Research Internship Report Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

(1)

Research Internship Report

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

September 2020 – January 2021

Gilian Noord S2988542

ReMa Linguistics (Language and Cognition) University of Groningen

Research Master’s Internship Linguistics (LTR000M25) Supervison:

Prof.dr. Tom Koole (internal, University of Groningen)

Prof.dr. Hedwig te Molder (external, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Lotte van Burgsteden (external, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

(2)

2

1 Introduction

In this report I will describe my research internship at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, which took place between September 2020 and February 2021. When I started with the ReMa program Language & Cognition in September 2019, I did not thought the internship would take the form it eventually took. The reason for this is the COVID-19 pandemic and all its corresponding measurements. Even in March 2020 I was still planning to do an internship at a research institute abroad and this was something I really looked forward to as early as I started with the ReMa program. However, it soon turned out that the COVID-19 pandemic made it impossible to pursue this idea and that it would be more suitable to do an internship at a research institute in the Netherlands. Despite I was somewhat disappointed with it, it lessened potential practical issue (such as moving abroad, finding housing, etc.) in the sense that it would be more feasible to find housing in the Netherlands or travel from my home in Groningen to the specific research institute. However, my home in Groningen appeared to function as a reasonable working place during the whole course of my internship after all. Looking back now, I am actually quite glad I did my internship ‘from home’ during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the course of my BA in Communication Sciences I got interested in doing qualitative communication related research, especially in using Conversation Analysis (CA) in analysing talk in social interaction. After I got the opportunity to exploit this interest in the ReMa Language & Cognition, I noticed that not all interactional data are suitable for strict (sequential) CA-analyses. Therefore, I got more acquainted with the relating approach of Discursive Psychology (DP). These two concepts, or more specifically how DP could enhance and reinforce CA, became my primary criterium in searching a research institute in which I could do my internship. After I expressed my interests described above to my internal supervisor prof.dr. Tom Koole, he suggested I should approach prof.dr. Hedwig te Molder of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. I emailed her by asking whether there would be possibilities to do my internship there. Hedwig eventually informed Lotte van Burgsteden, who is a PhD student using CA and DP in working on a project there, that I was interested in doing an internship. I was very delighted when Lotte emailed me with the announcement that she was positive regarding supervising such an internship and subsequently everything was arranged quite quickly.

On the 1st_{of September 2020 my internship at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam}

started, although I worked almost always at my trusted dorm room in Groningen. The internship was planned for five days a week from September 1 2020 until February 1 2021, which added up to 700 hours (25 ECTS) in total.

In this report I will start with describing the placement providing organization and the project I worked on during my internship (chapter 2). In chapter 3 I will elaborate on what my main tasks and responsibilities were and in chapter 4 I will critically reflect on the learning outcomes I have listed in my placement workplan prior to the start of my internship. Eventually, in chapter 5, I will end up with some concluding remarks.

(4)

4

2 Description of placement providing organization &

project

2.1 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

The Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (hereafter abbreviated as VU) is a university founded in 1880, located in Amsterdam. The literal translation of the Dutch name is ‘Free University’ in which ‘free’ refers to independence from the State and the Dutch Reformed Church. Despite the fact the VU is founded as a private institution and pursues independence from the State, the university has received government funding since 1970. The university is located on a campus in the southern Buitenveldert neighbourhood of Amsterdam, close to the modern Zuidas business district. However, unfortunately due to the COVID-19 restrictions I did not get the opportunity to visit the VU on site during the period of my internship.

The VU is ranked among the world’s top 150 universities by four major ranking tables (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2020) which demonstrates the university’s high quality of research and education. Besides that, it is said that at the VU scientific research and society go hand in hand, resulting in an excellent scientific and societal impact.

2.2 Department of Language, Literature and Communication

The department of Language, Literature and Communication is part of the Faculty of Humanities which conducts research (and provides education) in the fields of language, cognition, literature, information and communication. The vision of the department connects seamlessly to the overall vision of the VU, namely it attaches great importance to social value of its research results. New insights resulting from scientific research are translated into practical applications in, for instance, healthcare and education. For this exact reason, the department also takes part in the Dutch National Research Agenda.

The department focuses on multiple aspects in linguistic enquiry, but for my internship the field of communication was most relevant. Both my external supervisors are affiliated with the (sub)department of communication sciences in which the focus is (roughly said) on the role of media and communication technologies in connections between individuals, organisations and society. Research in this department is often conducted in close collaboration with scientists withing the Faculty of Social Sciences. Moreover, the staff of the department are highly regarded in the international community. Again, the knowledge gained by researchers within this department are often applied to social domains.

2.3 Project: Talk in Action! Towards a constructive dialogue between stakeholders on livestock-related zoonoses

The project I assisted on during my internship is a project focusing on the debate concerning intensive livestock farming in the Netherlands. Intensive livestock farming is quite a controversial debate in the Netherlands, especially regarding public health and the contribution livestock farming has on climate change. In the past years multiple meetings between different stakeholders took place, and it appeared that these meetings did not include ‘easy’ and ‘smooth’ conversations. Namely, the debate

(5)

5

is centred around a ‘wicked problem’: a problem characterized with a lot of scientific insecurities, carrying a lot of different interests and missing a consensus regarding a possible solution. These different perceptions, interests, concerns, etc. among the stakeholders often remain hidden. The current project is aimed at analysing meetings and interviews between stakeholders in order to expose these hidden concerns and interests.

My external supervisors (prof.dr. Hedwig te Molder and Lotte van Burgsteden) are (together with others) carrying out this project. Prof.dr. Hedwig te Molder is one of the project leaders and Lotte van Burgsteden carries out her PhD-research within this project. In close collaboration with the GGD (Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdienst), the RIVM (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu) and the VU medical centre the project aims at developing a dialogue training in which professionals will be trained to effectively communicate with stakeholders carrying different interests, concerns, worries, etc.

The data I worked on during my internship included public and stakeholder meetings centred around the debate of intensive livestock farming. These are data collected and transcribed by Lotte van Burgsteden which form the basis of her ‘share’ in the overall project. It is quite a diverse dataset: it includes several meetings between active citizens who ‘fight’ against the growth of intensive livestock farming, meetings between farmers on how to cope with societal resistance, meetings between scientists and citizens focusing on health risks of intensive livestock farming, meetings between (scientific) experts discussing the daily businesses they have to deal with, meetings between farmers and local residents discussing their thoughts and concerns regarding (local) intensive livestock farming and meetings in a political setting centred around legislation farmers have to deal with. My exact tasks and responsibilities regarding working on these data will be described in further detail below.

3 Description of student’s tasks and responsibilities

The current section includes a description of the several tasks I had during my internship. Although it seems that all tasks are conducted in a chronological order, this is most definitely not the case. For instance tasks 2 (compiling a collection) and 3 (data analysis) are not two tasks to be conducted completely separated from each other, but rather go hand in hand.

1. Familiarizing myself with the data and the literature on CA, MCA, DP and the institutional settings

Already before the start of my internship, it was clear that I would use the methods of Discursive Psychology (DP) and Conversation Analysis (CA) for analysing the data. DP regards discourse (both text and talk) as social practices, central to social life (Potter & Edwards, 2001) and CA focuses on describing the fundamental rules of conversational organization and aims at revealing how interaction participants give meaning to what they say and do (Sidnell, 2010). Crucial in this focus is that conversations consist of normative structures (Heritage & Clayman, 2011) and that during interaction speakers always act to a certain cooperative principle (Grice, 1975). The principle dictates that every contribution to a conversation is adapted to previous turns and that every contribution is adapted to the overall (larger) goal of the interaction. Therefore, it is unavoidable that the different institutional settings within the data all have different influences on the interaction, mainly because each institutional context has different

(6)

6

pre-described goals (Drew & Heritage, 1992; Heritage & Clayman, 2011). For this reason it was crucial to familiarize myself with the different (complex) institutional settings. Articles from Barnes et al. (2004), Buttny (2010) and Gibson (2011) turned out to be extremely helpful in this process of understanding how the institutional setting of a public hearing/debate could influence the interaction.

Also prior to the start of the internship, Lotte suggested it would be feasible to use the method of Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) as a tool to analyse the data because there is a lot of category-work going on in it. This was something Lotte already made a start with a while ago but never got the opportunity to elaborate on. MCA is one of the two notions Harvey Sacks (the founding father of CA) introduced in his pioneering work in the 1960s and 70s, but it is the other notion (sequential analysis) which formed the basis of the majority of CA research (Ten Have, 2004). MCA was for a long time put in the background of CA-related research. This presumably caused my relative unfamiliarity with the exact concept of MCA and forced me to focus on early works of Sacks (1972a, 1972b, 1992a, 1992b). Besides these early works, more recent work by Elizabeth Stokoe (for instance Stokoe (2012) and Stokoe & Attenborough (2017)), who is said to be ‘the’ MCA-researcher in the world of CA and DP, were extremely helpful and inspiring.

Besides familiarizing myself with relevant literature regarding the research methods, I spend by far the most time on familiarizing myself with the data during the first months of my internship. Basically this included watching and listening to all the recorded meetings, multiple times, while simultaneously reading along the already available transcripts.

2. Compiling and adjusting a collection

To be able to conduct a CA-study on the ways stakeholders do category-work during the meetings, a collection of all the instances in which the stakeholders do category-work has to be made. In the final stages of familiarizing myself with the data, I already marked all the instances in which the stakeholders ‘use’ the categories ‘farmer’ and ‘citizen’. However, as it turned out, these two categories are not so clear cut as they seem to be. The stakeholders for instance can use the category ‘entrepreneur’ in referring to a farmer and use the category ‘resident’ in referring to a citizen. Nevertheless, all these different kinds of category-work were included, resulting in a collection of 93 instances.

A collection remains a collection of individual cases (Mazeland, 2012). The goal of an ultimate analysis should be on describing a pattern which empirically plays a role in the ways speakers achieve certain goals withing the ongoing interaction. By using a collection of 93 (diverse) cases, this latter would not be feasible yet. Finding an interesting focus for further analyses (hence reducing the collection) included an intensive progress and went hand in hand with in-between (small) analyses of the excerpts.

First, I looked at all the different predicates that were (overtly) bound to the categories made relevant in all the excerpts to see whether there would be anything interesting in that. It could be for instance that one specific predicate is omnipresent bound to one category while another (more opposing) predicate is omnipresent bound to another category. However, it seemed the case that there is no such structure in the predicates bound to the categories.

Second, I excluded all the instances in which speakers referred to the category ‘citizen’ from the collection. We noted that this category turned out to be quite a complex category with multiple equivalents (resident, people, consumer, etc.),

(7)

7

counterworking the feasibility of a further analysis. A collection of 52 instances remained.

Third, I divided this collection in two parts: (a) a collection of instances including the category ‘farmer’ and (b) a collection of instances including the category ‘entrepreneur’. However, after some small exploring analyses it turned out that such a distinction between these categories is not completely just. A lot of instances include both categories and no overall pattern was observable in both subcollections. Therefore, both collections were eventually merged again.

Fourth, inspired by an article by Barnes et al. (2004) we decided to only focus on instance of self-categorizations by farmers. This resulted in a collection of 22 instances in which farmers categorize themselves, either as ‘farmer’ or as ‘entrepreneur’. This collection eventually formed the basis of the ultimate focus of the analysis.

During this process (and during the process of data analysis described below) the overview Stokoe (2012, p.280) offers regarding 5 basic guiding principles for conducting MCA was extremely helpful.

3. Analysing the data & article preparation

After the final collection of excerpts was completed and also during the whole process of compiling a collection, data analysis was the major and most intensive task of my internship. From mid-November onwards, I (almost) weekly completed a (small) analysis of some excerpts of the collection composed at the time. I discussed these analyses with Lotte on a weekly basis and sporadically with Tom Koole. These analyses guided the ongoing process of adjusting the collection until the collection of self-categorizations by farmers was completed. From that moment (early December) the collection did not change (drastically) which offered the possibility to extensively analyse the excerpts in the collection to find an interesting pattern.

During the whole analysis-process the analysis was written down in a format that mirrors how CA-studies in academic articles present their analyses. This required me to also take a thorough look on how other (M)CA-studies presented their analyses in a clear and comprehensible way. Eventually, unfortunately, the completion of an article did not turn out to be feasible within the time of my internship, but perhaps this is something we can still accomplish after my internship.

4. Attending and preparing data-sessions

A frequent activity for CA-researchers is organizing and attending data-sessions. These data-sessions provide an opportunity for researchers to present small excerpts of their data to peers in order to discuss about whatever seems (interactionally) interesting in these excerpts. In this way, researchers can come to completely new insights and be pointed out to interesting occurrences in their excerpts they would not have thought of themselves because they are already ‘too deep’ in their data. On the other hand, attending such data-sessions and looking at others’ data can also be considered as a training in data-analysis and furthermore is a lot of fun to do in the first place.

During my internship I attended a couple of such data-sessions and also got the opportunity to present some data in two sessions myself. These sessions required some preparation: ‘which excerpts do I want to present?’, ‘what do I ask to the attendees?’, ‘how do I present my data?’, etc. After all, I experienced these sessions as extremely amusing and moreover as extremely helpful in the course of the analysis: several remarks during these sessions really helped me further with the data-analysis.

(8)

8

4 Evaluation of the internship

In this chapter I will critically evaluate my internship in terms of how the internship fits into the overall ReMa-program (4.1), what I learned and how I developed myself during the internship (4.2), how I experienced the supervision (4.3) and how the internship fits into my ambition for pursuing a career in academia (4.4).

4.1 Internship as part of the ReMa

The ReMa-internship is an obligatory part of the ReMa Language & Cognition program. The research internship can be carried out at any (relevant) research institute and students are encouraged to pick an institution that matches their own interests within the field of linguistics and can provide the student with relevant research learning opportunities. As I have noted in chapter 1, my interest lies with analysing talk in social interaction using the method of Conversation Analysis. My internship matched my interest perfectly, but I feel that also my course-selection within the ReMa-program perfectly prepared me for this internship. Relevant courses I took prior to my internship were:

(i) Discourse Analysis which taught me various approaches to the study of discourse and in which I composed a small project on how identity-construction can be analysed.

(ii) Interaction Quality in Professional Communication which provided me with the knowledge on how to set up and conduct my own CA-study.

(iii) Research Training, during which I learned on how to assist with writing an academic (publishable) CA-article.

The internship opportunity at the VU offered me the possibility to exploit my overall research interests and to expand on the overall background I was provided with by the ReMa-program prior to the internship.

4.2 Learning outcomes

In the placement work plan I submitted before the start of my internship, I listed 12 learning outcomes. Some of these outcomes were taken verbatim from the OER (Teaching and Examination Regulations) from the ReMa Language & Cognition and some were described in more specific terms aimed at my internship. In this sub-section I will critically reflect on these learning goals.

Knowledge and understanding

1.1 Gaining thorough knowledge of one theoretical and methodological approach within linguistics.

1.2 Gaining knowledge of the latest developments in linguistics.

1.3 Gaining knowledge of using Conversation Analysis (CA) and Discursive Psychology (DP) in linguistic research.

During my internship I definitely enhanced my knowledge of CA and DP and moreover deepened my knowledge of CA by providing me with a background of MCA. It offered me the opportunity to work with a very complex type of data, which is significantly different from (more structured) other institutional interactional settings I worked with before. The ‘nature’ of this data enabled me (or perhaps even forced me) to turn more to DP and MCA in order to be able to understand and analyse the data in the first

(9)

9

place. Especially learning goal 1.2 is of interest here. Because CA and MCA drifted somewhat apart since Harvey Sacks introduced the concept of MCA, one latest development in CA-research is that some researchers are making a careful attempt to merge these concepts together again. Now, I will not claim that I made a significant contribution to this latest development, but it was certainly interesting to see how our research project would fit into this latest development.

Applying knowledge and understanding

2.1 The ability to add up to knowledge in the research fields of CA and DP.

2.2 The ability to implement the results of linguistic research in the concerning public debate.

With writing the analysis, I think that I (potentially) made an original contribution to the research fields of CA, DP and MCA in the sense that it uses these methodological concepts in focusing on a social relevant issue and uses these approaches to analyse complex linguistic data. Although finishing a publishable academic article did not turn out to feasible within the time frame of my internship, I hope to complete an article together with Lotte in the near future so that it can be read by fellow researchers of interaction and other scholars interested in the public debate of intensive livestock farming.

Making Judgements

3.1 The ability to make use of the research results of others and evaluate these critically. 3.2 The ability to make connections between own specialist knowledge of a subdiscipline of linguistics and other related disciplines, for example psychology, neurology or

information science.

During the whole course of my internship, reading articles and reviewing research results of others was a prominent activity. During the course of reading literature, I feel like I really progressed in the way I read these articles. This is mainly because it was very hard to find literature that seamlessly connects to our research question. Therefore, every time I read an article I had to question myself whether it would be relevant and/or useful for the current research project. Because the data I worked on was quite complex and in some sense ‘uncommon’ that I had to be very careful in using others’ research results (that were based on other (kinds of) data) in understanding the data at hand. Therefore I was quite forced to be very critical while reading literature.

With regard to learning outcome 3.2, I think my internship made a fine connection with the discipline of psychology in the sense that it focused on analysing discourse as a social practice. The data at hand offered me the opportunity to use DP and hence add a more psychological layer to the data-analysis, which is something I did not had extensive experience with beforehand.

Communication

4.1 The ability to actively participate in a research group working on an academic project. 4.2 The ability to work with others on an academic project.

4.3 The ability to participate in the international academic debate.

During my internship I did not really participated in a relatively large research group working on an academic project but mainly worked together with Lotte on her project. Besides that, I also do not have the feeling I participated in the international academic debate. Despite the fact this is in some way quite ‘disappointing’ from my site, these limitations are most probably the result of the COVID-19 measurements implemented in the time frame of my internship. Due to these measurements the vast majority of the

(10)

10

meetings took place online and visiting the VU was impossible. Perhaps if I got the opportunity to work on site and as a result of that met new people face-to-face and, for instance, could speak more to other members of the department at the VU I could more positively reflect upon these learning outcomes. However, despite this all, I think we made the best of it in terms of communicating with each other and working together, which I experienced as very pleasant and from which I learned quite a lot.

Learning skills

5.1 The ability to keep abreast of the latest developments in linguistics and broaden and deepen their own knowledge and understanding.

5.2 The ability to reflect on the implications of one’s work for the development of linguistic theories.

As I mentioned before, I extensively read relevant literature during my internship which trained me to critically reflect upon these readings in asking whether it would be useful for the current study. Moreover, by using MCA it offered me the possibility to ‘contribute’ to recent developments in CA-research which consequently opened my eyes in terms of how to do this, why it would be useful to do this and how others could benefit from it. Learning outcome 5.2 connects seamlessly to this. As I mentioned before while reflecting upon learning outcome 3.1, I feel I progressed in the way how I should interpret others’ results in terms of how useful and relevant these would be in the scope of our project. I think parallel to this runs I progressed in the way how I reflect upon others’ result in terms of how they (could) contribute to recent developments in CA, DP and MCA studies. This is something I was not actively occupied with before my internship: I used to regard most CA-theories as mainly static theories and was not always aware of the latest developments in CA-research.

4.3 Supervision

Personally, I am very happy with the supervision I received during my internship. I experienced my weekly meetings with Lotte as very pleasant and our discussions during these meetings and her constructive feedback to my drafts as very supportive and motivating. Also during my regular meetings with Tom I felt absolutely supported and appreciated. Besides that, I really appreciate Tom always willing to provide me with new ideas and suggestions while not directly benefiting from the research project at hand. Although I did not get the opportunity to frequently meet with Hedwig, I nevertheless really appreciate her role in my internship, the confidence she had in the internship and of course the role she had in setting up the internship in the first place.

In general, I want to express my gratitude to everyone who was willing to work with me during my internship. Definitely without your help, my experience during the internship would not even come close to how it went now.

4.4 Career development

The obligatory ReMa internship provides students with the whole experience of the daily life of a researcher. As I have frequently heard from me fellow ReMa-students, the internship is basically the final acknowledgement of their ambitions in pursuing a career in academia. Although I may have not received the ‘full authentic’ experience as a researcher (due to COVID-19) it did confirm my ambition to eventually pursue a PhD position. By gathering plenty of relevant knowledge and by working closely together with a PhD-candidate, I think the internship contributed to preparing me for such a continuation of my career in academia.

(11)

11

5 Conclusion

Every now and then the internship caused some stress and faced me with headache-causing (analytical) challenges. Nevertheless, as bad as that sounds, I have absolute no regrets in the internship I have chosen; I guess these things are basically part of the job. Despite the fact the COVID-19 pandemic threw quite a spanner in the works, I think that, in the end, we absolutely made the best of it. Looking back, I feel like I learned more than I anticipated on beforehand and developed quite well in terms of carrying out linguistic research.

In addition to that, doing the internship from my dorm room faced me with multiple other challenges as well. Sometimes it was quite hard to be productive and it forced me to actively induce discipline to work hard. Therefore, despite the fact the COVID-19 has to be regarded as a very negative influence during my internship, it brought me more than I expected in advance.

As I mentioned earlier, I am really convinced that this internship provided me with the relevant knowledge needed to pursue a further career in academia, as it seamlessly connected to my personal interests within linguistics. However, I want to emphasize here that this internship report not necessarily marks the end of my involvement in the project we worked on during my internship. I hope that, in the near future, we will finish a complete article and eventually submit it to an academic journal.

I want to end with some words of appreciation. I want to thank everyone involved in my internship, especially Lotte, Tom and Hedwig for offering me the possibility to do the internship, for the confidence you have put in me and for always supporting me during my internship. To everyone it may concern: thanks a lot for the incredible experience!

6 References

Barnes, R., Auburn, T., & Lea S. (2004). Citizenship in practice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 187-206.

Buttny, R. (2010). Citizen Participation, Metadiscourse, and Accountability: A Public Hearing on a Zoning Change for Wal-Mart. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 636–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01507.x.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gibson, S. (2011). Dilemmas of citizenship: Young people’s conceptions of un/employment rights and responsibilities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610x520113. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax

and Semantics. Vol 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action. Hoboken, NJ, United States: Wiley. Mazeland, H. (2012). Inleiding in de conversatie-analyse. Bussum: Coutinho.

(12)

12

Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2001). Discursive social psychology. In P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 103– 118). London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Sacks, H. (1972a). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication (pp. 325-345). New York: Rinehart & Winston.

Sacks, H. (1972b). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31-74). New York: Free Press.

Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on conversation Vol. I, (Fall 1964–Spring 1968) Oxford: Blackwell.

Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on conversation Vol. II, (Fall 1968-Spring 1972). Oxford: Blackwell.

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis. Hoboken, United States: Wiley.

Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277-303.

Stokoe, E., & Attenborough, F. (2017). Prospective and Retrospective Categorisation: Category Proffers and Inferences in Social Interaction and Rolling News Media. In R. Fitzgerald & W. Housley (Eds.), Advances in Membership Categorization Analysis (pp. 51-70). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology. London: SAGE Publications.

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. (2020). Reputation and ranking. https://www.vu.nl/en/about-vu-amsterdam/mission-and-profile/reputation-and-ranking/index.aspx.

Research Internship Report Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam