The year 2025 will likely be remembered as the moment where politics and academia became deeply divided. Universities are increasingly under scrutiny for allegedly advancing partisan research agendas. To safeguard their credibility and autonomy as well as to protect their academics, universities should strive to minimize their exposure to politically charged research priorities. Individual researchers, too, benefit from steering clear of such topics—but they cannot achieve this independence alone.
The danger of political bias arises when researchers feel pressurized to pursue topics or draw conclusions aligned with the ideological preferences of university leadership—whether left- or right-leaning. This pressure can intensify when editorial boards of academic journals and government funding bodies share similar biases. The resulting distortion is rarely the fault of individual researchers. The structural environment often makes neutrality difficult. The following sections explain why.
Conscious or Unconscious Bias?
Consider a social science study conducted by two researchers: one who, consciously or unconsciously, views a lack of diversity as problematic, and another who does not. Both examine how a specific intervention affects the academic success of particular groups. How can the research process ensure that personal bias does not influence the results?
Correcting Bias Through Systemic Safeguards
If a researcher manipulates data to produce results that align with their beliefs—a practice known as “p-hacking”—they are guilty of statistical misconduct. Manipulating samples similarly violates research ethics. Fortunately, most reputable journals now require access to raw data to prevent such abuses. Moreover, designs such as registered reports, where researchers predefine their analyses before data collection, significantly reduce the likelihood of bias.
Further safeguards include peer review and editorial oversight. Other scholars and editorial boards assess whether the study follows sound methodological principles and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. As long as these checks function properly, the researcher’s personal beliefs have little impact on the published outcome.
The Role of University Administrators, Editors, and (government-)funders
It is understandable that researchers’ values influence the selection of their topics. However, problems arise when universities hire or promote scholars whose views align with institutional preferences. Similarly, journal editors and funding agencies can be susceptible to (un)conscious biases, threatening the independence of research through topic selection rather than methodology.
A striking example appeared in The Wall Street Journal in early February. It reported that the number of papers accepted by top U.S. journals on the positive effects of corporate sustainability reporting declined as the sitting president’s popularity rose. As the political climate shifted, support for such topics waned—and by January, publications advocating ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) benefits had nearly disappeared. It is highly damaging to the individual academic and to the university as an employer if a researcher has produced a set of papers that will never by published while they were written on instigation of the institutional leadership.
The Dutch research Associations (NOW) highlights several research priorities—such as inclusion—that are not entirely politically neutral. While it is important to study participation in society, framing the issue immediately in terms of “inclusion” introduces a politically charged premise. Earlier studies from the 1980s and 1990s approached similar questions through the lens of “affirmative action,” assessing whether such measures held social value without embedding ideological assumptions.
Creating Conditions for Independent Research
Concerns about diversity in universities should primarily be directed at administrators, funding bodies, and journals—not at the researchers themselves.
To truly depoliticize scientific inquiry, reforms must begin with university administrators, research funders, and journal editorial boards. Administrations that prioritize politically fashionable themes—such as sustainability or inclusion—risk compromising research freedom and diversity of thought.
Rather than promoting specific viewpoints, university leaders, funders, and editors should focus on creating the optimal conditions for rigorous, independent, and world-class research.
Brodeur, A., Carrell, S., Figlio, D., & Lusher, L. (2023). Unpacking p-hacking and publication bias. American economic review, 113(11), 2974-3002.
Holzer, Harry, and David Neumark. 2000. “Assessing Affirmative Action.” Journal of Economic Literature 38 (3): 483–568.DOI: 10.1257/jel.38.3.483
Harvard stands up to Trump, in The Economist, Apr 15th 2025
What Donald Trump is teaching Harvard in The Economist, Jul 30th 2025
Jan Bouwens
Professor of Accounting
Amsterdam Business School/University of Amsterdam
Research Fellow at Judge Business School
University of Cambridge
