Professorships, Academic Expertise, and the Misconception of Academic Authority
Why should academic expertise matter beyond the boundaries of the university?
Universities do not exist in isolation from society. Academic knowledge, research findings, and critical thinking have a role to play far beyond lecture halls, academic journals, and disciplinary conferences. They matter in public debates, in political and social discourse, and in the everyday questions that shape how we understand the world we live in.
This is at the heart of what is increasingly referred to as Public Scholarship: the active engagement of academics in public discourse, making research-based knowledge accessible, contributing informed perspectives to societal debates, and building bridges between academia and the wider public.
For me, this is not simply an additional activity alongside academic work.
It is part of the responsibility that comes with being a scholar.
Scientific knowledge should not remain confined to academic circles. It should be communicated, questioned, contextualised, and made accessible to society. And this requires academics who are willing to engage with topics beyond the immediate boundaries of their own disciplines, connect different perspectives, and contribute to conversations that matter. Yet, this raises an interesting question: Who is actually entitled to participate in these conversations, and on what grounds?
A colleague recently argued that professors should only express opinions on topics directly related to the subject for which they hold a professorship. Anything beyond that, he suggested, was little more than unqualified “shooting one’s mouth off.”
This was not a particularly clever remark, but it revealed quite a lot about his way of thinking. I find the underlying understanding of academia deeply problematic.
Since when has a professorship been an intellectual jurisdiction with clearly defined boundaries? Since when does the ability to understand, analyse, and critically assess complex issues end at the formal designation of a professorship?
To put these questions into perspective, it is worth taking a closer look at the structures of the German higher education system.
Habilitation, facultas docendi, and venia legendi
Traditionally, the German higher education system has maintained a relatively differentiated distinction between academic qualification, teaching competence, the formal authorisation to teach, and appointment to a professorship. The following explanations refer specifically to the legal framework in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany, as there is, as with so many aspects of the German education system, no complete uniformity across the federal states.
One possible academic pathway to a professorship involves completing a doctorate followed by a Habilitation. The Habilitation is an independent academic qualification process through which a person demonstrates their particular ability to conduct independent research and teach within a specific academic discipline.
In this context, two terms are relevant: facultas docendi and venia legendi. The facultas docendi refers to the formal qualification to teach. It describes the academically established ability to independently represent a particular discipline in both research and teaching.
The venia legendi means “permission to teach”. It refers to the formal authorisation to independently offer courses at a university within a specific academic field. Upon successful completion of the Habilitation, the teaching qualification (facultas docendi) is awarded. The university subsequently decides, upon application, whether to grant the formal teaching authorisation (venia legendi).
This distinction is relevant: while the facultas docendi describes the demonstrated qualification to teach, the venia legendi refers to the institutional authorisation to do so.
However, the Habilitation is by no means the only route to a professorship today. Junior professorships, research achievements equivalent to a Habilitation, and other qualification pathways can also fulfil the requirements for an appointment. For example, Section 36 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Education Act (Hochschulgesetz NRW) regulates additional academic achievements as one of the requirements for appointment to a professorship. The formal designation of a professorship – Denomination – describes the academic field for which a professorship has been established and advertised.
However, none of these institutional regulations implies that a professor may only express opinions on topics that correspond precisely to the subject of their own professorship or, where applicable, their formal teaching authorisation. The venia legendi regulates the authorisation to teach. It is not an intellectual gag order. The formal designation of a professorship defines an academic focus, but it does not establish the boundaries of one's thinking, research, or public discourse.
Anyone who derives a general restriction on the right to express opinions publicly from these institutional arrangements is confusing institutional responsibilities with intellectual and academic competence. And that is a rather fundamental category error.
For me, there is another relevant aspect: Anyone who has demonstrated, through a doctoral dissertation and an additional academic qualification such as a Habilitation, the ability to independently develop complex research questions, critically evaluate academic findings, work rigorously with scientific methods, and identify new connections possesses skills that are not limited exclusively to the narrowly defined subject of their qualification research. Academic thinking and working are not tied to a single research question. The ability to apply research methods, reflect critically, and place findings within broader contexts can certainly be transferred to other topics and fields of research. This does not automatically make someone an expert in every conceivable discipline. However, it does mean that academic competence does not end at the formal designation of a professorship.
Intellectual boundaries?
A professorship is an academic position associated with particular qualifications, academic responsibilities, and institutional duties. It is not, however, a title of ownership over a particular field of knowledge. Of course, professorships have specific academic orientations. There are different disciplines, research areas, and specialisations. And naturally, it makes sense to assign academic expertise accordingly. But since when has academic specialisation meant that one can no longer make well-founded contributions outside one's immediate field of research?
The idea that academics should only speak within the formally designated boundaries of their own discipline resembles an academic system of private plots of land: everyone owns their little piece of intellectual territory and is free to conduct research and express opinions there – but should be careful not to venture onto the neighbouring property. The problem is: that is simply not how science works!
The questions of our time can hardly be answered within the boundaries of individual disciplines. Digitalisation is not merely a technological issue. Education is not exclusively a pedagogical one. Democracy cannot be understood through political science alone. And processes of societal transformation are neither exclusively sociological, economic, nor psychological phenomena. Academic knowledge emerges precisely through changes in perspective. It develops through the combination of different disciplines and the ability to recognise connections beyond the confines of one's own academic comfort zone. Interdisciplinarity is not an academic buzzword; it is an essential prerequisite for addressing complex questions appropriately.
Academic freedom is not a monopoly on entire fields of knowledge
A look at the constitutional foundations also illustrates how problematic such a narrow understanding would be. Article 5(3) of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) guarantees the freedom of science, research, and teaching. This freedom includes, among other things, the independent choice of research questions and methods, as well as the evaluation and dissemination of academic findings. Section 4 of the German Higher Education Framework Act (Hochschulrahmengesetz) further elaborates on this freedom. For our example of North Rhine-Westphalia, Section 4 of the NRW Higher Education Act is also particularly relevant. It explicitly states that universities must safeguard, among other things, the freedom to disseminate and exchange academic opinions.
In addition, Article 5(1) of the Grundgesetz protects freedom of expression for everyone, regardless of whether they hold a professorship or are involved in academia at all.
However, some distinctions need to be made: Not every public statement made by a professor is automatically an academic statement. Likewise, not every personal assessment can be equated with a scientific research finding. Academic freedom therefore does not mean that every arbitrary claim can be presented as academically legitimate. An academic title is not a licence to make unfounded statements. Anyone who publicly invokes their academic position must also be measured against the standards of academic integrity. This includes, in particular, putting one's own expertise into perspective, reflecting on the limits of one's knowledge, and distinguishing between scientifically substantiated findings and personal assessments. Professors should always make these distinctions clear.
An academic title does not replace subject knowledge. A professorship does not automatically make someone an expert on every conceivable social, political, or academic issue. However, the quality of an argument must be assessed on the basis of its academic grounding, reasoning, sources, and methodological rigour – not merely on whether the topic corresponds to the formal designation of the person's professorship. There is a considerable difference between criticising the quality of an academic statement and fundamentally denying someone the right to express an opinion on a particular topic. The former is academic debate. The latter is an attempt to control discourse through formal claims of jurisdiction – to impose a blanket prohibition on speaking out.
Who actually claims the authority to define what may be discussed?
What particularly troubled me about my colleague's statement was the implicit claim to grant or withdraw a kind of disciplinary right to speak from other academics. Who, after all, decides which research question still falls within a particular discipline? Where does economic psychology end and sociology begin? Where exactly is the boundary between educational sciences, organisational research, and social sciences? And how is such a boundary supposed to function in an academic world whose intellectual progress depends precisely on crossing established disciplinary borders?
Perhaps the demand for such restrictions also reflects a problematic understanding of academic authority: the idea that academic legitimacy is primarily derived from institutional positions and formal responsibilities. For me, it is not the title that determines the quality of an argument. The argument must stand on its own merits – regardless of who puts it forward.
Academia needs disagreement, not academic gatekeepers
Science thrives on doubt, disagreement, the exchange of different perspectives, and, not least, the willingness to question one's own position. It needs people who ask questions, recognise connections, and critically examine issues even when they are not institutionally affiliated with the specific field concerned. What it does not need are academic gatekeepers who presume to decide who is entitled to comment on which subject.
Of course, academic statements can and should be criticised. Their methodological quality can be questioned, their sources examined, and their conclusions challenged. But all of this should be done on the basis of arguments – not by pointing out that someone does not hold a professorship in the particular subject under discussion. A professorship entails academic responsibility. It does not, confer exclusive authority over an entire field of knowledge, let alone the right to silence others.
Academic expertise is a responsibility. It is not a gag order.
