Willem Janssen  0:00 

Welcome to Bestek, the public procurement podcast. Today Marta and I are discussing objectives of public procurement and the Law and SoMe for academics.

About Bestek  00:14

Welcome to Bestek, the public procurement podcast. In this podcast, Dr. Willem Janssen and Dr. Marta Andhov discuss public procurement law issues, their love of food, and academic life. In each episode, Willem, Marta, and their guests search for answers to intriguing public procurement questions. This is Bestek. Let’s dish up public procurement law.

Willem Janssen  0:40 

Marta, good to see you again, or speak to you again I should say.

Marta Andhov  0:44 

Well, you technically do both right?

Willem Janssen  0:47 

Well, yeah, fair enough, granted. You win.

Marta Andhov  0:51 

Our listeners cannot see me, but you can see me.

Willem Janssen  0:53 

Exactly, yeah, but it’s good to speak to you again.

Marta Andhov  0:57 

Absolutely. Likewise.

Willem Janssen  0:59 

Today, we’ll be talking about objectives and goals, or whatever synonym you’d like to use of public procurement, and, more importantly, the law, I would say. We thought this would be interesting one to provide a bit of an introduction to this topic. So, I don’t think our objective necessarily is to provide an extremely in depth overview of all the discussions that have been going on all the related objectives. But perhaps also a bit of an introduction for the newbies in both procurement law or public procurement professionals, and let’s just not limit ourselves too much say we do go in depth, I hope those people and other people will forgive us. Right? Does that sound like a plan?

Marta Andhov  1:44 

I think that, you know, we sort of approached this when we started to plan this episode, right? Of just sort of having kind of basic couple elements to sort of frame a lot of public procurement conversations, because from that perspective, the objectives are quite important, right? Because through them, you interpret a lot of different things. But this is a topic that you know, academic war, so to speak, sort of have been battled over, it actually ended up very quickly as realising when you look into details as it it’s very complex, actually. There are many viewpoints and very valuable arguments brought up. So this is the reason that we’re not entirely sure if we won’t confuse more than actually clarify more. But that’s our main for today absolutely.

Willem Janssen  2:28 

So, I think with a little bit of hesitation, and a little bit of anxiety, we start this discussion. Is that right? I’m just kidding. Let’s start with an introduction. And then we’ll see where  this leads us. Perhaps we can actually start with why is it important to talk about objectives when it comes to the law? Right, we can talk a bit later about the objective of public procurement. Is that the same as the objective of public procurement law? Because you already mentioned that just then I think maybe that’s something we can tackle. Ultimately, I think the question of why it is important to really distinguish what an objective is of a law is important for the interpretation questions. Right? So particularly with an EU law, I think that’s relevant. So perhaps you could start off by saying just something briefly about functional interpretation, grammatical interpretation, why should it concern us what the objective of the law is?

Marta Andhov  3:31 

Well, I think that I actually would want to, I will get to the point that you making. But I think that in line of introduction, why this subject in general is really important; because it informs in many way you as a practitioner, or you as an scholar, or you as a, you know, sort of commentator in any space within public procurement sector. Depending on what you believe public procurement is about or public procurement law is about; That’s how you perceived, ultimately, interpretation of further provisions. In other words, if you have a very linear, a very sort of economic, let’s say, approach to public procurement, and you believe that that’s what public procurement is on the basis of variety of sources, and I’m right now not limiting it specifically to law, but in general, then it will be very difficult for me to have a conversation with you and in any way convince you and debate about, you know, inclusion of societal and environmental elements within public procurement, because your starting point, that’s the normative point of what we’re saying what you believe the law really says, or what procurement really is about will be substantially different to the other person, potentially. I think that this is a little bit like: If we don’t say that up front, what we understand as an objective that I think very much can inform the further conversation. So, I’ve observed couple times, you know if that is different conferences or just conversations that people somehow seems to miss each other in the conversation and then very quickly, when you establish where your starting point is, it makes it clear why that is so. When we then specifically look on public procurement, and there is definitely a question of well, what’s the objective of public procurement versus what is the objective of public procurement law. Then we can also talk about public procurement law on the EU level on the national level. We can also talk about, you know, sort of variety of perspectives, right? I think that that’s also very important to consider. Then when we also specifically look at the law, it’s important to consider:  Well, what is the method of interpretation of the European Court of Justice, and in general, the European law methods of interpretation? Vs. What are the method of interpretation of law in different member states?  I think that it is clearly to be distinguished that if you apply a functional method of interpretation. In other words, you are focusing on what the law was intended to achieve on the basis of the legislative notes, the legislative process, what is in the rest you so to speak treat more seriously the recitals of the preambles in line with the actual provisions because you focus very much about what was the intent to be achieved? versus if you apply this very literal, literal grammatical interpretation method, you solely interpret what is written sort of by hard letter of law, and what is within the text that is binding, right? So, I would say that you will arrive…you potentially may arrive at different conclusions. Would you agree with this point Willem?

Willem Janssen  7:09 

Yeah, no… I realised that I always say: Yeah, no, when I say want to say yes. It’s a very bad habit. It’s a very Australian way of going about Yeah, no, no, so I just blame a continent for our approach to your answer. But getting more down to, to what you were saying is: I think in terms of the functional and grammatical, I think for from a lawyer’s perspective, that’s really important, and I like how you broaden it a little bit and also talking about what is public procurement and one of the objectives of the laws that we’re faced with. I think that also to add to that has a practical element, because in the end, us lawyers, but also public purchasers are faced with all these different objectives in practice, right? They’re the ones that actually have to then comply, add to it and make sure that they’re actually fulfilled in in each and every individual tender, which can also be quite complicated. If one, there’s uncertainty as to what the objective is. And if there’s, you’re faced with multi layered objectives, adding public policy goals into it, so say, sustainability, circular economy, which are super important for, say, energy transitions. But, you know, add the internal market perspective to it. Add, you know, different objectives, such as the fight against corruption to it. I think, in addition to what you were saying about what public procurement is, what are the objectives, I think there’s a practical element, which then would stress the need for clarity. The question is: Is that clarity there? and perhaps to start off with that.

Marta Andhov  8:52 

There is also a question I think, of really theoretical background to it, and just the risk of, you know, really kind of geeking for a second. Our field of law is, I would dare to say, quite un.. um….there is a lack of theories. Let me reword it. It is a very practical sector of law, and a lot of our focus is about well:  How the law is? What it says? How we are to help the practitioners? etc, etc. But I think that there is also a layer of debate that is often missed that I like, which is, you know, the sort of the theories and science is sort of behind really the roles of government. It’s a little bit more, you know, stretch. But there is this question about also, well: What is the role of the government and the state, right? Are we a pro more state interventionism in the successful stories of you know, US post war period, how good was that in a sense of how that had a potential to boost the local economy? Something that is very transferable, I think right now to think about in context of post COVID, right? Is the government putting money into the market and so on how they do so. But then the other side of that is really, you know, this hardcore commercial market approach and saying the state just should limit themselves as much as they can, and they should let the market kind of be, and that is also connected, because one of the common that my good colleague, Professor, Miao, Kenya at some point made, which I thought was really good was: Well, you know, the problem with state interventionism is that this works only if the state knows what they’re doing, but if you have those decisions, and those rolls in the wrong hands, it can be really problematic. So, I think that this is all like the theory that underlines approaches also, that stands a little bit broader and further from, you know, this very article by article analysis, what law says. That’s why also you have this different cultures when it comes to procurement, right, you got the more like French approach, which is procurement being seen as something of a much more public nature, administrative nature, the public interest is much more perceived as an important versus this more private law, sort of tendencies, which is, I would say, the Nordic approach very much sort of striving from Margaret Thatcher and the UK approach of, you know, state stay away. This is a slight digression. And I know that it’s sort of withdrawn a lot from this very needy greedy interpretation, but I think that is important to put the debate that we are having about specifics in practice in context of where we’ve come in, what we are perceiving and why we all might differ in our opinions.

Willem Janssen  11:49 

Yeah, for sure, and I think also those normative standpoints, ultimately led to laws right being adopted. I think it’s fair to say that much of the law that we have now is based on economic integration, right? That’s, I think, also why we often debate by we even say, perhaps, I don’t like the term, but like, why we see secondary objectives, right. Why do we even make an hierarchy though? We’ll get back to that in a bit. But like, why do we even say sustainability is something that we need to fit in? Right? I find that interesting, and I think also there is where you see that, you know, objectives play such an important role with how we perceive the functioning of the state, but also how we envision contracting with market parties.

Marta Andhov  12:38 

For sure, and, you know, to the point that you making, I think I just would want to add another sideline, because why I fully agree with you, the whole internal market integration and predominantly focus on economic considerations and so on. It’s again, you know, I have a little bit not issue, it’s too strong word, but what I would want to highlight again, it’s like: Yes, it was about economic aspects and so on, but what was ultimately also the first starting point of having EU? It was peace, right? So, I think that there is also a layer of the that we tend to forget that, and I think that this broadly understood, other consideration are intertwine all the long the EU timeline of development of different laws. So yes, it was economic integration with the objective of trying to intertwine the interest of the countries in such a way that we have peace, right, and ultimately, also, what we have right now, I think, is a challenge. If you look, if you would look on the economic law developments versus the sort of social, human rights developments, they all being legislated on EU level, but they very often don’t talk to each other. So it’s like two parallel channels. Then when you starting to clash them, which we very often do, you know, the moment that we start to talk about sustainability and procurement. That’s where they clash because they somehow are not aligned together, but then also, when you look at the European Court of Justice case law in that regards, court is always extremely careful about saying in anyhow direct that the economic considerations are more important than human rights for the law of EU you won’t find judgement like that, right? They always bouncing up and don’t say way too many. They don’t say many things, rather than sort of pointing it out. And yeah, this is sort of digression, but I think that this is a sort of all a lot of very important. I would think conversations that are happening and considerations that need to be taken in as a sort of behind the closed doors or you know, this sort of back-end of conversation specifically or our today’s subject on what is ultimately the public procurement law objective.

Willem Janssen  15:00 

I think to move on to that because you provide like a nice link up, I think, to getting a bit more concrete when talk about different layers of objectives being piled on to contracting authorities in practice, but also for lawyers to have to interpret for actors to be involved with is I suppose leaving the international aspect aside, if we would focus simply on to the European level. Say I would, perhaps it’s useful if I just read out loud, the way the directive starts, or at the classic directive is, I think there’s two relevant elements. One, the way it starts in the in the recitals, but also what Article 1 says about procurement and what it is and it starts off like this:  The award of public contracts, by or on behalf of Member States authorities has to comply with the principles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and particularly the free movement of goods, establishment, freedom of establishment, freedom of services, as well as the principles derived there from, such as equal treatment, non discrimination, ritual recognition, proportionality and transparency. Right? I think the directive really kicks off with this internal market perspective, right?  We have these directives since the 70s, to create an internal market, which has caused, say local procurement to be banned. National procurement to be very limited, but really, that we open up to contractors from all across the EU, and I think it’s relatively, but dare I say, uncontroversial to say that that would be the main objective, or that would be at least one of the objectives.

Marta Andhov  16:44 

So what would you then say is the one? Because I think already here there is a fair bit of different opinions.

Willem Janssen  16:52 

I think, yeah, for sure. There’s discussion here, but I think, to put it uncontroversially, it’s the creation of an internal market.

Marta Andhov  17:00 

Yeah. So, can I ask you, because already within this preamble, that is interesting element that I’ll be very curious to hear how you read it, when the preamble refers to application of the Treaty on the Functioning of a European Union principle. Is that covering the principles that are spread across all the treaty within the treaty on function of European Union? Or is it specifically in the section that talks about principles that ultimately that section talks about competencies? It doesn’t give you really principles? It talks about competencies?

Willem Janssen  17:36 

Well, the way I would read it, as I think there’s clear specification in particular section, right? So the principles the treaty, which I think is the stand general standpoints, and then free movement, and I think that links up very clearly with the legal basis of the directive, which is still free movement, right?

Marta Andhov  17:51  

No, for sure. For sure. But that just like, you know, I think so I think that there are like three layers, right? Or four? Yeah, four layers that I personally see, right?

Willem Janssen  18:00 

I am envisioning now like a cake, like a wedding cake…

Marta Andhov  18:04 

…because I think that it kind of is, and that already is not very simple, right? Because it’s the treaty principles that the treaty on function of European Union principles. It’s it’s the internal market freedoms, it’s the procurement principles that are already mentioned there. Right, the transparency, etc, etc. Then there is under the conditions of open competition, right? So already within that there is tonnes, and that already is not particularly clear, I think, because, you know, for me to question that already from this strikes. Exactly what I’m what, that’s the reason that I asked you, because this is something that I’ve been thinking actually: if you go very directly to the treaty, and you look specifically on the principles, there is a section on principles, but there, we all know that there are principles that are referred to as principles of the Treaty that are scattered across the treaty, and you know, how broadly you can understand that element, right? Then a second element, so it reflects to internal market free movements, right? Fair enough free movements, but how we understand them today in 2021? Are we understanding them exactly the same way as they have been understood the moment that they’ve been drafted? Because I would say that, you know, internal markets changes over the years, right. Internal markets, particularly how we perceive an internal market changed after the Lisbon treaty to become a social market economy.

Willem Janssen  19:08 

For sure. Yeah.

Marta Andhov  19:35 

Wouldn’t you agree? Right. So you know, this is and we didn’t go anywhere further. We still own preamble 1, right?

Willem Janssen  19:40 

Yeah, and I think what’s what’s even more difficult is when you make it when you rightly so complicated things might I think it’s does anyone really know what a social market economy is? I mean, it’s a market economy that is also social, right? I mean, I get that starting point, and you can use it as an argument to say that Europe is different. Because that’s not further explained or what that really the implication is of that change of concept. I think it’s it just merely says that is something is different. But what it is I find scholarship really hasn’t found a conclusive answer clearly to that.

Marta Andhov  20:13 

or not. But you know, this is ultimately where I’m particularly looking at, you know, conceptually at this stage, the reason why I wanted us to have this debate, because, of course, one way that you can go about it is to go in this very sort of conservative traditional approach of saying very economic considerations solely again, with very narrow understanding what that is, and competition. That’s what we’ve been doing for a long time, but I think that I… what I’m interested is that it’s a very easy way to say: Ohh sustainability is an object or should be an objective of European public procurement, but for that to happen, the whole structure and everything within sort of objective and sort of context within EU law would need to change, and we sort of touched upon it in the report that we did about that you also corrode on moving forward the reforms to kind of support sustainable public procurement, but I think equally interesting is the scoping of actually how we understand the current values, objectives, things that we currently have, and if there is not a valid space for just approaching it as a dynamic interpretation of the law, that, you know, the law does not need to necessarily change is this sort of old school approach, just because we right now have you know, all this social media and those different things? Do we need a new laws? Or do we still have the privacy laws that we used to have? And just interpretation needs to be broader? And that’s where, you know, my mind goes? Is there enough space to actually just consider the terms that we take for granted? And that then brings us to the second point, because what clearly does not come forward I think all our listeners can hear is value for money as an objective within EU public procurement law, right? We don’t have reference to efficiency of spending value for money…

Willem Janssen  22:10 

Even though if you look at it from the national level that’s generally when national procurement law started.

Marta Andhov  22:15 

Right? So that’s exactly then the second point of saying, it’s, again, the different layers, which I don’t think make it easy for for practitioners working in this field. Because I would say, I will make a bold statement, and I would really hope that if that’s a mistake, our listeners will contact us.

Willem Janssen  22:33 

Actually, I wish I wish I had like a button with a drumroll, right?

Marta Andhov  22:38 

Yeah, but I would say that probably majority, large majority, if not all, national regulations, when they talk about public procurement, the first reference is somehow to financial acts, and to the point that you need to spend the public money in an efficient way, maybe not necessarily going to corruption, but this sort of efficient spending of money. And then some member states have also referenced to sort of control over that spending, which is a sort of indirectly reference to the fact that we need to make sure there is no corruption.

Willem Janssen  23:09 

Yeah, I think those are the two very basic, so efficiency often then turns also into effectiveness in a broader scope, right. And then you have quickly linked up with the fight against corruption, and I think, in recent years, also, in the national level, you’re really getting more things like value for money in a broad spectrum. So also, including social including, the sustainability objectives as a broad scope. So not just quality, but like also adding to the bigger obstacles, or the bigger challenges of the world at the moment.

Marta Andhov  23:39 

Absolutely. Because this then brings us you know, to another point, right now, if we sit for a second considered this objective of national levels, right?  Value for money, or efficiency in spending, or something of that type. This is again, where you can take two routes, or you can go:  Well, this is very economic sort of standard way how we used to do it for a long time, and there is no space for this fluffy stuff that sustainability is. But when you actually go into the literature on what value for money is what I discover, at some point, the term that has been, you know, thrown around really as something that is really tangible, versus opposite to sustainability that is very intangible. That’s not true. Value for money, just transfers to what it is that you value, you’re going to put there. So it’s again, you know, not very kind of objective, and that’s the reason that another space that I think we could really consider is when you’re thinking about value for money in your objective and your national objectives is how you put into the quality to the value of money. This, this social, all these environmental elements is a part of your quality. And that’s all then becomes, you know, really tangible, and then you escape this thing that I really think we should drop today in talking about secondary considerations.

Willem Janssen  25:01 

Yeah, for sure, totally. And I think also that because it assumes some type of hierarchy, even though I also understand that getting back to what we were just talking about with EU law, I do think because of how the system of free movement law is set up, you know, first we identify an economic barrier, legislative barrier to trade, which is generally economic incentivize, and then we can justify that barrier by using public policy considerations, you know. So, I understand where the difference comes from. But in a way, also, when we look at setting up our courses, our public procurement courses, I’m wondering sometimes why do we even still call it? Why do we have a subsection on: This is how you get to a sustainable, sustainable? Why is not a standard, right? Why shouldn’t it just always be sustainable, always leading to social outcomes?

Marta Andhov  25:51 

I’m with you on that. I know that, you know, the interesting comment that I came across when it comes to this secondary element is the notion that, because for you to consider sustainable aspects, they need to exist within the frames that are set by the primary objectives, which is a valid point. At the same time, I would say, but isn’t it that for there to be an you know, particularly when you look at the competition aspect, right? Is it enough to have any type of competition? Or is it to have the right type of competition, meaning, you know, the right pool of bidders, the ones that are actually obeying by, you know, this the set points, the established laws in the verifiable, uncertain, uncertain way. So I’m just wondering, what is that one needs to fit to another? Or it’s a more relationship, sort of between them? And to be honest, at this point of the research? I cannot, it’s much easier to see that one needs to kind of fit into another that the relationship one, relational one, but I’m not sure whether you see it similarly, or not really,….

Willem Janssen  27:07 

no…. Do we ever not align or find this difficult to our I suppose sometimes, but yeah, you’re right. I mean, one, I think it’s terminology base. I think we definitely need to get rid of that. So, let’s try that, because I sometimes find myself slipping as well, because it’s such a used, and I know, horizontal objectives have also been used to kind of still find that puts it outside of…. so perhaps we could just say that, you know, what it is we need to do is just really put sustainability and social social objectives on the forefront.

Marta Andhov  27:38 

Another thing is also when you’re talking about, you know, sort of just different wording, and so on, I think that it’s also the space that I’m really interested in is rather than talking about multi objectives of public procurement, is really also investigating, is it multi objective, this is continuously multiplying, or it’s rather that they are all interconnected, and you can build some type of like, relationship, you know, I don’t know, necessarily, if that is a pyramid, but they are very interconnected, and actually can be subcategories of the same issues. Right? So, is it rather not multiplying the objectives, but it’s rather redefining the objectives that we have and the interpretation of them? Because, you know, the well established sort of challenge or difference in opinion of view is, for example, whether competition, right, like how we approach competition, but that’s principle, which is maybe a little bit sideline to all of the conversation that we have, because we’re talking about objectives today. But whether that is connected to transparency principle, equality principle, is that something on its own? And I kind of think about very, very much this discussion that we have right now, is that that we need to say that sustainability should be from whatever reason, because we believe so when we try to find a way as an other objective of procurement law, or this is just something that needs to be redefined in the way how we understand internal market, ultimately.

Willem Janssen  29:07 

Yeah, I think that’s a really valid point. I mean, just getting back to this clash between economic and sustainability, right. So, more practically, right, when we’re looking at discussing sustainable procurement, right, we want sustainable outcomes for the future. But public authority has a certain need, we want to get a sustainable outcome. Right? That’s a very important objective, right. But then, based on Bob, the public procurement rules, generally speaking, we would need to also get contractors involved that are from different member states, right? Whereas local production, or local purchasing can be very effective to achieve sustainable outcomes. So, there’s a clear clash there. When it comes to into so local procurement versus internal market is super important. If that is the underlying objective of the law: to create an internal market for public contract, then, you know, lots of authorities end up coming to me and saying, Well, I mean, it’s all fair and fair game. And we understand that that’s an important objective to integrate Europe in terms of trade, but what about sustainability? If that means that we can buy local products, right, and I think that’s a fair point. It kind of challenges the status quo, perhaps?

Marta Andhov  30:26 

Oh, it absolutely does. Because, you know, before we started recording, just, we did talk more specifically about food procurement, specifically as a specific sector, right. That also feels so tangible of this, this notion of also will how you, because we often also think about, well, How we buy? we, as customers Versus How we would want the government to buy? and yeah, it’s great that you know, you can buy certain things from the US, the newest technologies, the newest phone, etc, etc. But this is I find, in many way, it’s quite opposite these days, more and more when it comes to food, right? Like, if you can literally go to a farmer next door to you and pick up the carrot from the ground, you probably would want that cow at the most than anything else. So, sectorally is also interesting. But then my question here would be, don’t you think… So, how you feel about, the the Green Deal and the notion of establishing a certain minimum standard sectorally that ultimately will inform specifically what you buy? This is also a little bit interesting, because it’s slightly throws off the notion of procurement as procedural law on how you buy but actually what you buy within itself is, you know, quite shifting in many ways. But would that not support on at least on some sort of way, this notion that will how you will procure, it will be less important for you to kind of do this sustainable procurement through the process? If you have a minimum requirements that will be hopefully harmonised?

Willem Janssen  32:00 

Yeah, for sure. I think that takes away a lot of the pain that’s currently, or at least some of the clash that occurs, I think, what I have difficulties with, and perhaps we can make a small reference to two of the episodes that we recorded on this on the new Green Deal, but also on the role of courts, we discussed this a bit more is what we’re seeing is that a lot of sectoral regulation is popping up, but outside of the context of the public procurement directive. So in a way, the clash still exists, or can still exist, yes, you have to require that minimum, unless you really go for the product specific regulation, which is again, another alternative, right. I think all of this underlines kind of the the importance of the objectives of public procurement law. And I’m trying to think we need to round off our discussion a little bit and get going on social media, but I think what we’ve clearly highlighted is the importance and there there’s so much room for debate, right? I I just kind of felt like really a conversation that we would have at a conference dinner. Absolutely. We would also have have silly talks. Right, so let’s not worry.

Marta Andhov  33:05 

I think there’s one last thing that is worth to highlight that there is also one more topic that is important for this conversation that we won’t answer with no output because due to time restraints, but hopefully we will come back to it at some other point. That today, we’re specifically focused on objectives, but another very similarly important and sort of fundamental question is what are procurement principles? And why objective pursue kinda, you know, the end goal? The principles are the ones that inform us will how we get to that end goal, right? And all this variation of questions and challenges is really present in both. So I think that just like a little sort of teaser, hopefully, for some upcoming episode, but that’s another thing that is quite important in this debate.

Willem Janssen  33:50 

Yeah, for sure. I always love that when like one of us is in the lead in the episodes is that the other one just jumps in? With one last point, I find that I do the same. So I’ll grant you that space, but totally not. I mean, when you look at the internal market, you know, principle of equality, transparency, they’re all very functional in a way to achieving that objective. So, I feel the nudge towards another episode about this perhaps in the future, we’ll see if we can come up with something. But now for something totally different, perhaps totally different, let’s do dessert. We promised something about social media for academics, and I think we’re talking to, we’re preaching to the choir, we’re both very active or used to be or sometimes it permits on either LinkedIn. I suppose I’m a bit more active also on Twitter or used to be a bit more active. I know you’ve kind of dropped that and what we can talk about the reasons for that, or at least that you’re less active there, I suppose, but you suggested it. So, what was the the intention or why did you want to talk about it?

Marta Andhov  34:56 

Yeah. This is actually something that really inspired me to have a chat little bit about it. From the meeting and conversation about communication and dissemination of your research within the SAPIENS training and talking to this 15 young academics that just starting the career, and under project I’m responsible for work package that is broadly refer to on communication and dissemination. They got, you know, training on digital digital communication, all these different things, and certain questions have been sort of, you know, if that is in between coffee breaks, or during the meeting, spooked popping up, and I found that there were all relevant, and if those people had those questions, I’m guessing that maybe our broader audience would relate to that, too. And that is, well, great. I would first of all, do I have to? And it also do I have to, if I have to, where, which spaces, what is better, and how to kind of go about it? I think that we address that, because we very much addressed that in the sense of saying: Look, you really don’t have to just choose maybe one, maybe two, that you really feel kind of most comfortable with, and just go about it in the space of how you think it’s appropriate. When we highlight it, there was also the word you also need to consider what you want to do with the social media, right? Do you want to, with who you want to connect how you want to interact? Because we know that those social media have a little bit different spaces, right, LinkedIn will be much more like the more senior colleagues or practitioners will sort of exist in that space versus for example, Twitter is much more popular in the United States that it is in Europe broadly. Right. That’s a sort of generalisation again, it’s a bit depending. I think that it’s a little bit younger crowd, but not as young as let’s say the newest sort of…..

Willem Janssen  36:58 

like the conclusion that this so I’m more active on Twitter, you’re more active on LinkedIn….

Marta Andhov  37:03 

Well I’m older than you we know that right.?

Willem Janssen  37:09 

Yeah, no, I mean, I don’t know if I fully agree that that LinkedIn would be a space for more senior people, I think what I do fully understand is that it can be scary to get out there, right? Particularly as young researchers to like, perhaps those feelings of imposter syndrome, which I still have. Also, when you think like, what do I really have to add? And why should I be able to post something right? Even though….

Marta Andhov  37:32 

….Yeah, particularly when you’re, you know, at the beginning of your career, because the question kind of finally was asked, well, is this just a new publisher perish? Just, you know, in a very different context? Do I need to be there to exist in academic, sort of 20 21? And then how I do that? If I just start a PhD, or if I’m just sort of at the beginning, is my voice really kind of valuable? Or it will come in how I’m not coming across, as you know, bragging about myself? I thought that those were all like, very good points. And yeah, and you are very digital, as you said, yourself, so I was hoping that, you know, maybe you also have some sort of advice: What would would be your advice in this context?

Willem Janssen  38:16 

Well, I don’t know if I’ve advice, but I think it starts with what type of academic Do you want to be? Right?  There’s no normative value there. I think there’s are very good arguments to say that there’s valuable academics that teach, and then do the research and that publish. That’s more than enough, right? Even though it can sometimes seem that we…this touches upon a different topic, dessert that we had right? The recognition and rewards like: What do we strive for as academics? Are we referred to it then as sheep with six legs or five legs? Right? Do we need to do everything? I don’t think that you should do everything. So, I fully agree with what you said about sometimes it’s not necessary. But I think when we talk about public engagement, perhaps involving stakeholders in your research, reaching a broader audience, so perhaps stepping out of the legal sphere, but also engaging with public public procurement professionals, right, that aren’t necessarily, they deal with the law, but they don’t think about it on a more fundamental level, or perhaps even one step further, broader audience. So, I think identifying what you would like to do and how you see yourself as a scholar. I think that’s very important. And I think that lens up whether what you just said is, what’s the purpose, why do you want to use it and the way I’ve always seen it is one, to get feedback. I think many people in academia underestimate how much how many people actually read your work, right? Think about paywalls but also…

Marta Andhov  39:52 

but in a sense of how that works, though, on social media…that you would refer or link to your work in that sense?

Willem Janssen  39:58 

I would say, and this also links up with the bragging aspect. I think…that’s a silly argument to make, or at least I’m totally over academic saying that that’s bragging, it’s not bragging if you add value.

Marta Andhov  40:12

You but you know, it’s this, I’m sure that you’ve seen it because it was circulating for a bit in last week on… I think on all social media, you know, this sort of photo of the fact I got driving licence, LinkedIn posts that are that, right, like, I’m so grateful that I’ve been one of you that… So….

Willem Janssen  40:32 

There’s a little bit of that, and I fully… I sometimes also do that, but never without adding value. So I think if you post about tha… say you contributed to a conference, right, I spoke at a conference for all the universities or the purchasing departments of all universities last week. What would be bragging is to say: I spoke there.

Marta Andhov  40:55 

Yeah. Me, me, me. So important–> Me.

Willem Janssen  40:58 

Right? But in a way, what did why I think it’s important to still share it is because you can add your slides and share those to the world. Because perhaps it might be useful for what you did. You could add your key takeaways, right, your key points that you made to start the discussions also on LinkedIn or Twitter, right, or on Facebook, even. So, I think, not just show but also tell, write, show what you have done. But also, perhaps when you’ve published a paper, give the key takeaways or the key conclusions summarise those, whether it be a thread on Twitter, but or a post on LinkedIn, or an article that you post is, I think, then you add value, and that’s actually also shows that your intention is not to brag, but your intention is to create discussion, which I think is a very important role that we have.

Marta Andhov  41:50 

I think that it’s you know, also just form, I think it’s just a form how you do it, if you come across, like, you know, grateful for, I don’t know, getting funding or having invited someone, I think that good ways, also trying to think about all the other things associated in yourself. So, you know, highlight your collaboration, if we co-write an article, don’t say that, you know, I was one of the co authors, but like, just you know, write, you know, I’ve worked with those great people, and thank you so much, because I learned so much from working with you and so on. So far, I think being grateful is one way in the way that it doesn’t rub people the wrong way. I think particularly when you’re  younger, sort of academic, another good way could be actually highlighting others. So, the same way they highlight you, you know, you’re in a conference and you can post you know, Dylan gave today this fantastic presentation about X, Y and Zed and he recently published it, I thought it was super interesting because this and that, I would warmly you know, encouraging… give someone else a bit, you know, sort of spotlight because then it come back also to you and as you say you contribute, but you showing that you have a different interest than just highlighting you. One of the comments that I got from from one of the colleagues that was sort of leading this, this training on communication and dissemination, which I was very humble and grateful. She said:  Actually, I think what are the you know, the practice of what you you and William are doing is quite nice, because you always sort of kind of hide and I don’t mean it as a prerogative term, but hide behind projects. So focus on the content, what is the content that you’re doing, rather than you as a person at the forefront? I think the last thing that also came to my mind and when I was thinking about also you came to my mind and I was thinking whether you would be so kind to reflect on that is that you also do need to have sort of very ON personality. So either you are super present on social media or you not. I think that it also comes through different periods. There is a period that you are  super like focused and the wright and you won’t be doing much of that then because what you’re going to write:  Ohh look at my sandwich and coffee, while I read 50th paper, right? Also something that I was also quite inspired and I’m looking more and more to other people to follow is, I’m not sure whether you read recently on howtocrackanut.com our friend Albert’s post about sort of also becoming a new parent and sort of challenges as an academic of that, and also how you start to prioritise your time differently. It’s sort of different season in your life. I think that just to show that, you know, there are different periods, and sometimes you’ll be more on social media, sometimes you’ll be less.

Willem Janssen  44:38 

Yeah, no, no, totally. i One, I really liked reading that post, because it made me feel like a bit more of a….Like, let’s just say I wasn’t alone out there.

Marta Andhov  44:48 

Yeah that you feel sort of: I’m not the only one.

Willem Janssen  44:51 

Yeah, and I think just just to be two more things, or at least, that I’d like to add reflection to what you were just saying is, I still think there’s value to posting on social media, I published this. Without adding value. I think it’s always better to add whatever conclusions you’ve come to, but I still think it’s valuable. Because what if that post meant that someone actually got a new idea, or actually, that wasn’t aware that this was published, that it did happen? So in a way, also, you know, in life, sometimes you’ve got to put up the stream as yourself,right?

Marta Andhov  45:26 

Yeah, but I’ve published this. Isn’t that I publish it, you still say what you published and there is still a work that you are sharing? Isn’t that still content?

Willem Janssen  45:36 

Yeah, fair enough, but a lot of people would say that’s bragging, I’m not gonna post that people should find it themselves. They can find my profile page. But I think then, then you’re living in an old school world where…

Marta Andhov  45:44 

Yeah, and also like, you worked on it, I think, as long as… Yeah, I think that this is one of those things that is very subtle. Like, I can see how people in sample sometimes I see some of those folks, and I’m like: Aaa bit much. But I also see plenty, and I’m like, you know, someone is just disseminating the work that they did. And great, because I find out about it. And I probably wouldn’t either way, and I can download the paper right now and learn something new. Sorry, I totally hijacked your moment.

Willem Janssen  46:11 

Yeah, I’ve actually forgotten my second point now. That was that? I might have to come back to that later on. But yeah, I think ultimately, when I think about use of social media, I think it’s really about defining how you would like to use it. In light of the academic that you want to be or think you feel comfortable with. Not everyone feels comfortable with having this. I also don’t think everyone needs to have a podcast. It’s just that we like doing it, and we think it’s important, but that doesn’t, because we podcast, perhaps we can write one or two articles last a year. Right. It’s also about time and about what you feel comfortable doing. So, I think there’s a superstar in every academic, but there’s no one single superstar. But I think though, and this is, and now I’ve got the point that I wanted to talk to him about his support. I think in a lot of these, because these questions pop up when it comes to public engagement activities involving stakeholders in your research, reaching a broader audience, setting up more practical things like a podcast, or how do you post these things? I think academic institutions and law schools, in particular, don’t offer enough support when it comes to this. So yes, sometimes there’s a media training for seniors. But that’s it really, or at least in the Dutch schooling, perhaps also because it is seen as something that’s not important to our work. But I think as we ride the wave of recognitions and rewards and changing how we evaluate academics, I think that support aspects should definitely pop up a bit more to not only help PhDs, assistants, associate all types of researchers or professors to explore this should they want that.

Marta Andhov  47:57 

Absolutely, I agree with you.

Willem Janssen 47:59 

And that is I think the perfect ending now to this. Finally, I agree with you know. Thank you so much for for for chatting today Marta. We looked at objectives we talked a bit  about social media. This was Bestek, the public procurement.

Bestek 48:39

This was Bestek, the public procurement podcast. Do you want to contribute to today’s discussion? Then share your thoughts on LinkedIn or Twitter. Do you have an idea for a future episode? Write to us at www.bestekpodcast.com

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.