“Science is not for scientists, but for the world” – Belgium

Within the Internal Governance, Equal Opportunities and Civic Integration Committee, the Hannah Arendt Institute received many praise yesterday from the Flemish representatives Nadia Sminate (N-VA) and Sam Van Rooy (Vlaams Belang). During the presentation of the functioning of the institute, a press release was issued in which Nadia Sminate (N-VA) described the institute as “a communication agency magnified by the liberal left vision of urbanity and of citizenship ”and called for grants to be arrested. As rectors of the four universities involved in the Hannah Arendt Institute (VUB, UAntwerp, UGent & KU Leuven), we regret this biased description of the Hannah Arendt Institute and we think it is very important to clarify what the ‘Institute represents.

Academic citizenship

Science is not for scientists, but for the world. That is why universities try to actively disseminate their knowledge and ideas. With the Hannah Arendt Institute, for example, we want to inspire professionals, policy makers and citizens to embark on scientific knowledge on diversity, urbanity and citizenship. A solid scientific basis also contributes to an in-depth dialogue with these themes.

Science is not for scientists, but for the world.

New scientific knowledge can offer great social added value. In behavioral and social sciences, the road from science to policy making and concrete practice is often difficult and long. Knowledge in these disciplines too often remains under-exploited, perhaps because their application sometimes runs up against ideological walls, hypotheses or even prejudices. We consider it our duty to draw attention to this knowledge. The Hannah Arendt Institute has this ambition to disseminate knowledge outside the university walls, more particularly on themes such as diversity, urbanity and citizenship. Because this knowledge matters. Because it is important.

Need for progressive insight

With “difficult” social themes alone, there is a great need for progressive insight. In conversations on complex topics such as migration or freedom of expression, disinformation and ideological prejudices too often prevent the possibility of arriving at a viable solution. In this case, solid empirical results are a good basis and an opportunity to come together. The opposite is also true. A lack of scientific diligence and in-depth knowledge is fertile ground for toxic polarization. Hannah Arendt has spent her whole life trying to figure out what is incomprehensible, because our noses are on it. She asks us to think about what we are “doing”. She passionately advocated “think for yourself”, sometimes against friends and prejudices. Advances in scientific understanding and ongoing dialogue help us do this.

The social need is there. The results of scientific research are also there. In collaboration with the Hannah Arendt Institute, we are working on valorisation: making scientific knowledge valuable for society. At the Hannah Arendt Institute, we provide citizens with knowledge and research results through podcasts, videos and events. We reach professionals with targeted training. We address political decision-makers through reports and round tables, always with an openness to dialogue and respectful debate. Because especially in the hands of these groups, knowledge becomes impactful.

With the Institute, we address ourselves expressly to civil society and to citizens who are “in practice” and who wish to make a constructive contribution to the development of society. We can learn from their findings and thus answer their questions for future research.

The Hannah Arendt Institute is a link between university and society. The Institute’s employees are studying how to strengthen the social fabric in sports practice. They investigate how polarization, disinformation and hate speech influence our frame of reference and action and advise local authorities and other government departments to respond appropriately. They pool their knowledge of how cities and municipalities face today’s complex challenges and help create communities of practice to inspire other cities and enable them to learn from each other.

Intuition or science

Does confrontation with a new vision sometimes hurt? Yes, and changing your mind is not always easy. Sometimes he tries to adopt a new idea, change his policy or try a new method. In an age of increasing polarization, it is extremely important not to rely on “gut feelings”, but to rely as much as possible on the results of high quality research. Universities should not sit idly by and fight disinformation and feed society with the ever-changing knowledge of scientific research.

With an organization like the Hannah Arendt Institute, we take on this responsibility of bringing our knowledge to the world, for all who wish to use it. Of course, this knowledge cannot be taken or given up. It is the basis for dialogue, debate and practical training. The Institute is in a way an academic form of citizenship. We want to look beyond ideological borders and find solutions with other social actors. The world needs it more. Not less.

Within the Internal Governance, Equal Opportunities and Civic Integration Committee, the Hannah Arendt Institute received many praise yesterday from the Flemish representatives Nadia Sminate (N-VA) and Sam Van Rooy (Vlaams Belang). During the presentation of the functioning of the institute, a press release was issued in which Nadia Sminate (N-VA) described the institute as “a communication agency magnified by the liberal left vision of urbanity and of citizenship ”and called for grants to be arrested. As rectors of the four universities involved in the Hannah Arendt Institute (VUB, UAntwerp, UGent & KU Leuven), we regret this biased description of the Hannah Arendt Institute and we think it is very important to clarify what the ‘Institute represents. Science is not for scientists, but for the world. That is why universities try to actively disseminate their knowledge and ideas. With the Hannah Arendt Institute, for example, we want to inspire professionals, policy makers and citizens to embark on scientific knowledge on diversity, urbanity and citizenship. A solid scientific basis also contributes to an in-depth dialogue with these themes. New scientific knowledge can offer great social added value. In behavioral and social sciences, the road from science to policy making and concrete practice is often difficult and long. Knowledge in these disciplines too often remains under-exploited, perhaps because their application sometimes runs up against ideological walls, preconceived ideas or even prejudices. We consider it our duty to draw attention to this knowledge. The Hannah Arendt Institute has this ambition to disseminate knowledge outside the university walls, more particularly on themes such as diversity, urbanity and citizenship. Because this knowledge matters. Because it is important: it is precisely with “difficult” social themes that there is a great need for progressive insight. In conversations on complex topics such as migration or freedom of expression, disinformation and ideological prejudices too often prevent the possibility of arriving at a viable solution. In this case, solid empirical results are a good basis and an opportunity to come together. The opposite is also true. A lack of scientific diligence and in-depth knowledge is fertile ground for toxic polarization. Hannah Arendt has spent her whole life trying to figure out what is incomprehensible, because our noses are on it. She asks us to think about what we are “doing”. She passionately advocated “think for yourself”, sometimes against friends and prejudices. The advancement of scientific knowledge and permanent dialogue are helping us to do this, the social need is there. The results of scientific research are also there. In collaboration with the Hannah Arendt Institute, we are working on valorisation: making scientific knowledge valuable for society. At the Hannah Arendt Institute, we provide citizens with knowledge and research results through podcasts, videos and events. We reach professionals with targeted training. We address political decision-makers through reports and round tables, always with an openness to dialogue and respectful debate. Because especially in the hands of these groups, knowledge becomes impactful. With the Institute, we address ourselves expressly to civil society and to citizens who are “in practice” and who wish to make a constructive contribution to the development of society. We can learn from their findings and thus answer their questions for future research. The Hannah Arendt Institute is a link between university and society. The Institute’s employees are studying how to strengthen the social fabric in sports practice. They investigate how polarization, disinformation and hate speech influence our frame of reference and action and advise local authorities and other government departments to respond appropriately. They pool their knowledge of how cities and municipalities face today’s complex challenges and help create communities of practice to inspire other cities and enable them to learn from each other. Yes, and changing your mind is not always easy. Sometimes he tries to adopt a new idea, change his policy or try a new method. In an age of increasing polarization, it is extremely important not to rely on “gut feelings”, but to rely as much as possible on the results of high quality research. Universities should not sit idly by and fight disinformation and feed society with the ever-changing knowledge of scientific research. With an organization like the Hannah Arendt Institute, we take on this responsibility of bringing our knowledge to the world, for all who wish to use it. Of course, this knowledge cannot be taken or given up. It is the basis for dialogue, debate and practical training. The Institute is in a way an academic form of citizenship. We want to look beyond ideological borders and find solutions with other social actors. The world needs more of this. Not less.