Your research interests include the influence that framing has on public opinion. A particularly topical area of research in this day and age, what are the questions you are concerned with?

My research focus is broader than just the influence of framing. It is about the role of communication and data on influencing public opinion and political behaviour. On the one hand, I investigate how politics is communicated in traditional media and through social media, and what effect this has on public opinion, and on political behaviour such as considering whether to vote or not. On the other hand, I also look at automated processes in our democracy and investigate what it means that political parties can send very targeted messages to certain groups of voters via microtargeting and data mining. What does it mean for public discussions and togetherness in society if the news you see online is partly determined by algorithms? These sorts of questions are currently at the centre of my research, and much is being answered in an international and comparative perspective. I have an ERC Grant and am researching, among other things, the current state of public opinion towards the European Union and how this is being formed in different countries.

‍

It is a privilege to work on such a topical subject because it is evolving rapidly. Take the discussion about political microtargeting and the role that Facebook, Twitter and Instagram play in today's news. That's a discussion we didn't have a decade ago. That research makes it a challenging and beautiful profession.

‍

Recently, there has been quite a lot of talk about the framing of scientific facts in the media and its influence on public opinion. For example how Trump is seen as a climate denier, and how science is sometimes being dismissed as 'just another opinion'. How do you view this?

As scientists, we are used to constantly questioning whether our latest findings are really true. But for your findings simply not to be believed or to be equated with the opinion of a random person is new. At the same time, it fits with a trend that has been going on for some time: I have been researching populism and one of its hallmarks is questioning the authority of institutions such as the incumbent political power, the judiciary and also science.

‍

While there are loud screaming individuals or parties trying to undermine the authority and input of science, that does not imply that the entire electorate or public opinion will suddenly turn around as a result. Both in the US, and in Europe - including the Netherlands - there is still a lot of trust in science. We should cherish that trust and not get carried away with a narrative that trust in science is completely gone. On the one hand, we as scientists must be alert by being responsive and continuing to explain how science works; on the other hand, we should also hold others accountable for this. If there is a political discussion in the House of Representatives where scientific evidence comes up, I expect the vast majority of political parties to stand strong on the value of science. Because if politicians or others start selectively shopping scientific research, using only research whose outcome pleases them, that undermines democracy. Science, alongside justice and confidence in the functioning of parliament, is a great good for our society.

What are the biggest changes in science that you have observed in recent years?

For a start, there is now recognition that for some of the big challenges and issues of our time, collaboration and interdisciplinarity are essential. If you really want to say something about energy transition, digitalisation or AI, for example, no single discipline has sufficient answers on its own. So in recent years, many more collaborations have emerged between social sciences, humanities and STEM, among others.

‍

Everything you hear about the rising workload is completely true. We are getting more and more students, we are well regarded abroad and international researchers are eager to come here. In itself this is positive, that so many young people want to study and we are in demand, but at the same time it poses huge challenges. Universities are less and less able to give people permanent appointments, which means that, as a research group, you bump from one temporary position to another and research funds are largely spent on temporary projects.

‍

The system has started to stall, both in research and teaching. For instance, you get fewer hours than before to supervise students, and as a researcher, you spend a large part of your time trying to win grants. Not only for yourself, but also for your group. In addition, you have the organisational burdens that have been added to the practice of science. We have done a lot of work in recent years on ethical approval for research, the open science movement, management issues, valorisation and impact, you name it. Very good and necessary, but at the same time it doubles the work you have to do, for example, for every research plan you come up with. We didn't really appreciate that you can't add work in all four core tasks (education, research, impact, and management) without at the same time thinking about where there could be a step less. Or how you can collaborate better, more towards team science, because that too is a trend development of the past decade. The research questions are often ambitious, they are not questions you solve on your own, so more and more large project groups have emerged that try to find answers to exciting questions in collaboration. In that respect, the new Ammodo Science Award fits well with that discussion, because it sends the signal that appreciation is no longer just about the individual, but just as much about a team within which several people can fulfil very different and valuable roles.

‍

You are on the advisory committee of the new Ammodo Science Award for groundbreaking research. Why did you want to commit to this?

When I was called asking if I wanted to sit on the jury and heard what the Award entailed, I was immediately excited. Despite the fact that even something like this takes time, I strongly believe in what the award aims to achieve: it tries to draw attention to the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, research is a team exercise. If you ask me if I could do my research alone, the answer is no. My current project team includes lawyers, behavioural scientists, computer scientists, you name it. All of these are needed to answer our research questions. It is important that there is more recognition for that. Moreover, this is not exactly a token amount either: no, you get 1.2 million, based on your track record, pioneering ideas, and a description of what steps you can take as a team with the extra resources. That's valuable reward and recognition.

To what extent do you think the ASA adds to the current awards landscape?

Not only does it enrich the current landscape, but it also sends an important signal. Not that I think we should do away with all individual awards, because there are just as many individual scientists who are doing important work that is extensive and we should appreciate that just as much, but there was perhaps too much focus on the individual. It is time to strike more of a balance and an award like this helps. In that respect, Ammodo has a kind of 'first mover advantage' in that they spotted this trend and were the first to come up with a new award for team science. I expect we will see this appreciation of group research in more and more places in the future, such as at the Spinoza premium where, starting this year, teams may also be nominated.

‍

The winning research teams are both multidisciplinary. You yourself work in a multidisciplinary team. What do you think is the added value of that?

This added value is not self-evident. For a start, not every research question requires multidisciplinary work. But if it does, it is good to realise that working in a multidisciplinary team takes time. You have to learn to speak each other's language, sometimes literally, but also because you have to find out, for example, how research and publication cultures differ. I lead a team myself and have to make sure that team members not only meet physically for consultations, but also that there is time to really get to know each other.

‍

If all that succeeds, the added value is in trying to answer much more complex questions. As I mentioned earlier, one of the things we are researching is what it would mean if news feeds were largely automatic and offered via algorithms. Because we have not only behavioural scientists but also computer scientists and lawyers on our team, we can answer that question in a much more versatile, broad and valuable way, because we can also colour in the legal and technical aspects of it.

What is your dream for the future of science. Where should we go?

This is not so much something for myself, but I have a deep-seated dream that the Dutch science system will get back into good shape. It is a wonderful system, but it is under pressure. The first step is to make sure that this widely felt pressure is reduced. That, as a young researcher, you know that there is basic funding for your research so that you don't have to rush from project to project and spend a lot of time on all kinds of imposed procedures. In short, we must ensure that peace, purity and regularity return to the system, because it is only in such a climate that good cooperation can take place and new, pioneering discoveries can be facilitated.

‍

Published on 7 February 2020.

‍

Photos: Florian Braakman