Deciding to become professor or not
On October 22, 1980, I got a letter from the chairman of the commission to select a candidate for the vacant position of professor in Political Science, especially the methods and techniques of Political Science research at the Political Science faculty at the University of Amsterdam. In the letter I was asked whether I was in principle interested to be included in the selection procedure for this position.
At that time I was associate professor at the Free University in Amsterdam. I had created a lot of freedom for myself to organize my research next to my teaching and management. For three different research projects I had realized a subsidy for several years.
With Irmtraud I studied arguments of politicians concerning political decisions. For this research we received a grant from the Dutch Science Foundation. This research provided the information that was needed in the choice questionnaire.
With Peter Neijens, Jan de Ridder I developed the choice questionnaire in the context of the Social discussion about nuclear energy. For this project we had a subsidy of the commission organizing the Broad Social Debate about nuclear energy (BMD).
Leo van Doorn and his assistants Kees Maas and Hans Koomen studied the possibilities of improvement of measurement procedures by the use of psychophysical scales and computer assisted data collection. For this project we also had a grant from the Dutch Science Foundation
In all these projects we had the support of Marius de Pijper, with respect to programming issues and analyses.
Besides that I had the freedom and even financial support of the department to organize meetings and to visit conferences abroad.
Furthermore, I also worked together with Albert Satorra on issues of testing Structural Equation models which was an issue of many of the projects we did. He got money for this project from Spain.
This overview indicates that we had an interesting integrated set of studies together. We had a nice and qualified group of researchers which worked well together. In the picture below you see all of us together with their partners at one of our informal meetings.
At that time I was associate professor at the Free University in Amsterdam. I had created a lot of freedom for myself to organize my research next to my teaching and management. For three different research projects I had realized a subsidy for several years.
With Irmtraud I studied arguments of politicians concerning political decisions. For this research we received a grant from the Dutch Science Foundation. This research provided the information that was needed in the choice questionnaire.
With Peter Neijens, Jan de Ridder I developed the choice questionnaire in the context of the Social discussion about nuclear energy. For this project we had a subsidy of the commission organizing the Broad Social Debate about nuclear energy (BMD).
Leo van Doorn and his assistants Kees Maas and Hans Koomen studied the possibilities of improvement of measurement procedures by the use of psychophysical scales and computer assisted data collection. For this project we also had a grant from the Dutch Science Foundation
In all these projects we had the support of Marius de Pijper, with respect to programming issues and analyses.
Besides that I had the freedom and even financial support of the department to organize meetings and to visit conferences abroad.
Furthermore, I also worked together with Albert Satorra on issues of testing Structural Equation models which was an issue of many of the projects we did. He got money for this project from Spain.
This overview indicates that we had an interesting integrated set of studies together. We had a nice and qualified group of researchers which worked well together. In the picture below you see all of us together with their partners at one of our informal meetings.
All projects were successful and we published papers in national and international journals. But what would happen when I would move to the other university?
A difficult decision problem
The question was whether I wanted to go to the University of Amsterdam to become there professor. This was a simple question to ask but a difficult question to answer.
For me the important issue was whether I could continue my research with the people I worked with at the Free University. It was not only a question of getting enough space for these people but also what the reaction would be between the two groups.
A difficult decision problem
The question was whether I wanted to go to the University of Amsterdam to become there professor. This was a simple question to ask but a difficult question to answer.
For me the important issue was whether I could continue my research with the people I worked with at the Free University. It was not only a question of getting enough space for these people but also what the reaction would be between the two groups.
.It was also well known since the occupation by the students of the main building of the UvA in 1968 that the democratization movement at the universities had led to serious problems. Especially in the Political Science faculty of the UvA a lot of problems occurred because the board of the Political Science faculty was composed in such a way that the student members with only a couple of staff members were able to determine all decisions. When that indeed happened a group around Professor Daudt, responsible for the main courses in Political Science, went to strike which led to violent discussions, including occupations of buildings. This went on for years.
The Dutch Government even got involved in this conflict and in the end the problem solved itself by the fact that so many people had left the faculty and new people had to be attracted. Earlier activists were appointed at these positions and with Daudt an agreement was made that he would concentrate his work on advanced courses. This fight was not only a power struggle but also a wish of a large group of students to study different topics. Voting behavior was relevant but income differences and the reason for that and political power issues were also relevant.
The Dutch Government even got involved in this conflict and in the end the problem solved itself by the fact that so many people had left the faculty and new people had to be attracted. Earlier activists were appointed at these positions and with Daudt an agreement was made that he would concentrate his work on advanced courses. This fight was not only a power struggle but also a wish of a large group of students to study different topics. Voting behavior was relevant but income differences and the reason for that and political power issues were also relevant.
Could I expect the same problems?
As I have reported earlier I played a role in the discussions at the Free University concerning the introduction of the ideas of the Frankfurter Schule in the faculty. There I defended with success the task of the university to do empirical research.
On the other hand I was rather shocked by the authoritarian structure at the faculty where even staff members with teaching tasks, like me, were not allowed in the faculty meetings. Therefore I participated in the staff actions to be allowed to participate in these meetings. Later I also joined the students in their actions for participation in these meetings.
However, I have to say that as a methodologist I was not involved in discussions what the “real political science theory” was that had to be taught and studied. In that sense I was still agnostic. I did not believe that the social scientists were already so far to say what the best theories were. My study in Utrecht had convinced me that there were no very well established theories in the social sciences. Therefore I had also chosen to concentrate on research to develop such theories. Because of this point of view many people came to our group to do their research. In our department on methods more traditional studies and Marxist oriented studies were possible next to each other. There was only a discussion about the quality of the procedures that were used in these studies.
With this perspective in mind I thought that the democratization movement that took place at the University of Amsterdam would not harm my research possibilities because I would not become professor in a department concentrating on substantive theories but on methods as was the case at the Free University .
As I have reported earlier I played a role in the discussions at the Free University concerning the introduction of the ideas of the Frankfurter Schule in the faculty. There I defended with success the task of the university to do empirical research.
On the other hand I was rather shocked by the authoritarian structure at the faculty where even staff members with teaching tasks, like me, were not allowed in the faculty meetings. Therefore I participated in the staff actions to be allowed to participate in these meetings. Later I also joined the students in their actions for participation in these meetings.
However, I have to say that as a methodologist I was not involved in discussions what the “real political science theory” was that had to be taught and studied. In that sense I was still agnostic. I did not believe that the social scientists were already so far to say what the best theories were. My study in Utrecht had convinced me that there were no very well established theories in the social sciences. Therefore I had also chosen to concentrate on research to develop such theories. Because of this point of view many people came to our group to do their research. In our department on methods more traditional studies and Marxist oriented studies were possible next to each other. There was only a discussion about the quality of the procedures that were used in these studies.
With this perspective in mind I thought that the democratization movement that took place at the University of Amsterdam would not harm my research possibilities because I would not become professor in a department concentrating on substantive theories but on methods as was the case at the Free University .
In principle interested
I saw as an important positive point that I, as a professor, could get possibly more easily funding for my research than as an associate professor. This was also relevant because all contracts had a limited time span of 3 or 4 years and in that time the fundamental issues we worked on could not be finished in such a short period.
With these issues in mind I wrote a letter back that I was in principle interested in that position but my acceptance of the position would depend of the final specification of my task and thefacilities. With this answer I became a candidate for this position and the commission took its time to evaluate the different possible candidates.
Approximately a year later, October 1981, the commission chairman came back to me with a question about my conditions in order to accept this position. In my answer I specified my wish to continue my research with my research groups. In order to realize that I required that my teaching and management tasks should not be so large that my research would be harmed.
There were by law (WUB) specified formal rules for these tasks at the university. The law suggested that scientists at the universities should spend 20% of the time on management and 40% on teaching and 40% on research. I suggested to stick to this rule.
With respect to concrete requirements I mentioned:
The chairman of the commission did not see any problems in these requirements, but he said that the commission had not the task to decide about these issues. He sent the letter with these requirements to the rector of the university for evaluation.
I saw as an important positive point that I, as a professor, could get possibly more easily funding for my research than as an associate professor. This was also relevant because all contracts had a limited time span of 3 or 4 years and in that time the fundamental issues we worked on could not be finished in such a short period.
With these issues in mind I wrote a letter back that I was in principle interested in that position but my acceptance of the position would depend of the final specification of my task and thefacilities. With this answer I became a candidate for this position and the commission took its time to evaluate the different possible candidates.
Approximately a year later, October 1981, the commission chairman came back to me with a question about my conditions in order to accept this position. In my answer I specified my wish to continue my research with my research groups. In order to realize that I required that my teaching and management tasks should not be so large that my research would be harmed.
There were by law (WUB) specified formal rules for these tasks at the university. The law suggested that scientists at the universities should spend 20% of the time on management and 40% on teaching and 40% on research. I suggested to stick to this rule.
With respect to concrete requirements I mentioned:
- Sufficient space for 3 researchers plus assistants
- A room for experiments
- Financial facilities of around 25.000 guilders
- 2 micro computers for our experiments
- Recognition of our research as a research priority
The chairman of the commission did not see any problems in these requirements, but he said that the commission had not the task to decide about these issues. He sent the letter with these requirements to the rector of the university for evaluation.
The problems start
From the rector of the university I did not get a reaction but the dean of the faculty sent me a letter in December of the same year. The reaction on my requests was that I could not require the points I had mentioned. They were in contradiction with the rules of the faculty. Such issues had to be discussed with the members of the department.
In January 1982 a discussion took place between me and representatives of the selection commission, the faculty and the department. After a lengthy discussion the conclusion of the discussion was summarized to my surprise in the following points:
1. In the Social Sciences research gets too little attention
2. Stimulation of research is an essential task of the professor
and the department can profit of this
3. To realize this aim one could guarantee me a research time during
the first 4 years of 40% of my time
4. The consequence of point 3 is that management and teaching
should not be so much that it would harm the research time.
That sounded very good but on February 27, I got a mail from the dean of the faculty that the board of the faculty could not accept points 3 and 4 because a guarantee of 40% for research was never given in the faculty. “Doing so in my case would create a serious inequality between professors and people working in the faculty as a whole.” Therefore the suggestion was that I would drop these requirements.
Reading this reaction I was surprised how one could make such a remark while we talked about a division of time of scientists that was specified in a law for scientific work (WUB).
I am now even more surprised about my reaction because in my reply I said that “my requirements were possibly too individualistically formulated while these rules already were established formally in the law. Given this situation I expected that the division of labor in the department would be arranged in the line with these rules so that I could provide a contribution in agreement with my capacities to the faculty.”
From the rector of the university I did not get a reaction but the dean of the faculty sent me a letter in December of the same year. The reaction on my requests was that I could not require the points I had mentioned. They were in contradiction with the rules of the faculty. Such issues had to be discussed with the members of the department.
In January 1982 a discussion took place between me and representatives of the selection commission, the faculty and the department. After a lengthy discussion the conclusion of the discussion was summarized to my surprise in the following points:
1. In the Social Sciences research gets too little attention
2. Stimulation of research is an essential task of the professor
and the department can profit of this
3. To realize this aim one could guarantee me a research time during
the first 4 years of 40% of my time
4. The consequence of point 3 is that management and teaching
should not be so much that it would harm the research time.
That sounded very good but on February 27, I got a mail from the dean of the faculty that the board of the faculty could not accept points 3 and 4 because a guarantee of 40% for research was never given in the faculty. “Doing so in my case would create a serious inequality between professors and people working in the faculty as a whole.” Therefore the suggestion was that I would drop these requirements.
Reading this reaction I was surprised how one could make such a remark while we talked about a division of time of scientists that was specified in a law for scientific work (WUB).
I am now even more surprised about my reaction because in my reply I said that “my requirements were possibly too individualistically formulated while these rules already were established formally in the law. Given this situation I expected that the division of labor in the department would be arranged in the line with these rules so that I could provide a contribution in agreement with my capacities to the faculty.”
The end of the story
It seems that at that time my wish to get the position of a professor was stronger than my fear that the discussions with the members of the department would lead to problems with respect to my possibilities to do the research, I wanted to continue. I suppose that I trusted that I could claim my research time with the law in my hands.
On June 4, 1982, I received a letter of the board of the faculty which indicated that the faculty had requested the Minister of Education to realize my appointment as a professor in the faculty.
In October followed a confirmation that the faculty would take care of the necessary facilities for my research group, the necessary work space for experiments and the computers and some money for research. This reaction came to me as a surprise.
On January 20, 1983, I finally got the document that I got an appointment as professor in Political Science, especially the methods and techniques of Political Science research.
I was hoping that the work at the new faculty would turn out to be easier and more interesting than the discussions about this move from the Free University to the University of Amsterdam. The reality turned out to be much worse.
It seems that at that time my wish to get the position of a professor was stronger than my fear that the discussions with the members of the department would lead to problems with respect to my possibilities to do the research, I wanted to continue. I suppose that I trusted that I could claim my research time with the law in my hands.
On June 4, 1982, I received a letter of the board of the faculty which indicated that the faculty had requested the Minister of Education to realize my appointment as a professor in the faculty.
In October followed a confirmation that the faculty would take care of the necessary facilities for my research group, the necessary work space for experiments and the computers and some money for research. This reaction came to me as a surprise.
On January 20, 1983, I finally got the document that I got an appointment as professor in Political Science, especially the methods and techniques of Political Science research.
I was hoping that the work at the new faculty would turn out to be easier and more interesting than the discussions about this move from the Free University to the University of Amsterdam. The reality turned out to be much worse.