ETH's reputation: how do things stand?
Alongside very good rankings and academic awards, there have also been reports of alleged abuse of power at ETH in recent months. One of the repeated allegations in this context is that ETH is concealing information rather than sharing it openly. In this interview – deliberately conducted by an independent external journalist, former radio correspondent and now freelance journalist Casper Selg – the Head of Corporate Communications at ETH gives us his view.
Rainer Borer, as far as public communication is concerned, is it fair to say that things have gone wrong for ETH over the past year...?
Let’s put it this way: we have definitely had better years in terms of communication. But you have to keep things in perspective: in the first half of 2018, we had around 1,100 mentions in the key Swiss media outlets and most of those were positive. Only 20 were in relation to allegedly wrongful management conduct, i.e. around 2 percent. But of course issues like these attract much more attention, particularly with an institution as successful as ETH.
So are the allegations true? Since October last year, there have been reports of various cases of abuse of power at ETH. Is it all lies?
We have yet to see whether the allegations are true. That is precisely the point: as a federal institution, ETH must behave fairly towards everyone and must not violate the rights of those accused. Until we know for sure what is true and what isn’t, we cannot make any definitive statements to the media. This often leads to the accusation that we are concealing things and not responding to allegations. That is not the case. The Executive Board has responded very quickly to all of these cases and has launched investigations. It is just that we cannot communicate any details until we have some definitive results.
In your opinion, how much do media reports on allegations of this nature damage ETH’s reputation?
So far the impact has been surprisingly small. We have our reputation assessed by an external research institute on a regular basis. There has only been a marginal drop in our – very high – scores. At the end of last year, among the 20 institutions with the greatest media coverage, we still had the thirdhighest reputation in Switzerland. That is largely down to our excellent performance in research and teaching. The extensive and predominantly positive coverage of these achievements has given us a bit of a “buffer”. But the matter isn’t resolved yet – it will continue to be the focus of our media activities for some time to come.
These positive figures relate to the public as a whole. But couldn’t the damage be considerably higher among those
who really matter: prospective students or researchers who are considering which university to work at?
I think the academic reputation of the institution in question is likely to be the key factor for these groups.
“In terms of communication, we have to engage more with the media and explain more clearly why we cannot provide information about every subject at any time. Once we do have the results, however, we need to communicate them clearly and effectively.”Rainer Borer
So what has actually gone wrong? Is there a problem with the management culture, is it “just” the issue of how the university deals with these kinds of allegations, or is the problem ultimately in your area – communication?
I can only answer with regard to my own department: there were definitely certain shortcomings in terms of communication at the outset, particularly in terms of internal communication. We need to make improvements in this area, and we will make them.
What are you referring to exactly?
We should have been better at keeping in touch with those involved during these difficult proceedings. If someone feels that they are being bullied, reports it to the relevant authorities and then doesn’t hear anything for ages, they may decide to look elsewhere for a solution – for example, by making the allegations public. This not only damages the university’s reputation, but also complicates the proceedings enormously.
According to one commentator, communication students learn in their first semester that you should never withhold facts in a crisis situation – you should get everything out in the open straight away. Do you need to go back to uni?
(laughs) To that I would say: what are facts? Is it a fact when a doctoral student accuses a professor of treating them badly? Should we sack a professor because a journalist says they have bullied a doctoral student? No. In a state governed by the rule of law, we are obliged to uphold everyone’s rights, including the rights of those accused. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies, and there are good reasons why these processes take time at ETH – which means we have to wait before providing a definitive statement.
OK, then I would ask: can’t the professional communication department of a renowned institution like ETH simply make it clear to a journalist that they should wait until the facts have been set out properly before publishing a story?
It doesn’t work like that. For one thing, the behaviour of the media has changed considerably in recent years, particularly due to social media. Reporting is more emotionalised and sensationalised. People are quicker to make claims and prejudgements. But there are also other reasons why that wouldn’t work: the media is the Fourth Estate. Its purpose is to take a critical stance and expose wrongdoings. And the issue of doctoral supervision is a legitimate topic: there is certainly a serious imbalance of power in this area which can give rise to problems – not just at ETH – time and time again. The media is entitled to pick it up as a story because it is relevant to society.
Are you in regular contact with editors then?
Of course. We are constantly in contact with the editors, we talk to them all the time – usually about positive things. If we didn’t do that, the stories would be much more one-sided.
You say that there is a significant imbalance of power and that it can lead to problems. But that is true of lots of institutions, not just ETH. So why is so much attention focused on you?
Of course we would be delighted if that weren’t the case. ETH is probably a victim of its own success to some extent. I imagine it is more interesting for the media when problems occur at the top institutions.
How are you going to prevent the same problems occurring in future?
We have to work on two levels: in terms of communication, we have to engage more with the media and explain more clearly why we cannot provide information about every subject at any time. Once we do have the results, however, we need to communicate them clearly and effectively. We also need to make sure that ETH employees, particularly those involved in the case in question, are kept informed and up to date with proceedings. The other level is the operational level, and ETH is hard at work in this regard: a major project is under way to improve management processes, appointments, the supervision system. The internal governance regulations are being amended. We will provide detailed information on these matters but, again, only once the processes are complete and the facts are clear.
This article appeared in the current ETH magazine "life".