Being an academic researcher is demanding and often frustrating. You have to write grant applications with an often extremely low chance of getting funding; you have to conduct research that often does not produce the results that you expected and hoped for; and you have to write and submit papers to journals that accept only one in every 10 or 20 papers that they receive. So why exactly do you want to become a researcher and how can you prevent from becoming disappointed and giving up? How can you maintain motivated for the years to come?

It probably is not the salary – although I am the last one to complain about that – and also not the societal prestige that academics once had but that is greatly diminished because of cases of fraud, suspect research integrity, and the lack of replication of research findings. Probably, the most important reason is the intrinsic motivation to want to know. At least, this was the main reason why I started to work as an academic and what kept me enthusiastic and motivated to stay ‘in the business’ for more than 30 years now. Doing research is the most fulfilling and rewarding when it is driven by a genuine desire to want to find out how things are, how they work and why they work the way they do: the pleasure itself of finding out. And it becomes even more rewarding when your will to know is applied to questions and issues that really matter to you, about which you feel passionate. If you feel passionate about something then you are genuinely engaged. You think about it all the time and you are not afraid to work for it even when it takes a lot of effort. In my case this meant a research focus on questions of ethnic identity, racism and cultural diversity.  

So it is a combination of wanting to know and passion, whereby the latter serves the interest of the former. Passion is important but in the end being a researcher is about finding things out. Feeling passionate about something provides an important drive for wanting to know. But it might also obscure and bias your vision and thereby makes the research more about you (it becomes subjective) than about the object that you study (object-oriented). This, of course, should always be avoided because it not only means that you are misleading others but also fooling yourself.

Doing something because you are intrinsically motivated is much more fulfilling and rewarding and leads to better work than doing it for external reasons. As Steve Jobs once said: “Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do”. The trick is to see and experience your research not as a job that you do for external reasons (e.g., tenured position) but rather as something that you do because you simply love to do it. This is of course not always possible and there can be academic and non-academic circumstances and conditions that make it difficult. But on balance it has to go in the direction of loving to do it rather than  having to do it. The good news is that this is much more easy in academic research which typically requires creativity than in non-academic work that often is mostly routine. In addition, I have some suggestions that over years have helped me to keep the balance right. I give them in no particular order.  

1. Ask the right questions: those that matter, and that are not too simple or too complex.
2. Step out of the ivory academic tower as much as possible. Follow the news, talk and listen to common people, to spokespersons, and to politicians. It is in the social world that the real action is and not in your experimental lab or survey data.  
3. Keep on thinking (concepts, theories) rather than only doing (methods and statistics). Make sure that the research is more than applying again and again the same ‘trick’ that you have learned.
4. Be multidisciplinary, at the very least in what you read.
5. Try novel things, learn and use new methods, develop new ideas.
6. Read, listen to, and cooperate with inspiring people.

 

In recent days the news about PSV Eindhoven fans throwing coins to Madrid beggars has been perceived as scandalous and unacceptable (Quinn, 2016). The victims of the incident were Roma, who are associated with poverty and inhuman treatment wherever they live. This makes  investigating the case of the Roma more important  as the Roma in different countries share the same fate.

As a European minority, the Roma arouse attention of the EU especially with the membership of the Central Eastern countries that have  significant Romani population. Yet, the Roma in Turkey have not engaged the interest of neither academia, nor international institutions. However, according to unofficial estimates of NGOs, with around 6 million[1] Turkey has the largest Romani population among European countries.  So, where  this European minority situated in a non-European country?

It must be stated that the Roma in Turkey have sub-identities, named as “Çalgar, Mangosür, Gevende, Karaçi,  and Mıtrıp” (Marsh, 2008: 21) However, the supra-identity of the Roma is Turk, rather than Roma.  Similarly, the Roma have religious diversity, but the majority of them are Sunni, while there are Alevi Roma, as well. In my fieldwork in Turkey a Romani NGOs representative stated that

‘We are attached to the State and the flag of Turkey. Our young ones join Turkish army, we are Muslims. If you go to the poorest Romani neighbourhoods, you will see that people live in tents but they have Turkish flag over their tents’

Indeed this was the case in Romani neighbourhoods.  The Roma, despite all the poverty they experience, they have strongly committed themselves to the State and the Turkish identity.

Romani meetings and awareness of Romani identity

In 2010, the previous Prime Minister Erdoğan met with Romani NGOs representative and apologized to Romani citizens of Turkey, because they could not benefit from citizenship rights properly.  This meeting was part of a series of Romani meetings and it aimed to provide equal conditions for the Roma so as to benefit basic citizenship rights. The policy areas that need action were listed as education, housing, health, employment, discrimination and prejudice. Although many meetings were organized since then, the practical change is very limited. While some policies have ended up with disappointment, such as housing, others are still waiting in the ‘to do list’ of the government.

In spite of this the Romani meeting were a breaking point for the Roma about the perception of their own identity. Kara Arus (2014) stated that identity awareness of the Roma has occurred after Romani meeting. Similarly, the Romani activist Hacer Foggo states that the Romani meeting created awareness for the Roma (Bozan, 2014). While the Roma vocalized that they are Turkish, after the meeting they started to declare their own language and culture.

Kara Arus (2014) describes the Romani meeting in 2010 as
 “the Roma came with Turkey straps and shouting “we are Turks, we are Muslims” slogans. I wish you could see the face of the Roma, while they heard that the Minister stated that the Roma migrated from India in 9^th century”. The awareness of Romani culture for the Roma has started after this Romani meeting”.    

The importance of the formation of Romani identity is better understood by looking at the history of Romani movement. The first Romani association established in 1996, named Romani Cooperation and Solidarity Association, was closed because it used the term ‘Roma’. From the point of being unable to use the name of the Roma, to the point to the apology of the Prime Minister, the identity awareness of the Roma has increased.  From 1996 to 2016 the number of Romani NGOs have increased to around 300, even if some of these  associations are not efficient.

Although Romani identity in Turkey is still squezeed between Romani identity and Turkish identity, because of the nationalist reaction of Turkey, the Roma still emphasise commonalities with Turks more than the Roma in other countries so as to protect themselves. Due to the of the fear to be seen as a threat to the country, they always define themselves firstly Turks then the Roma. In accordance with that definition, their demand covers benefiting from equal citizenship rights. Therefore, there is a need for further research to understand the extent to which they are able to access equal citizenship rights.

References
Bozan, I. (2014). Roman Aciliminin Neresindeyiz? (Where did we come from Romani meeting?), Al Jazeera Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/blog/roman-aciliminin-neresindeyiz
Kara Arus, E. (2014). Çingenelerde kimlik bilinci Roman açılımıyla oluştu (The Romani awareness of identity has formed by Romani meetings). Sıfır Ayrımcılık Derneği (Zero Discrimination Association). Retrieved fromhttp://www.sifirayrimcilik.org/2014/02/cingenelerde-kimlik-bilinci-roman-acilimiyla-olustu/#more-292
Marsh, A. 2008. Etnisite ve Kimlik: Cingenelerin Kokeni ( Etnicity and Identity: The Roots of Gypsies). Istanbul: Mart Matbaacilik. http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/media/03/98/m00000398.pdf (June 21, 2015).
Quinn, B. (2016, March 16). PSV Eindhoven vow to find fans who treated Madrid beggars ’like animals. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/16/psv-eindhoven-vow-to-find-fans-who-treated-madrid-beggars-like-animals

---

We are looking forward to your contributions as short articles for our Newsletter's Fall 2016 Issue Theme: Using Social Media Data in Political Psychology Research

EASP Medium Size Meeting on the Psychology of Political Ideology: Insights from Intergroup Approaches

Thursday, 23.06.2016 til Sunday, 26.06.2016
Oppurg

Organisers: Jutta Proch & Thomas Kessler 
Contact: Jutta Proch at Jutta.Proch@uni-jena.de

The aim of the EASP medium sized meeting is to bring together researchers who are interested in the tricky relation between political ideology and psychological processes. One main question is whether psychological dispositions filter and constrain political attitudes.

Important insights into this question have been made by focusing on the relation between individual differences in the psychological disposition of people (e.g., rigidity, risk aversion) and their susceptibility to particular ideological content. We attempt to complement such a hitherto emphasis on individual dispositions, by focusing on political ideology through the lenses of intergroup approaches. Are ideologies also shaped by group processes, such as group identities, ingroup cohesion and transmission biases?

Moreover, in recent years, research on individual differences between conservatives and liberals has been criticized as “politicized psychology” and wishful thinking. Here, we may discuss the potential of group processes on biased perceptions and perspective divergences as well as their effect on social and political psychological research itself. We also would like to discuss meta-theoretical questions, such as how to take researcher’s potential biases into account, and whether unbiased political psychological theory is possible.

The format of this medium-size meeting is single-session, with a strong focus on intensive discussion of unresolved underlying issues reflected in the schedule.

Thursday, 21.07.2016 til Sunday, 24.07.2016
Cologne

Organizers: Christian Unkelbach, Anne Gast, Sascha Topolinski, Pablo Briñol, Geoff Haddock, Rob Holland, Greg Maio, Rich Petty, Duane Wegener

Contact: Christian Unkelbach, christian.unkelbach@uni-koeln.de 

Our evaluations towards objects in the world can be based on two completely different types of sources. On the one hand, attitudes can be based on one’s own experience (e.g., mere exposure; conditioning). On the other hand, attitudes can be based on information that is shared by third parties (e.g., persuasion; social media). Although the distinction between experience versus information has been around for a longtime, recent years have seen a rise in relevant theorizing and empirical research, for example in work on attitude strength, evaluative conditioning, embodied cognition, dual and single process models, automaticity, risk seeking, and the effects of social media. While these topics all relate to the distinction of experience based and information based attitudes, approaches and terminology vary largely. We hope that the meeting on experience-based versus information-based attitude processes will contribute to developing a common understanding and mutual exchange, and encourages new collaborations for future research.

Monday, 11.07.2016 til Wednesday, 13.07.2016
University of Connecticut, Storrs

Organisers: Rupert Brown and Mark Walters (Sussex University), 
Blair T. Johnson and Megan Iacocca (University of Connecticut)

The problem of hate crime (bias crime) in many societies is regrettably growing rather than diminishing. In Europe and the US increases over the past two years have been observed, many of these incidents following international ‘trigger events’ including major geo-political conflicts and/or high profile terrorist attacks. Hate crime is a significant concern to policy-makers and social scientists alike, not least because of the deleterious effects it has on those directly victimised, but also because it is commonly assumed that incidents have harmful indirect impacts on other members of the victim’s identity group and on societal cohesion more generally. 

Given the globalised nature of hate crime, with all its social psychological, political, criminological and legal ramifications, we believe it is imperative that an international and multidisciplinary approach be adopted. Thus, we invite behavioural scientists, legal scholars, criminologists, political scientists, social workers, human rights scholars, and policy-makers to take part. As well as established researchers, we hope also to attract doctoral and postdoctoral scholars so that they may benefit from exchanging ideas and study results with their more senior colleagues. 

A variety of presentation formats are envisaged. The majority will comprise 30 minute presentations followed by a period of questions and discussion. There may also be some panel discussions in which panel members will have a few minutes to outline a new research agenda or theoretical perspective, followed by a wider discussion amongst participants. We intend to exploit both the small size of the meeting and the extensive time available to us to facilitate as much productive discussion as possible. Attendees will hear about new hate crime research and will be able to network with leading experts outside of psychology, swap ideas across jurisdictions and between disciplines, and form new research collaborations.

Thanks to SPSSI/EASP support, we are able to cover the accommodation and subsistence costs of all participants, leaving them only to find travel costs from their own resources. Graduate students, faculty members, and policy makers are all invited to apply for attendance.

• Kudos Columns from Dr Gizem Arikan from Yasar University, Turkey (http://www.ispp.org/ecc/blog/kudos-column-dr.-gizem-arikan) and Dr Gavin Sullivan from Coventry Univeristy, United Kingdom (http://www.ispp.org/ecc/blog/kudos-column-dr.-gavin-brent-sullivan)
• Articles written by ECC member Kanica Rakhra on the interlink between Prestige and Security (http://www.ispp.org/ecc/blog/prestige-and-security-separate-or-interlinked) and by PhD candidate Meta Van der Linden on Trust and Ethnic Diversity (http://www.ispp.org/ecc/blog/an-interdisciplinary-perspective-on-the-consequences-of-ethnic-diversity-fo)
• Call for Articles for the Journal of Social Sciences (http://www.ispp.org/ecc/blog/call-for-articles-immigration-and-identities-race-and-ethnicity-in-a-changi) and Social Justice Research (http://www.ispp.org/ecc/blog/call-for-papers-special-issue-of-social-justice-research)