Your research is highly relevant to society. What is your research about?
In my research, I focus on adolescent development. Why do adolescent brains work differently from children and adults? How does the (adolescent) brain develop, how do young people look at the world, and how do they make their trade-offs, about, for example, speeding, coma-drinking or criminal behaviour?
What I do in my research is look at the different factors that are important for certain behaviour, and how do those factors differ in adolescents and adults? In my PhD research, I looked at the factors within adolescents (how old is someone etc), the influence of puberty and of puberty hormones such as testosterone and oestrogen, personality and brain development. One of the main results from my PhD research is that the reward centre (this is an area deep in the brain that becomes active when you get a reward) was more active in adolescents than in children and adults. That activity correlates with how much risk a young person takes in real life, for example how much they drink when they go out for a night out.
Many problems (e.g. a lot of drinking) arise not from the individual, but from social processes. There is much more risk of car accidents when young people are in the car together. We know this, we see this in empirical research, statistics from CBS and statistics from a hospital, for example. In my post-doc research, I looked at psychosocial influence, what types of social influence are there, and what effect do these different types have whether young people start taking more or less risk?
What has your research with the Veni grant achieved?
I came to Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam four years ago with a Veni grant, now I'm doing research on the things we see in the lab and how that correlates with the things we see in society. In other words, are the young people who take a lot of risk in the lab also the young people who take a lot of risk in society?
Looking at this in the context of impact: if we want to adjust policy or adjust young people's behaviour, you need to know that the outcomes of a lab study show the same processes as young people's behaviour in society. What is the correlation? Which tasks are predictive of what young people do in real life? And which ones are less predictive but valuable in the lab situation?
A Veni grant, a personal fellowship, allows young researchers to do research in a line that you set out yourself. This gives a lot of independence to set up your own line of research. I have since received a permanent position at VU Amsterdam, and have continued to grow in the department. I have now also secured other funding.
What impact does your research on socially positive risk have?
Together with a PhD student, I have started a new line of research to look at other forms of risk behaviour. We often focus on negative risk behaviour (driving, alcohol consumption). But young people also strike for the climate, which is also risky. So who are the young people who take socially positive risks? Who, for example, take up a new trade or take a course? What distinguishes those young people who take the negative risk and those who take the positive or pro-social risk?
About the pro-social risk-taking behaviour (why do you stand up for someone? why do you ask someone out? why do you come to the aid of someone who has fallen? why do you lend your scooter to someone who really needs it, at the risk of getting a scratch on it?) we still know very little, there has been little focus on that.
I myself think it is important to reverse and nuance the idea of 'today's youth' and 'young people making rash decisions'. I would like to convey the message 'young people are not mini-adults, so we shouldn't approach them that way either. They really have other interests, other things they find important (socially, friends, who am I in the group) and thus also make decisions that may not be very useful from an adult's perspective. Young people know that smoking is not good for them, but it used to be seen as tough. They then weigh up what is important for my social position in the group versus I know it is unhealthy. For a young person, that social position is much more important. For an adult, health is an important consideration. So if you look at such a decision from an adult perspective, it seems incomprehensible. For a young person it makes sense.
Who are you as a researcher?
I am a developmental psychologist, and I particularly focus on adolescents within my research, but also on children. I really enjoy communicating about science, especially to children, because they have so many interests and are so curious from within themselves. Children are full of questions.
You set up a science communication project for children, which culminated in a theatre performance, Tell!
First of all, the children engage in a teaching package of four different lessons. In lesson 1, they learn 'how to ask a good question', e.g. a good question has no opinion, and it is not a closed question. Lesson 2 is about How to find and evaluate information. It is aimed at children from around 10 years old. At that age, they often get their own mobile phones, with access to the internet, without their parents knowing exactly what all they see. It is important for children to be able to assess information. What is a source? Does someone benefit if you believe in someone's message? (For example, with advertising, or messages from influencers) Or is someone an expert and we know this thanks to different sources and different values. The third lesson is about experimentation: how do you create your own information if you cannot find the answer to your question? The fourth lesson is about presenting: how do you bring out the information (the answer to your question)? It is a short scientific cycle, which the children do with their own teacher in class.
When they have done that, they come to the Hoe?Zo!Show, which is a theatre show, in which four young scientists with diverse backgrounds (from sociology to technical mathematics) are on stage. The presenter takes questions from the audience. The children do not know beforehand who gets to ask a question, and the PhD students do not know what question is coming, which makes it very exciting for everyone. The PhD students have to answer a total of 6 questions in 2 10-minute blocks, and they have to act out the answer using props. The audience judges whether the answer is explained well enough. They have to answer at least 5 questions correctly enough, If the scientists do manage to answer 5 questions correctly, they get a huge applause from the children. otherwise, they have to do a dance.
This project cuts both ways. On the one hand, we train young scientists in science communication and give them more stage experience. For grant applications and for scientific positions, it is important that they have experience in this, but there is no training or class in science communication. In the training, we teach them how to convey difficult concepts to children, how to keep their attention, how to keep their curiosity? After all, once you have fully answered a question, the magic of the question is gone. How can you keep stimulating that very curiosity and ensure that children get to work on questions themselves? How can you present your own research?
On the other hand: for the children it is an exciting theatre show where all sorts of things happen (the presenter lights his hand on fire, marshmallows fly through the room) and for the children it is fun to see real scientists on stage.
Why did you choose this format?
Today's children are the generation of the future. You can teach children a lot of interest in science. At primary school, all children are mixed up in class. Many science communication initiatives at a secondary school often focus on VWO. Whereas: science is important for everyone. Everyone has to deal with scientific outcomes and it is also important to know how different studies come about. For example, how come at the beginning of the corona crisis we were saying this about vaccination and ventilation, and a few months it's something else. How does that come about? That's important to instil in those children already, and then all children. Because everyone has to deal with that. If you understand how science works, then you also know that there is uncertainty in those studies, and that's part of it. That's why we want to reach everyone at primary school, even if you don't go into research yourself, to gain insight into that process. This is a great example of impact towards children. And thereby increasing confidence in science. In a form that is fun.
For any type of science is it interesting to present in alternative form?
In principle, any topic can be made suitable for children. Children can handle difficult concepts very well, if you explain it in a good way. For example, if you use an example, or briefly explain a difficult term, children can absorb and process a lot of information. In terms of content, you can translate any research into something a child can understand.
What we do is to give PhD students a stepping stone. There is not a training programme for impact. Incidentally, I don't think participation in the Hoe?Zo!Show will appeal to every PhD student. And it doesn't have to. Not everyone needs to be on a stage, there are lots of different ways to reach your stakeholders.
Were scientists selected to participate in the Hoe?Zo!Show?
There is limited capacity, so there was a selection beforehand. We can only train 15 PhD students a year for this national project. They come from different universities. I spoke to a lot of people. It is a big time investment for them, 2 days of training and 3 days to go to the theatres, so not possible for everyone. It is partly self-selection, and we have selected candidates. We want as diverse a group as possible with different backgrounds.
Why do you think it is important to do more than just write academic papers?
In my field, I work with young people. When it comes to them (e.g. about policy), young people often don't have a seat at the table so they are listened to less. I think I can make a case for young people from my academic expertise, and point out what is important. That way, we can help young people get off to a good start. I think scientists have an important role in this, especially for a group that is not well heard from within itself. I see that as an important responsibility from the university and from myself.
Who inspired you?
My supervisor Eveline Crone: she is really a role model for me, both in the scientific field and in science communication. She has always sought out the media, given interviews, given young people a voice and written the book 'The Adolescent Brain' to generate more understanding of young people and the unique life stage of adolescence. During my PhD, I indicated to Eveline that I wanted to do science communication. She helped me tremendously to get started with that. She received many interview requests, but could not always give all the interviews herself, sometimes I could then do one of them. I learned a lot from her, (what do you say or not say in interviews? what is useful or not?) and got a lot of good advice and opportunities through her network.
Science communication is tricky in the beginning, making your own snowball takes time and attention. And then suddenly you have momentum, you're in the right card box and get calls from journalists often. That's because I've already been in the newspapers, bit of a chicken-and-egg story. It's hard to get in the papers with your message if people don't know you.
What do you learn from impact activities that you don't learn in pure academia?
I get substantive inspiration from, for example, the questions people ask me after a lecture that I myself had not yet thought of. Veni research, the connection between society and lab research, was driven by questions people asked. So what about in the real world? Why do young people make these decisions? I get substantive inspiration from how other people think about my research.
On the other hand, I learn many skills, such as presenting, communicating your research in an understandable way, and getting people excited about your research. The latter is an important skill for a fellowship interview. Such a committee is interested in what you do, but needs to get you enthusiastic about your research. This is quite similar to getting your message across to a general audience; it requires the same type of skills. As an academic, you are mainly in your own square millimetre, and you are very enthusiastic yourself. Zooming out to bigger questions 'What do you gain from your research? What can you do with it?' ensures that others also become enthusiastic about your research.
Sometimes you need to simplify the conclusion and the message a little. It doesn't have to be untrue then, it's about the way so that another person understands it. Scientists are sometimes modest because they know what they do not yet know for sure. At some point, you also have to dare to draw the conclusion.
What would you still like to achieve in terms of impact?
I focus mainly on science communication within the Impact Board. Others are more concerned with valorisation, such as start-up hubs and setting up a company for a particular product. Science communication is often still seen as something you do in addition or something you have to be asked for, for instance in the case of a lecture or an interview. I think we can take a step forward in science communication by getting more actively involved in the debate. Policy decisions are made on the basis of available knowledge. Often scientists have a lot of knowledge on those topics and we can make that knowledge actively available by, for example, writing an opinion piece or participating in a committee.
How could you help colleagues who also want to make an impact? Or colleagues who are at the beginning of a similar journey?
There are many different ways to engage in science communication. If you want to get started, for example, you could think about setting up a Twitter account or writing blogs. If you would like to do more in the media, it is important to be seen and found by journalists first. If you see something you have expertise on, put it on Twitter and think about who you can tag in your tweet. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam also offers media training and our faculty has a press officer. Get in touch with these people sometime so they know you have expertise on a particular topic and can ask you to do an interview if they get a request.