Utrecht ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ statement regarding an Argos broadcast about a book by professor Beatrice de Graaf
Radio programme Argos devoted two broadcasts (22 May 2021 and 19 March 2022) to a book written by professor Beatrice de Graaf. According to Argos, De Graaf allegedly used too much material from a former student’s thesis while writing her book back in 2018. The programme claims that the text and footnotes of one chapter of the book and the thesis overlap. The former student was part of a tutorial during which De Graaf shared material from her research with her students. She shared her interpretations, sources and literature that she had collected from archives over a period of five years.
The matter was assessed by the head of the department of history and art history in 2020 in consultation with the dean. They did not consider it to be a case for the Committee on Research Integrity. The former student was informed that he was free to bring the matter before that body if he wished to do so. A conversation took place between Beatrice de Graaf and the former student. After this conversation, De Graaf referred to the former student in a subsequent edition of the book. He then indicated that he was happy with this.
Argos approached various experts to assess the issue, among whom Professor Egbert Dommering, an authority on scientific integrity and copyright. He concluded in 2021 that 'it is clear that the whole set-up of the research, the teaching about it and the book itself come from Beatrice de Graaf, all on which she had been working for years before giving lectures in the concerning course.’
Argos then approached two other people, who gave a verbal, different assessment. However, these experts were not given access to all documents by Argos and did not receive De Graaf’s file. Utrecht ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ considers this a serious journalistic carelessness. It is unjustified that Argos continued to question De Graaf’s scientific integrity based on such a basis.
Below, a recount of the facts.
Chronological course of events
In 2017, a group of seven master's students was given the opportunity to participate in a research project of Professor Beatrice de Graaf that had been ongoing since 2013. In a so-called collaboratory, the students started working with key archival documents, source material, literature, notes and draft texts collected by and provided to them by De Graaf. Often the material had not yet been published and sometimes it was even confidential. It was a new and very specialised subject, the object of De Graaf’s ongoing and personal ERC Consolidator Grant project.
The students were not only given access to special documents; they were also given lectures on the material, which included unpublished texts and notes. The students were instructed to write papers based on the material, in the knowledge that their contributions might find places in a monograph to be published. This book was published in October 2018 under the title ‘Tegen de terreur’, a book consisting of 500 pages, including 100 pages with footnotes, a glossary of terms and persons, a bibliography and acknowledgements.
The seven students acquitted themselves of the task with great enthusiasm. They all received high marks. Notes from the time of De Graaf's collaboratory and from students show that De Graaf’s main focus was on the novel topic of the Allied Council and reparations (1815-1818), had carried out calculations, and had collected references herself for years.
In the acknowledgments and notes, De Graaf thanked those who had contributed and referred to their work, including one of the students involved in the collaboratory. At the end of 2018 another student complained that this had not happened in his case. This, now former, student spoke to De Graaf about this in 2018 and 2019. De Graaf offered to add references to him in 2019. The student expressed satisfaction and wrote:
'Nice to see the mentions in those three places. It matches what seemed reasonable to me following our conversation so I'm happy with it.'
Then, in 2020, the head of the department of history and art history, Professor Leen Dorsman, received a report from a colleague that a student was spreading the rumour that De Graaf had supposedly used passages from a thesis. Dorsman contacted the student. He compared the texts, asked De Graaf for rebuttal, sought advice about definitions from the then chairman of the UU Research Integrity Committee, Professor Ton Hol, and coordinated with the dean of the faculty (also chairman of the committee that drew up the national code for research integrity), Professor Keimpe Algra. The final conclusion was that there had been no violations of scientific integrity. Dorsman wrote to the former student:
"After getting all the facts straight, I come to the conclusion and I told her this as well - that it was careless not to mention you, but I think she compensated for that by mentioning you in the second edition and by referring to your work in three endnotes. I think that is a generous gesture on her part."
Dorsman informed the former student of his findings and pointed out options to file a formal complaint or to consult the university's confidential advisor on scientific integrity in case he disagreed with the conclusions. He did not do so.
However, the former student did repeat his accusation on the radio programme Argos. The journalists of Argos approached Beatrice de Graaf for a reaction. De Graaf spoke to them, explained how the said overlap was only logical and could be explained and gave them an extensive file including the course syllabus, texts, her notes, statements from participants in the collaboratory. She also gave them thethesis evaluation form for the student which states that the said student himself had failed to indicate 'that the question, the sources, and the discussion all originated from the ERC research, and that the research question had already been addressed in articles and compilations produced by the ERC team.'
Argos did not make this file available to the experts who spoke and made accusations in the broadcast on 22 May 2021. However, Beatrice de Graaf was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations in the broadcast. Which she did.
Following the broadcast, a conversation took place that De Graaf experienced as satisfactory. But a few weeks later, she was approached by Argos again. Argos had asked Prof. Egbert Dommering to look into the matter. Mr. Dommering is one of the Netherlands’ greatest authority in the field of research integrity and copyright. However, it turned out that he did not have the complete file at his disposal either. After he did receive it and had a conversation with Beatrice de Graaf, Prof. Dommering - who was selected by Argos as an expert - wrote a balanced opinion (in Dutch). He wrote, among other things:
In my opinion, there has never been a discussion about scientific plagiarism in this matter, because it is clear that the whole set-up of the research, the teaching on it and the book itself come from Beatrice de Graaf, things she had already been working on for years before giving the course. The question of copyright infringement is therefore limited to the question of what form of reference would have been necessary or desirable in parts.
Because the term ‘plagiarism’ is rather charged in common parlance, the distinction between copyright and academic plagiarism is quickly lost. From the quoted question of Argos, it appears that they meant to raise the issue of copyright plagiarism and that is what the experts in the broadcast and I also responded to in my first comment. Now that I have been able to assess the whole issue, I come to the conclusion that the method used in the seminar makes it difficult to determine whether there is any question of copyright plagiarism, because the contributions intermingle. Moreover, I wonder if it is the right key to analyse this issue. Rather, I see an accumulation of instances of procedural carelessness that has led to the current escalation.
On 11 March 2022, Argos approached Beatrice de Graaf for a third time with a request to respond to accusations. There was yet another expert who reproached her. Yet, this expert, Jaap Maat had not received the complete file that De Graaf made available to Argos either. The UU informed Argos that this is careless journalism (in Dutch), and that this is an unacceptable modus operandi when you question the integrity of a researcher. As far as UU is concerned, the student is of course still completely free to file a complaint. Procedures are available for this purpose. After the Executive Board has given a verdict based on an investigation and on advice from the Utrecht ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ Committee for Research Integrity, if desired a second opinion can be requested from LOWI, the national research integrity body.
Beatrice de Graaf herself says the following about the matter (and this was also emailed to Argos on 16 July 2021):
I find it very unfortunate that this case has turned out the way it has. I enjoyed this new form of education, the interaction with Daan and the other students. We shared passion for the subject and the students showed a lot of commitment and acumen.
Immediately when I received a message from Daan in December 2018 saying that he thought I should have referred to him in the book ‘Tegen de terreur’, I emailed him that it was 'never my intention to dupe him'. Daan and I talked and I admitted wholeheartedly that it would have been better if I- as I had done with another student - had thanked him for his contribution immediately in the first edition. I offered to still do that. Daan indicated, after reflection and consultation via email, that he was satisfied and happy with my suggestions for references. I regret that we have to conclude that some dissatisfaction has remained within him.
In science, you often work together and, as far as I am concerned, a reference or acknowledgement to others you are indebted to as an author cannot be wide enough. Research is always a team effort. I have consulted and referred to thousands of documents and sources, and have done my utmost to thank everyone who has helped me. The last thing I want is to forget or shortchange one of my students. It is unpleasant that a feeling of dissatisfaction has remained within Daan. For that reason, I have invited him to talk with me again. Both during the broadcast on 22 May and afterwards through email. I am still open to that.