My PhD problems
In our research group at the Free University my colleagues had all serious problems to get their dissertation for the doctors degree accepted. Several of them worked several years to write book and after 5 or more years the head of the group, who was for all of them the supervisor of their thesis, did not think that the work they had done was good enough for a PhD degree. As a supervisor he should have detected that earlier or should have helped them to improve their work. Now these colleagues had nothing or hardly nothing published because they worked on their master piece which in the end was not accepted. We all were extremely angry about what happened but we were relatively powerless. The judgment was the supervisor´s task.
For me it was also time for a doctor degree
My situation was quite different. In the first years I was mainly studying and writing incidentally a paper. Through the years I published more and more. After 10 years I had 18 publications of which 5 in international journals which was very unusual at that moment. So I had quite some publications but not a PhD. When in 1979 two papers of me were published in international journals I thought it was time for a doctor’s title. One could present a dissertation based on papers. So I put in a “book” these two internationally published papers on SEM issues and my first paper on SEM where I showed that two Dutch methodology professors made a wrong argument and a paper on measurement using continuous scales. I made an introduction to the “book” and handed it in for my PhD to the head of the department.
Because he was not sufficiently confident to decide by himself about this dissertation, given all the previous problems and his limited understanding of the issues discussed in my papers, he asked advice of a statistician working at the same university in the psychology department. This man who did not publish anything during the years he worked at the University, was of the opinion that my internationally published papers were not good enough for a PhD. The head of our department did not dare to convince him that he was wrong. He also could have asked others for their opinion but he decided that I could not get my degree on the basis of this set of papers. It made me very angry.
My situation was quite different. In the first years I was mainly studying and writing incidentally a paper. Through the years I published more and more. After 10 years I had 18 publications of which 5 in international journals which was very unusual at that moment. So I had quite some publications but not a PhD. When in 1979 two papers of me were published in international journals I thought it was time for a doctor’s title. One could present a dissertation based on papers. So I put in a “book” these two internationally published papers on SEM issues and my first paper on SEM where I showed that two Dutch methodology professors made a wrong argument and a paper on measurement using continuous scales. I made an introduction to the “book” and handed it in for my PhD to the head of the department.
Because he was not sufficiently confident to decide by himself about this dissertation, given all the previous problems and his limited understanding of the issues discussed in my papers, he asked advice of a statistician working at the same university in the psychology department. This man who did not publish anything during the years he worked at the University, was of the opinion that my internationally published papers were not good enough for a PhD. The head of our department did not dare to convince him that he was wrong. He also could have asked others for their opinion but he decided that I could not get my degree on the basis of this set of papers. It made me very angry.
What to do now?
Fortunately I was at that time already so much integrated in the methodology world in the Netherlands, due to my cooperation in the board of the Social Science section of the Association for Statistics (VVS), that I could ask advice about this situation to professor Mellenbergh who was a member of the board and the methodology professor in the psychology faculty at the University of Amsterdam .
Fortunately I was at that time already so much integrated in the methodology world in the Netherlands, due to my cooperation in the board of the Social Science section of the Association for Statistics (VVS), that I could ask advice about this situation to professor Mellenbergh who was a member of the board and the methodology professor in the psychology faculty at the University of Amsterdam .
He spoke about it with professor Mokken, the methodology professor at the social science faculty at the same University and both decided that the papers, I had made, were definitely good enough for a PhD degree. So they made a PhD committee and the defense of my dissertation was planned for 27 April 1979 at 10 in the morning. I was very greatful to them for their willingness to reject the earlier judgment, but I was still so angry about the whole situation that I did not want to spend much money on my dissertation: no expensive book and no big party.
The night before the defense
It was around the time of my defense of my dissertation that the board of the Social Science section of the VVS had to meet again. That were always very nice meetings socially and scientifically. We were all men in the board but often the partners were also invited for these meetings. So the next meeting was planned on the night before the defense of my dissertation. The meeting took place in a house of one of the members of the group in Alphen aan de Maas, in the south of the Netherlands. I thought that it was a standard pleasant meeting but the board members had decided otherwise. They had decided to make a big event, a very nice meal and a lot of drinks before and after the dinner. It was already 3 a.m. we were ready to go home. I was one of the members that came by car. One other member had to go to Arnhem and another and my copromotor Don Mellenbergh, had to go to Zeist. Both had no car. The simplest solution was that I would go via Arnhem and Zeist to Amsterdam. So we did and Irmtraud and I came home after 4 in the morning,
It was around the time of my defense of my dissertation that the board of the Social Science section of the VVS had to meet again. That were always very nice meetings socially and scientifically. We were all men in the board but often the partners were also invited for these meetings. So the next meeting was planned on the night before the defense of my dissertation. The meeting took place in a house of one of the members of the group in Alphen aan de Maas, in the south of the Netherlands. I thought that it was a standard pleasant meeting but the board members had decided otherwise. They had decided to make a big event, a very nice meal and a lot of drinks before and after the dinner. It was already 3 a.m. we were ready to go home. I was one of the members that came by car. One other member had to go to Arnhem and another and my copromotor Don Mellenbergh, had to go to Zeist. Both had no car. The simplest solution was that I would go via Arnhem and Zeist to Amsterdam. So we did and Irmtraud and I came home after 4 in the morning,
The promotion
A few hours later I was standing in the Aula of the University of Amsterdam to defend my thesis. The first opponent was the American Professor Kerlinger whom I had helped in the past with his analysis. He was of course extremely positive about my work but asked me a question about ordinal restrictions in SEM models. I don´t know why, but I did not understand his question or did not know the answer. However, from my teaching I knew how to deal with such a situation: First I pretended to summarize how I understood the question but in doing so the question was transformed in a question which I could answer. After that shock four other opponents asked questions which I understood and could answered and so the defense was done. I got my degree and we started the drinks at the reception. I had not organized a party that day as was commonly done. With my best friends I had already had a party the evening before.
A few hours later I was standing in the Aula of the University of Amsterdam to defend my thesis. The first opponent was the American Professor Kerlinger whom I had helped in the past with his analysis. He was of course extremely positive about my work but asked me a question about ordinal restrictions in SEM models. I don´t know why, but I did not understand his question or did not know the answer. However, from my teaching I knew how to deal with such a situation: First I pretended to summarize how I understood the question but in doing so the question was transformed in a question which I could answer. After that shock four other opponents asked questions which I understood and could answered and so the defense was done. I got my degree and we started the drinks at the reception. I had not organized a party that day as was commonly done. With my best friends I had already had a party the evening before.
Thanking my promotors
We organized later a dinner for my supervisor Rob Mokken , my co-supervisor Don Mellenbergh, their wives and Irmtraud in a very nice place outside Amsterdam. The town is called “Trouser on Water land” There was a nice restaurant at a lake where I also went skating in the winter. We had a diner in a very pleasant atmosphere. In this way I wanted to express my thanks to them for their willingness to allow me to defend my thesis which was rejected before by other so called experts in the field.
We organized later a dinner for my supervisor Rob Mokken , my co-supervisor Don Mellenbergh, their wives and Irmtraud in a very nice place outside Amsterdam. The town is called “Trouser on Water land” There was a nice restaurant at a lake where I also went skating in the winter. We had a diner in a very pleasant atmosphere. In this way I wanted to express my thanks to them for their willingness to allow me to defend my thesis which was rejected before by other so called experts in the field.
go to: We both start our research
|
|