintain, even without a merger”, says an interviewee at the Faculty of Law.
Some doubt whether a merger would actually reduce bureaucracy or improve efficiency. “Becoming a huge organisation tends not to speed things up, especially in the first years after a merger”, remarks a clinical researcher. Several administrative and support staff members fear the merger will just create a “bureaucratic construct”. As they point out, “Complex issues like data management won’t become any less complex just because we become one organisation on paper.”
“In our field, we say, ‘If you have four rats in a cage and add a fifth on Friday, you’ll have one left by Monday. The strongest survives, the hospital will be the dominant force”
Various interviewees question whether the potential benefits of a merger outweigh the drawbacks of the process. It will cost “a lot of money, effort, time and energy”, they point out. “You need to have a very strong justification for an undertaking of this kind, otherwise it’s too great an investment”, says a Law lecturer. “I’d rather see those funds allocated to unforeseen circumstances”, adds an FHML professor.
There are a lot of concerns about what will change when UM and MUMC+ integrate administratively, from issues such as fund allocation to strategic direction. After all, a university and a hospital can have significantly different interests. Who will hold the most power? “In our field, we say, ‘If you have four rats in a cage and add a fifth on Friday, you’ll have one left by Monday. The strongest survives”, says a professor at FHML. Many fear that the hospital will come out on top, with its higher headcount and revenues. “They will be the dominant force.”
And what about academic freedom? Health encompasses so much more than just medical care, say many interviewees from non-clinical departments focused on topics such as prevention, healthy living and out-of-hospital care. “There is a genuine fear here that our broader focus on health will be reduced to a medical focus”, says a Health Sciences professor. Besides, another interviewee says, “We’re currently free to be critical of MUMC+. Will that still be the case? Will the outside world still view us as independent researchers? Will our existing collaborations with other health institutions survive the merger?”
“Will a health insurance company like CZ end up having a say in how SBE is funded?”
University employees at other faculties also wonder if they’ll end up working “in service of” medical care. “As far as I know, hospitals are funded very differently from universities”, says a researcher at the School of Business and Economics (SBE). “Will a health insurance company like CZ end up having a say in how SBE is funded?” A colleague adds, “And what if the hospital runs into financial trouble? What would that mean for UM?” There is also a concern that politicians will view the merged organisation as “MUMC++, with two plus signs” or “a hospital with a university attached”, making the university an easy target in times of budget cuts.
Chair of the Executive Board Rianne Letschert has repeatedly emphasised that UM won’t become a health university, but not everyone feels reassured by her words. “We shouldn’t want to be a university with a one-sided focus”, warns a lecturer at FSE. A colleague at FASoS, who worked in the US for years, saw many American liberal arts colleges be transformed into polytechnic universities. “As a result, many disciplines became subordinate to STEM research, leading to a loss of freedom and relevance. The context here is different, but we must be careful not to let anything similar happen in Maastricht.”
Still, the majority of interviewees aren’t losing any sleep over the merger plans at this point. They’ll need more information first. “Besides, we’ve got enough on our plates”, is a common refrain. For many, the planned budget cuts in higher education and political pushback against internationalisation seem far more urgent and threatening. As a researcher at SBE puts it, “In a time of great uncertainty, why create an even more complex situation with even more uncertainty?”
Wendy Degens, Riki Janssen, Dennis Vaendel