“Nothing Beats Meeting Face to Face” – Interview with Prof. Dr.-Ing. Thomas John

After six years, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Thomas John of Neubrandenburg University of Applied Sciences is stepping down as Chair of Technical Committee 08. We would like to thank him for his exceptional commitment, and we put a few questions to him.

You have chaired Technical Committee 08 – Agriculture, Forestry and Food Sciences for six years and will step down in September. How do you look back on this time?

My time with ASIIN goes back as far as 1996, when I was appointed professor at Neubrandenburg University of Applied Sciences. I began working as an expert for ASIIN back then and kept doing so throughout my time on the committees, so as not to lose touch with accreditation in practice. I then served on the Accreditation Commission and later took over as Chair of the Technical Committee, which I am now handing on after two terms of office. The different roles at ASIIN have given me a variety of perspectives on study programmes and on how their quality is developed and assured. I always found that interesting and rewarding.

You are Professor of Food Processing Technology at Neubrandenburg University of Applied Sciences. What made you take on the time-consuming role of Technical Committee Chair on a voluntary basis as well?

For me it was a wonderful task. After all, it allowed me to get to know a broad range of study programmes and institutions, in Germany and abroad alike.

Yes, it could be quite time-consuming, mainly due to Neubrandenburg’s peripheral geographic location, which usually meant long journeys to ASIIN committee meetings. But nothing beats talking to people face to face. Shared coffee breaks should not be underestimated, even when it comes to specialist discussions. The same is true of audits. During the coronavirus period – and afterwards in crisis situations – virtual reviews were a good alternative, and I am glad that ASIIN makes them possible. Even so, when I am on site at an institution it is easier to look behind the scenes and form my own impression, rather than being taken in by reports that may have been polished and by carefully prepared visual material.

Why are ASIIN’s Technical Committees important? What role do they play in the accreditation process?

In terms of subject expertise, we are the closest to the programmes and their curricula. Our field is broad: we cover nutritional science and food technology just as much as agricultural and forestry science.

When programmes are reviewed, ASIIN brings together different perspectives from higher education and professional practice. That is a good thing, and it produces a well-rounded picture.

What developments and trends are you currently observing in agricultural, forestry and food sciences? Are there national or regional differences?

For a long time now, I have been seeing a growing number of new, highly specialised programmes, particularly at German institutions. Competing for students, institutions increasingly rely on narrowly tailored programmes and specialisations to make themselves more attractive. Many of these offerings could just as easily be mapped as a specialisation within an established programme. Since the number of first-year students is falling anyway, the new programmes draw students away from existing ones and also make it harder for applicants to find their bearings. What is more, if technological conditions change, a highly specialised programme can quickly find itself at an end. A solid grounding in the subject, by contrast, provides a sound basis on which graduates can specialise further at any point in their working lives.

In terms of content, the programmes within Technical Committee 08 focus on the challenges of climate change, food security, healthy nutrition, ecology and sustainability. For example, in Indonesia, we are currently placing a strong focus on aquaculture, which has a considerable impact on local ecosystems.

A great deal of this is interconnected: strong global demand for palm oil leads to monocultures. Clearing intact forests destroys habitats and important water reservoirs – a development that can contribute to extreme weather events, which in turn place a strain on our ecological systems, and with them on agriculture and forestry.

An ASIIN Technical Committee is made up of representatives from higher education institutions, from professional practice and from the student body, together with an associate member. Why do you think this mix matters? What opportunities and challenges does it bring?

I have already mentioned the important perspectives that everyone brings to ASIIN. For representatives of higher education institutions, the opportunity lies in leaving their own bubble and sharpening their view of how content is applied in the labour market. But the bridge to professional practice works just as well in the other direction. We all benefit from one another. In many procedures it would even be an advantage if an even broader range of expertise from practice were represented than is actually possible. In a programme in agriculture and forestry, for instance, a representative from a nature conservation association will tend to ask ecological questions, whereas a farmer or forest owner will usually prioritise profitability and returns. Yet both voices matter to the assessment and should be taken into account.

Is there anything in particular that you will remember from your time with ASIIN?

There are a few things that still make me smile. First and foremost, an April Fools’ joke by Mr Wasser that a good many experts fell for: he announced that experts were urgently needed for a special procedure abroad.

Then there is the particular dynamic you often find in meetings of the Accreditation Commission. You work your way through complex procedures and decide to wrap up the seemingly straightforward one just before the break – and it is precisely that procedure that then blows the entire schedule.

And good things come in threes: in one procedure, concerns were raised about a programme that supposedly also dealt with explosives technology. This caused quite a stir, but fortunately it was cleared up quickly. The misunderstanding had been caused by an unfortunate round of translation and back-translation. What was actually meant was blasting technology, a self-evident component of a degree programme in mining.

What are your plans for the time after ASIIN? Will you stay connected to the agency?

ASIIN allows only two terms of office on its committees. I will certainly remain connected to ASIIN as an expert over the next few years. The fact that I will eventually take my leave altogether is something I brought on myself: many years ago, I was involved in the strategic decision that nobody should continue to work as a reviewer more than five years after leaving a post at a higher education institution, because by then you have moved too far away from your own subject. Even though I will find it hard when the time comes, I still believe that decision was the right one.

A final word: what do you wish for Technical Committee 08?

I wish my successors all the very best, and I am keeping my fingers crossed that we continue to attract capable experts. Since the reform of academic pay, the pressure on professors to secure research funding has grown, while the time available for voluntary work has shrunk. Personally, though, I have always found it enriching to be able to help shape education and prospects of young people.

Whether as a reviewer, on one of our expert committees, on the Accreditation or Certification Commission, on the Appeals and Complaints Committee, or on the Ethics and Economic Advisory Board – we look forward to hearing from you: info@asiin.de