Research programming and organisation

FdR research outputs by language (2022-2024). Outputs with languages other than English and Dutch were grouped under the category ‘other’.

In relation to the organization of our research, the Faculty has nine research institutes and four research groups. They constitute the ‘academic homes’ to our researchers. (The Faculty also knows seven departments. They serve as units that organize teaching and administrative matters, such as People and Development aspects. In contrast, it is in the research institutes and groups that the academic debate takes place on a daily basis, where the Faculty research programme is fine‐tuned and where peers review each others’ work.) They bring researchers together, they research ideas and stimulate collaborations among researchers. They organize activities, discuss research agendas and initiate (PhD) research projects.

Our research institutes are often closely related to traditional legal disciplines, while others are more thematic and characterized by interdisciplinary approaches. Research groups, on the other hand, bring together researchers from various institutes to work on common research themes. They are explicitly intended to bridge academic fields. In the recent past, some changes have taken place, with some research institutes and groups having been newly created (MOSaR in 2023, MCLJ in 2024 and MILE in 2025) and some institutes have been discontinued (METRO since April 2025 and Montesquieu Maastricht since September 2025). This triggered the question as to whether our research organization provides the open, inclusive and diverse environment for research that we aim for.

Early 2025, a small group of colleagues from the Science Committee under the chairpersonship of the vice-dean for research have started to re-draft the programme in light of the above-mentioned changes in our research programming and organization. While accommodating these changes in the programme would very well be possible, in this process, more fundamental questions came to the forefront. We would like to take the opportunity of the mid-term to re-discuss the purpose of the research programme and whether “our” type of research and research culture are well represented therein. 
 

  b) Activities so far

The Science Committee has provided input in December 2025 and the directors of research institutes and groups discussed the input of their members with the vice-dean for research in January 2026. From these first discussions on research programming, it appears that the current programme does not have much influence on the research initiatives that are deployed. This is not perceived as a problem at all because our research in its essence is bottom-up and curiosity driven. There is a strong wish to keep it this way; a re-focused research programme or vision should not limit researchers’ academic autonomy in choosing research topics, research approaches or with whom they collaborate. 

It is fair to say that our research programme serves as a strategic document in which certain research themes may be prioritized but enough room is left for themes to emerge organically. It is noted that in the programme, we may want to highlight more the type of research we strive for, like high academic recognition, societal relevance, accessibility, interdisciplinarity, collaboration, integrating research and teaching, etc. At the same time, it should emphasize that we value a diverse and pluralistic approach to research programming, safeguarding researchers’ academic autonomy to choose their research aims and approaches.

There are two perspectives on research organization. Groups of a significant size facilitate meaningful collaboration, activities and output (internal perspective). On the other hand, smaller groups that reflect the specific focus of groups provide better external visibility for the diverse research fields and arguably leave more autonomy to staff in terms of research focus (external and internal perspective). Both the internal and external perspective matter when discussing research programming and organization. 

From discussions with the Science Committee and the directors of research institutes and groups, it became clear that the existing structure of a large number of units serves its purpose: it provides a clear and stimulating environment for research in which researchers are in active contact with each other and do not feel constraint to seek collaboration with researchers from other institutes or groups. Even beyond faculty research institutes and groups, researchers are seeking cooperation with other Faculties as well, as exemplified by the MUSiC group (Maastricht University Science in Court), an  inter-faculty initiative between our Maastricht Institute for Criminal Sciences and the faculties FPN, FHML and FSE for research on evidence-based decision making. While it is good to regularly reflect upon potential synergies among research institutes and groups, the recent adaptations in terms of new and discontinued research institutes reflect these dynamics.
 

FdR collaborations among organisational units (2022-2024). Units are plotted against each other, and the colours reflect the number of outputs published.

From discussion with the Science Committee and the directors of research institutes and groups, it became clear that the existing structure of a large number of units serves its purpose: it provides a clear and stimulating environment for research in which researchers are in active contact with each other and do not feel constraint to seek collaboration with researchers from other institutes or groups. While it is good to regularly reflect upon potential synergies among research institutes and groups, the recent adaptations in terms of new and discontinued research institutes reflect these dynamics. 

  c) Questions for the mid-term review

The fundamental overarching question in relation to research programming regards the main goal of a Faculty research programme. Currently, it serves as a strategic document but it’s direct influence on the research projects initiated is limited. This triggers the question whether the character of a programme should change into a vision, focussing more on the type of research and values that we aim for. Our research topics could then mainly align with those of the University, being quality of life, learning and innovation, Europe and a globalising world, and sustainability and circularity (Unifying research themes - Research - Maastricht University). If the strategic importance of the document requires a faculty framework of both topics and types of research that our researchers share, a re-drafting of the current programme may be a good option.

This leads to the second point of discussion, namely how we can best describe what binds us. We all strongly value our bottom-up, curiosity driven and academic autonomy-focussed approach to research but what type(s) of research do we all strive for? While some values have come up in pre-discussions, the mid-term review provides a perfect forum for a broader discussion on what these values are.

One of the important questions in relation to research organization is how the faculty can best support synergies among institutes and groups. There is a shared feeling that we do not sufficiently know of each other who does what; we may thereby waste opportunities for collaborating and cooperating. While there are sufficient opportunities to collaborate once a joint research initiative has been identified (for example incentivized by our yearly faculty collaborative innovation grants), we want to discuss how we can best achieve a better information flow between research institutes and groups about the topics they are exploring and developing and how the Faculty can facilitate finding these collaborations.