The end of our research projects
As was mentioned before Irmtraud and Leo van Doorn had grants for their research from ZWO, the Dutch Science foundation, while for the Choice questionnaire we had received a grant from the BMD organization. A problem was that the grant of Irmtraud would finish at the start of 1984, the grant of Leo van Doorn would come to the end of 1984 and the study of the Choice questionnaire stopped with the publication of the final report which would be in the same year. We had applied for new grants but our applications had not been successful.
Science developed through better measurement
From the development in natural sciences one can see that progress in research is not made in 4 years. For example in biology the study of the cell took a very long time. It started with the developments of the microscope in 1660 by Hooke and Anton Van Leeuwenhook. The latter saw for the first time little moving objects, bacteria, in water. In 1838 Schleider saw that plants consisted of many equally formed cells. 1855 Vischow and somewhat later Pasteur detected different bacteria in our blood and considered the possibility that they could cause diseases. With the development of microtomes (1870) one could observe chromosomes in the cell. In 1932, by the development of the Phase contrast microscope, Zernicke for the first time could study living cells and in the same year, by the development of the electron microscope, Ruska could study the structure of cells.
This illustrates how long such developments take before one can in detail study an object that is essential for human life. This research process in biology illustrates as well that the development of knowledge goes together with the improvement of measurement instruments. A similar development can of course be observed in the cosmology, nuclear physics and other sciences.
From the development in natural sciences one can see that progress in research is not made in 4 years. For example in biology the study of the cell took a very long time. It started with the developments of the microscope in 1660 by Hooke and Anton Van Leeuwenhook. The latter saw for the first time little moving objects, bacteria, in water. In 1838 Schleider saw that plants consisted of many equally formed cells. 1855 Vischow and somewhat later Pasteur detected different bacteria in our blood and considered the possibility that they could cause diseases. With the development of microtomes (1870) one could observe chromosomes in the cell. In 1932, by the development of the Phase contrast microscope, Zernicke for the first time could study living cells and in the same year, by the development of the electron microscope, Ruska could study the structure of cells.
This illustrates how long such developments take before one can in detail study an object that is essential for human life. This research process in biology illustrates as well that the development of knowledge goes together with the improvement of measurement instruments. A similar development can of course be observed in the cosmology, nuclear physics and other sciences.
How about social science?
Irmtraud spent 4 years to develop a text analysis procedure for the study of argumentation of politicians. For that she did not get a subsidy. She was able to do this research because I had a payed job. After the instrument was well developed and applied in several case studies she could get a grant for 4 years to do further research. In these years she studied arguments of Dutch politicians and the decision rules that predicted their choices. After this successful research she could not get further research grants even though important questions remained such as: are these arguments and rules indeed leading to good decisions? Are these arguments and rules also used in other countries and other times? And: Do people know the rules which they hardly ever mentioned but fitted the data well?
Leo van Doorn could get a grant for his research because Hamblin, Lodge and I had studied already during some years the possibility of the use of psychophysical scales to get improved measures of opinions of people. He got a grant for 4 years to study what the consequences were of this approach with respect to the conclusions based on surveys. The advantages on individual level were considerable but across persons it was not so clear. However he could not get a new grant to study this any further. Neither could he get a grant to study how these procedures could be applied in computer assisted data collection.
The Choice questionnaire profited a lot of the earlier studies by Irmtraud because it was clear what kind of information should be needed, while the work of Leo van Doorn and Peter Neijens suggested how continuous measures could be used in research. Nevertheless we spent three more years on research before we had sufficient confidence that we could apply for a grant to develop the final design of the approach.
Finally let me refer to my own history. I would not have been able to guide this research if I would not have had the opportunity, next to my work, together with Marius de Pijper, to study for 10 years the necessary mathematics and statistics. This was just possible because we got the free time at the Free University to prepare ourselves for this work and I visited many courses for which I sometimes received a subsidy and sometimes not.
In 1984 the situation was that I was expecting that all grants would end and that I could not expect any support from the University as I have described above. All the time spent on the development of these measurement procedures and the education of the researchers for this work would be wasted, if I could not continue the research with the same people and possibly some new students.
Irmtraud spent 4 years to develop a text analysis procedure for the study of argumentation of politicians. For that she did not get a subsidy. She was able to do this research because I had a payed job. After the instrument was well developed and applied in several case studies she could get a grant for 4 years to do further research. In these years she studied arguments of Dutch politicians and the decision rules that predicted their choices. After this successful research she could not get further research grants even though important questions remained such as: are these arguments and rules indeed leading to good decisions? Are these arguments and rules also used in other countries and other times? And: Do people know the rules which they hardly ever mentioned but fitted the data well?
Leo van Doorn could get a grant for his research because Hamblin, Lodge and I had studied already during some years the possibility of the use of psychophysical scales to get improved measures of opinions of people. He got a grant for 4 years to study what the consequences were of this approach with respect to the conclusions based on surveys. The advantages on individual level were considerable but across persons it was not so clear. However he could not get a new grant to study this any further. Neither could he get a grant to study how these procedures could be applied in computer assisted data collection.
The Choice questionnaire profited a lot of the earlier studies by Irmtraud because it was clear what kind of information should be needed, while the work of Leo van Doorn and Peter Neijens suggested how continuous measures could be used in research. Nevertheless we spent three more years on research before we had sufficient confidence that we could apply for a grant to develop the final design of the approach.
Finally let me refer to my own history. I would not have been able to guide this research if I would not have had the opportunity, next to my work, together with Marius de Pijper, to study for 10 years the necessary mathematics and statistics. This was just possible because we got the free time at the Free University to prepare ourselves for this work and I visited many courses for which I sometimes received a subsidy and sometimes not.
In 1984 the situation was that I was expecting that all grants would end and that I could not expect any support from the University as I have described above. All the time spent on the development of these measurement procedures and the education of the researchers for this work would be wasted, if I could not continue the research with the same people and possibly some new students.
How about grants from ZWO?
The most logical solution would have been to ask ZWO for new projects. However, there the possibilities were very limited. As a member of the board of the organization for political science research which did the evaluation of the research proposals for ZWO I was aware of the discussions we had about cancelling out activities for ZWO because the amount of money we could maximally obtain was not more than the cost of the time that the evaluators of the projects spent on the evaluation and the meetings. Later the organization indeed stopped with these activities for ZWO in order to give a clear sign to ZWO that for such a budget we don´t do all this work.
The most logical solution would have been to ask ZWO for new projects. However, there the possibilities were very limited. As a member of the board of the organization for political science research which did the evaluation of the research proposals for ZWO I was aware of the discussions we had about cancelling out activities for ZWO because the amount of money we could maximally obtain was not more than the cost of the time that the evaluators of the projects spent on the evaluation and the meetings. Later the organization indeed stopped with these activities for ZWO in order to give a clear sign to ZWO that for such a budget we don´t do all this work.
At the 352th anniversary of the foundation of the University of Amsterdam Prof Vrieze presented the optimistic view that during the last 10 years the budget of the human and social sciences had improved considerably. The facts however showed that the budget for these faculties was increased from 5.2% to 6%.
These numbers brought the political scientist Prof. Hoogerwerf to the following complaint: “Given these figures it is more realistic to say that still much more money is spent on research of the behavior of the stickleback and the atom than the research of the behavior of presidents, ministers, mayors, members of parliaments and governmental officials.
These numbers brought the political scientist Prof. Hoogerwerf to the following complaint: “Given these figures it is more realistic to say that still much more money is spent on research of the behavior of the stickleback and the atom than the research of the behavior of presidents, ministers, mayors, members of parliaments and governmental officials.
|
|
Our place is only for us
|
America for the Americans
|