Willem organized his “forced labor camp” at the UvA
In the fall of 1983 somebody knocked at the door of my room at the University of Amsterdam. When I invited the person in my room, a student entered and introduced herself as a representative of the Student Union, Machiavelli, of the UvA. I asked her why I had the honor of her visit. She said: “In the last meeting of the Trade Union they had discussed the way I was planning to organize my methodology course for the second year. There were two complaints about it. The first complaint concerned the way the methods course was organized by 3 full working days during three weeks. This was not the way courses were organized at the UvA. The second complaint concerned the emphasis on statistics while other topics were more relevant”.
Our discussion
Starting with the first point I explained her that the procedure was developed to maximize the success of this course for the students. I told her that the course was organized as follows. The first 45 minutes I explain some topic. Then there were 45 minutes for exercises about the same topic where we walk around in the room with two or three teachers to help the students who have problems with the exercises. In this way all students will and can do the exercises. Two of these sessions take place in the morning and one in the afternoon. The last two hours of the day are free to work on the paper which has to make to finish the course. I had copies of 100 social science studies from which one can select one to reanalyze the data and write a report about it. At the Free University this had turned out to be the best way to realize a maximal result by this course. If the students have to do exercises at home they immediately stop when they don´t understand something and soon they cannot follow the course anymore. In our approach we are always there to solve the problems and the students can go on.
Her reaction was that this may work at the Free University but not here. The students don´t like such “forced labor camps”. Her colleagues and she were very much against this approach and she told me that she would try to prevent this to happen.
I suggested that I was not planning to change this approach because it was the best approach as I had experimentally tested.
Then we talked about the other point. I asked “What was the alternative that you and the other students thought would be better than what I plan to teach?
“We thought that there should be more attention to qualitative research for example content analysis”
I replied: “Do you know that I will organize together with Irmtraud Gallhofer a course on text analysis of arguments for and against the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe”
She replied: “That I did not know but that is only a seminar and not the main course in social science research”
“That is indeed true because I think that in the other course the students will learn more about the principles of social research than the seminar”
She did not agree with me. Then I made the following very undiplomatic remark in this very democratic time frame. I said:
“Why do you think that the Queen has appointed me on this position? Maybe, because I know better what is important for students in the social science than the students themselves?”
She said that she had presented to me the opinion of the students and that we will see what happens when I give the course.
This sounded as a threat that she and others would try to organize opposition at the moment that the course would start. I kept that in mind, preparing for the course.
Starting with the first point I explained her that the procedure was developed to maximize the success of this course for the students. I told her that the course was organized as follows. The first 45 minutes I explain some topic. Then there were 45 minutes for exercises about the same topic where we walk around in the room with two or three teachers to help the students who have problems with the exercises. In this way all students will and can do the exercises. Two of these sessions take place in the morning and one in the afternoon. The last two hours of the day are free to work on the paper which has to make to finish the course. I had copies of 100 social science studies from which one can select one to reanalyze the data and write a report about it. At the Free University this had turned out to be the best way to realize a maximal result by this course. If the students have to do exercises at home they immediately stop when they don´t understand something and soon they cannot follow the course anymore. In our approach we are always there to solve the problems and the students can go on.
Her reaction was that this may work at the Free University but not here. The students don´t like such “forced labor camps”. Her colleagues and she were very much against this approach and she told me that she would try to prevent this to happen.
I suggested that I was not planning to change this approach because it was the best approach as I had experimentally tested.
Then we talked about the other point. I asked “What was the alternative that you and the other students thought would be better than what I plan to teach?
“We thought that there should be more attention to qualitative research for example content analysis”
I replied: “Do you know that I will organize together with Irmtraud Gallhofer a course on text analysis of arguments for and against the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe”
She replied: “That I did not know but that is only a seminar and not the main course in social science research”
“That is indeed true because I think that in the other course the students will learn more about the principles of social research than the seminar”
She did not agree with me. Then I made the following very undiplomatic remark in this very democratic time frame. I said:
“Why do you think that the Queen has appointed me on this position? Maybe, because I know better what is important for students in the social science than the students themselves?”
She said that she had presented to me the opinion of the students and that we will see what happens when I give the course.
This sounded as a threat that she and others would try to organize opposition at the moment that the course would start. I kept that in mind, preparing for the course.
Introducing the “Forced labor camp” at the UvA
At the beginning of 1984 I had to give the course. The hall was full of students of sociology and political science. The student, I spoke with before, was also there. Maybe she had fliers in her bag but she allowed me to start my introduction. This was her mistake. Because of our discussion I had prepared a special introduction and gave a long introductory speech.
I told the students that I had studied sociology in Utrecht and that I was very disappointed about the amount of tested theories I was confronted with during my study. At some point I was asked for participating observation in a psychiatric clinic. About this study I told them the story of my qualitative research presented before. They were listening very attentively to this story about the hospitalization process and after that I asked them what I could conclude on the basis of this study. The problem was that the story illustrated a process on the basis of one single patient and the question whether this process occurred elsewhere too. To be able to do more generalizable research I decided to study research methods. But studying these methods I saw that I needed more statistics. But I was also interested in societal problems. One research that got my attention was the research in the USA about racial discrimination.
At the beginning of 1984 I had to give the course. The hall was full of students of sociology and political science. The student, I spoke with before, was also there. Maybe she had fliers in her bag but she allowed me to start my introduction. This was her mistake. Because of our discussion I had prepared a special introduction and gave a long introductory speech.
I told the students that I had studied sociology in Utrecht and that I was very disappointed about the amount of tested theories I was confronted with during my study. At some point I was asked for participating observation in a psychiatric clinic. About this study I told them the story of my qualitative research presented before. They were listening very attentively to this story about the hospitalization process and after that I asked them what I could conclude on the basis of this study. The problem was that the story illustrated a process on the basis of one single patient and the question whether this process occurred elsewhere too. To be able to do more generalizable research I decided to study research methods. But studying these methods I saw that I needed more statistics. But I was also interested in societal problems. One research that got my attention was the research in the USA about racial discrimination.
With money of the state Professor Coleman did an excellent study which would not have been possible without a lot of knowledge about statistics. He concluded that the differences in funding of the schools was the problem as the government thought but the separation in black and white schools and areas. This report has led to the famous school bussing system in the USA which created mixed schools.
While teaching at the Free University I studied more statistics and more mathematics. When I had learned enough I returned to the social sciences and did research about arms races, renovation of neighborhoods and about the argumentation about political issues like war and peace.
I ended my introduction as follows: Based on this information and my experience in teaching statistics in the normal way, I have developed a different approach of teaching social science research. I start with a social science theory and try to test if the theory is acceptable or should be rejected. That is the topic of this course: we start with theories and the book presents the statistics that you need to test such theories. You have to do it yourself too on a topic that you like and you have to write an exam paper about this process. That is how this course works.
No further problems
After this long introduction the student, who visited me before, did not complain, the course started and as always the course went very well, most people passed the exam and some were so enthusiastic about what they had learned that they wanted to learn more and came back to me to join us in our research.
This course was also possible in this "democratic university". I never have had problems with the students during all the years that I was teaching this course in statistics neither at the Free University nor at the University of Amsterdam.
I ended my introduction as follows: Based on this information and my experience in teaching statistics in the normal way, I have developed a different approach of teaching social science research. I start with a social science theory and try to test if the theory is acceptable or should be rejected. That is the topic of this course: we start with theories and the book presents the statistics that you need to test such theories. You have to do it yourself too on a topic that you like and you have to write an exam paper about this process. That is how this course works.
No further problems
After this long introduction the student, who visited me before, did not complain, the course started and as always the course went very well, most people passed the exam and some were so enthusiastic about what they had learned that they wanted to learn more and came back to me to join us in our research.
This course was also possible in this "democratic university". I never have had problems with the students during all the years that I was teaching this course in statistics neither at the Free University nor at the University of Amsterdam.