Zoekresultaat: 825 artikelen

x
Thema-artikel

Verantwoorde algoritmisering: zorgen waardengevoeligheid en transparantie voor meer vertrouwen in algoritmische besluitvorming?

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden algorithms, algorithmization, value-sensitivity, transparency, trust
Auteurs Dr. Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen en Prof. dr. Albert Meijer
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Algorithms are starting to play an increasingly prominent role in government organizations. The argument is that algorithms can make more objective and efficient decisions than humans. At the same time, recent scandals have highlighted that there are still many problems connected to algorithms in the public sector. There is an increasing emphasis on ethical requirements for algorithms and we aim to connect these requirements to insights from public administration on the use of technologies in the public sector. We stress the need for responsible algorithmization – responsible organizational practices around the use of algorithms – and argue that this is needed to maintain the trust of citizens. We present two key components of responsible algorithmization – value-sensitivity and transparency – and show how these components connect to algorithmization and can contribute to citizen trust. We end the article with an agenda for research into the relation between responsible algorithmization and trust.


Dr. Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen
Dr. S.G. Grimmelikhuijsen is universitair hoofddocent Publiek Management aan de Universiteit Utrecht, Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap.

Prof. dr. Albert Meijer
Prof. dr. A.J. Meijer is hoogleraar Publiek Management aan de Universiteit Utrecht, Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap.
Thema-artikel

Inzicht in transparantie

Een essay over trade-offs achter algoritmische besluitvorming

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden transparency, value conflict, algorithms, trade-offs, public values, ethics
Auteurs Joanna Strycharz Msc, Dr. ir. Bauke Steenhuisen en Dr. Haiko van der Voort
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Algorithms applied in public administration are often criticized for lack of transparency. Lawmakers and citizens alike expect that automated decisions based on algorithmic recommendations to be explainable. The focus of this article is the organizational context behind the idea of transparent algorithms. Transparency is portrayed as one of numerous values that are at play when algorithms are applied in public administration. The article shows that applying algorithms may lead to conflicts between these values. Such conflicts often result in trade-off decisions. Looking from the organizational perspective, we describe how such trade-offs can be made both explicitly and implicitly. The article thus shows the complexity of algorithmic trade-offs. As a result of this complexity, we not only call for more transparency about algorithms, but also more transparency about trade-offs that take place in public administration. Finally, we present a research agenda focused on studying the organization of trade-offs.


Joanna Strycharz Msc
J. Strycharz, Msc is universitair docent Persuasive Communication aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, Faculteit Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen.

Dr. ir. Bauke Steenhuisen
Dr. ir. B.S. Steenhuisen is universitair docent Organisatie & Governance aan de TU Delft, Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management.

Dr. Haiko van der Voort
Dr. H.G. van der Voort is universitair docent Organisatie & Governance aan de TU Delft, Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management.
Dissertatie

Breaking the bank

The regulatory implications of knowledge production through indicators

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 4 2020
Auteurs Shirley Kempeneer

Shirley Kempeneer
Titel

Transparantie en Explainable Artificial Intelligence: beperkingen en strategieën

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden transparency, Explainable artificial intelligence, Algorithms
Auteurs Prof. mr. dr. Hans de Bruijn, Prof. dr. ir. Marijn Janssen en Dr. Martijn Warnier
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article contains a critical reflection on eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): the idea that AI based decision-making using AI should be transparent to people faced with these decisions. We discuss the main objections to XAI. XAI focuses on a variety of explainees, with different expectations and values; XAI is not a neutral activity, but very value-sensitive; AI is dynamic and so XAI quickly becomes obsolete; many problems are ‘wicked’, which further complicates XAI. In addition, the context of XAI matters – a high level of politicization and a high perceived impact of AI-based decisions, will often result in much criticism of AI and will limit the opportunities of XAI. We also discuss a number of alternative or additional strategies – more attention to negotiated algorithms; to competing algorithms; or to value-sensitive algorithms, which may contribute to more trust in AI-based decision-making.


Prof. mr. dr. Hans de Bruijn
Prof. mr. dr. J.A. de Bruijn is hoogleraar Organisatie & Governance aan de TU Delft, Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management.

Prof. dr. ir. Marijn Janssen
Prof. dr. ir. M.F.W.H.A. Janssen is hoogleraar ICT & Governance aan de TU Delft, Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management.

Dr. Martijn Warnier
Dr. M.E. Warnier is universitair hoofddocent Systeemkunde aan de TU Delft, Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management.

    Hoeveel nieuwe methoden en technieken van sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek zijn er sinds de jaren zestig van de vorige eeuw bij gekomen? Moderne ICT heeft het allemaal wel sneller en makkelijker gemaakt, maar in wezen gaat het nog steeds om dezelfde methoden, wellicht op een enkele uitzondering na. Maar misschien levert deze column reacties op die dit tegenspreken.


Peter van Hoesel
Peter van Hoesel is emeritus hoogleraar Toegepast beleidsonderzoek bij de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Hij was gedurende zijn gehele loopbaan actief als beleidsonderzoeker bij meerdere onderzoeksbureaus. Hij geeft regelmatig adviezen ten behoeve van beleidsevaluaties bij enkele ministeries. Hij is auteur en redacteur van diverse boeken over beleidsonderzoek.
Dossier

Wat is rechtvaardige AI?

Een kader voor het ontwikkelen en toepassen van algoritmes voor automatische besluitvorming

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 4 2020
Auteurs Dr. Tjerk Timan en Dr. Francisca Grommé
Auteursinformatie

Dr. Tjerk Timan
Dr. Tjerk Timan is onderzoeker bij de afdeling Strategy, Analysis & Policy van de Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek (TNO).

Dr. Francisca Grommé
Dr. Francisca Grommé is assistant professor aan de Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences/Organizational Dynamics in a Digital Society, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Dossier

Beter beschermd tegen biometrie

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 4 2020
Auteurs Mr. Joost Gerritsen, Dr. mr. Jurriën Hamer, Linda Kool MSc MA e.a.
Auteursinformatie

Mr. Joost Gerritsen
Mr. Joost Gerritsen is advocaat bij Legal Beetle advocatuur.

Dr. mr. Jurriën Hamer
Dr. mr. Jurriën Hamer is onderzoeker bij het Rathenau Instituut.

Linda Kool MSc MA
Linda Kool MSc MA is themacoördinator bij het Rathenau Instituut.

Dr. ir. Petra Verhoef
Dr. ir. Petra Verhoef is themacoördinator bij het Rathenau Instituut.

Dr. Cody Hochstenbach
Dr. Cody Hochstenbach is lid van de redactie van Beleid en Maatschappij.

Dr. Jan Kees van Donge
Dr. Jan Kees van Donge is gepensioneerd. Hij werkte twintig jaar aan Afrikaanse universiteiten. In Nederland werkte hij bij Wageningen University, het Institute of Social Studies en het Afrika Studie Centrum in Leiden.

    Nederland staat voor forse en complexe beleidsopgaven. Deze opgaven vragen om een bijzondere beleidsaanpak met een aansluitende wijze van beleidsevaluatie – namelijk één die leren ondersteunt om iteratief de kwaliteit van het beleid te verbeteren en de weg naar de beleidsambities te vinden. Beleidsonderzoekers en beleidsbetrokkenen werken in lerende evaluaties samen om kennis te produceren voor het gelijktijdig verantwoorden en leren van beleid. Verondersteld wordt dat de kwaliteit en bruikbaarheid van de geproduceerde kennis met deze benadering groter zijn dan bij reguliere, op verantwoording georiënteerde, evaluatiemethoden. Als gevolg daarvan zou lerend evalueren meer impact hebben op beleid voor complexe opgaven. In dit artikel wordt aandacht besteed aan de waarde van lerend evalueren vanuit het perspectief van beleidsbetrokkenen en beleidsonderzoekers van de lerende evaluatie van het Natuurpact (2014-2017), uitgevoerd door het PBL en de WUR. Geconcludeerd wordt dat lerend evalueren de kwaliteit, bruikbaarheid en impact (minder aantoonbaar) van de geproduceerde kennis vergroot, maar onder specifieke voorwaarden: namelijk wanneer onderzoekers erin slagen om leren en verantwoorden, met de bijbehorende rollen en kwaliteitsstandaarden, te benaderen als wederzijds versterkend in plaats van tegenstrijdig. Onderzoekers hebben voelsprieten nodig voor de wisselwerking tussen het proces van kennisproductie en de politiek-bestuurlijke context waarin deze kennis wordt gebruikt. Zowel in de beleids- als onderzoekspraktijk is ruimte nodig voor een verbrede kijk op de functie van beleidsevaluatie om lerend evalueren toe te kunnen passen.


Lisa Verwoerd
Lisa Verwoerd is werkzaam bij het Athena Instituut, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, en het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving te Den Haag.

Pim Klaassen
Pim Klaassen is werkzaam bij het Athena Instituut, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Barbara J. Regeer
Barbara J. Regeer is werkzaam bij het Athena Instituut, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

    De focus op effectiviteit en vooral ook efficiëntie in beleid leidt wellicht tot beleidsuitvoering die efficiënt is voor de overheid, maar of dat ook zo is voor andere stakeholders, wordt misschien uit het oog verloren. Dat laat de huidige coronacrisis zien, maar blijkt ook uit andere voorbeelden. Voor beleidsonderzoek is het relevant om beleid te evalueren binnen de bredere maatschappelijke context en met de vraag voor wie beleid efficiënt is.


Jos Mevissen
Jos Mevissen is zelfstandig adviseur voor en begeleider van beleidsonderzoek en voorzitter van de redactie van Beleidsonderzoek Online.
Article

Political Sophistication and Populist Party Support

The Case of PTB-PVDA and VB in the 2019 Belgian Elections

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden populist voters, political sophistication, voting motivations, Belgium, elections
Auteurs Marta Gallina, Pierre Baudewyns en Jonas Lefevere
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article, we investigate the moderating role of political sophistication on the vote for populist parties in Belgium. Building on the literature about the diverse determinants of populist party support, we investigate whether issue considerations and populism-related motivations play a bigger role in the electoral calculus of politically sophisticated voters.
    Using data from the 2019 general elections in Belgium, we focus on the cases of Vlaams Belang (VB) and Parti du Travail de Belgique- Partij van de Arbeid (PTB-PVDA). We find evidence suggesting that political sophistication enhances the impact of populism-related motivations on populist party support, although the effects are contingent on the party. Moreover, we show that, for issue considerations, the moderation effect only comes into play for VB voters: the impact of anti-immigrant considerations is greater at increasing levels of political sophistication.


Marta Gallina
Marta Gallina is a PhD Student at the Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. She obtained her BA and MA in Social Sciences at the University of Milan. Her research interests regard the study of political behaviour, political sophistication, issue dimensionality, populism and Voting Advice Applications. Her work appeared in scientific journals such as Statistics, Politics and Policy, Environmental Politics and Italian Political Science.

Pierre Baudewyns
Pierre Baudewyns is Professor of political behaviour at UCLouvain. He is involved in different projects (voters, candidates) related to National Election Study. Results of his research have been published in Electoral Studies, European Political Science, Regional & Federal Studies, West European Politics and Comparative European Politics.

Jonas Lefevere
Jonas Lefevere is research professor of political communication at the Institute for European Studies and assistant professor of communication at Vesalius College. Since 2018, he is also vice-chair of the ECPR Standing Group on Political Communication. His research interests deal with the communication strategies of political parties, and the effects of election campaigns on voters’ electoral behaviour. He has published on these topics in, amongst others, Electoral Studies, Public Opinion Quarterly, Political Communication and International Journal of Public Opinion Research.
Article

How Issue Salience Pushes Voters to the Left or to the Right

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden voting behaviour, salience, ideological dimensions, elections, Belgium
Auteurs Stefaan Walgrave, Patrick van Erkel, Isaïa Jennart e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Recent research demonstrates that political parties in western Europe are generally structured along one dimension – and often take more or less similar ideological positions on the economic and cultural dimension – whereas the policy preferences of voters are structured two dimensionally; a considerable part of the electorate combines left-wing stances on one dimension with right-wing stances on the other. These ideologically ‘unserved’ voters are the main focus of this study. Using data from a large-scale survey in Flanders and Wallonia, we demonstrate how the salience of the two dimensions explains whether these unserved voters ultimately end up voting for a right-wing or a left-wing party. Specifically, we show that these voters elect a party that is ideologically closest on the dimension that they deem most important at that time. To summarise, the findings of this study confirm that salience is a key driver of electoral choice, especially for cross-pressured voters.


Stefaan Walgrave
Stefaan Walgrave (Corresponding author), Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp,

Patrick van Erkel
Patrick van Erkel, Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp.

Isaïa Jennart
Isaïa Jennart, Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp.

Jonas Lefevere
Jonas Lefevere, Institute of European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Pierre Baudewyns
Pierre Baudewyns, Institut de Science Politique Louvain-Europe (SSH/SPLE) Department, UCLouvain.
Article

Drivers of Support for the Populist Radical Left and Populist Radical Right in Belgium

An Analysis of the VB and the PVDA-PTB Vote at the 2019 Elections

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden populism, voting, behaviour, Belgium, elections
Auteurs Ine Goovaerts, Anna Kern, Emilie van Haute e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This study investigates how protest attitudes and ideological considerations affected the 2019 election results in Belgium, and particularly the vote for the radical right-wing populist party Vlaams Belang (VB) and for the radical left-wing populist party Partij van de Arbeid-Parti du Travail de Belgique (PVDA-PTB). Our results confirm that both protest attitudes and ideological considerations play a role to distinguish radical populist voters from mainstream party voters in general. However, when opposed to their second-best choice, we show that particularly protest attitudes matter. Moreover, in comparing radical right- and left-wing populist voters, the article disentangles the respective weight of these drivers on the two ends of the political spectrum. Being able to portray itself as an alternative to mainstream can give these parties an edge among a certain category of voters, albeit this position is also difficult to hold in the long run.


Ine Goovaerts
Ine Goovaerts is a Doctoral Candidate of the Democratic Innovations and Legitimacy Research Group at the University of Leuven. Her research focuses on the quality of political discourse, with a specific focus on incivility and argumentation quality.

Anna Kern
Anna Kern is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science of Ghent University. Her research focuses on political participation, political equality and political legitimacy. Her work has been published in journals such as West European Politics, Local Government Studies, Social Science Research and Political Behavior.

Emilie van Haute
Emilie van Haute is Chair of the Department of Political Science at the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and researcher at the Centre d’étude de la vie politique (Cevipol). Her research interests focus on party membership, intra-party dynamics, elections and voting behaviour. Her research has appeared in West European Politics, Party Politics, Electoral Studies, Political Studies, European Political Science and Acta Politica. She is co-editor of Acta Politica.

Sofie Marien
Sofie Marien is Associate Professor at the University of Leuven, where she is director of the Democratic Innovations and Legitimacy Research Group. Her research has appeared in journals such as Political Behavior, European Journal of Political Research, European Sociological Review and Political Research Quarterly.
Article

Access_open Voters of Populist Parties and Support for Reforms of Representative Democracy in Belgium

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Belgian politics, democratic reforms, elections, populist voters, representative democracy
Auteurs Lisa van Dijk, Thomas Legein, Jean-Benoit Pilet e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Recently, studies have burgeoned on the link between populism and demands for democratic reforms. In particular, scholars have been debating the link between populist citizens or voters and support for referendums. In this article, we examine voters of populist parties (Vlaams Belang (VB) and Parti du Travail de Belgique-Partij van de Arbeid (PTB-PVDA)) in Belgium in 2019 and we look at their attitudes towards various types of democratic reforms. We find that voters of populist parties differ from the non-populist electorate in their support for different kinds of reforms of representative democracy. Voters of VB and PTB-PVDA have in common stronger demands for limiting politicians’ prerogatives, for introducing binding referendums and for participatory budgeting. While Vlaams Belang voters are not significantly different from the non-populist electorate on advisory referendums, citizens’ forums or technocratic reform, PVDA-PTB voters seem more enthusiastic.


Lisa van Dijk
Lisa van Dijk (corresponding author), KU Leuven.

Thomas Legein
Thomas Legein, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB).

Jean-Benoit Pilet
Jean-Benoit Pilet, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB).

Sofie Marien
Sofie Marien, KU Leuven.
Article

Emotions and Vote Choice

An Analysis of the 2019 Belgian Elections

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Belgium, elections, emotions, voting behaviour
Auteurs Caroline Close en Emilie van Haute
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article digs into the relationship between voters’ political resentment and their electoral choice in 2019 by focusing on the respondents’ emotions towards politics. Using the RepResent 2019 voter survey, eight emotions are analysed in their relation to voting behaviour: four negative (anger, bitterness, worry and fear) and four positive (hope, relief, joy and satisfaction). We confirm that voters’ emotional register is at least two-dimensional, with one positive and one negative dimension, opening the possibility for different combinations of emotions towards politics. We also find different emotional patterns across party choices, and more crucially, we uncover a significant effect of emotions (especially negative ones) on vote choice, even when controlling for other determinants. Finally, we look at the effect of election results on emotions and we observe a potential winner vs. loser effect with distinctive dynamics in Flanders and in Wallonia.


Caroline Close
Caroline Close is Assistant Professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles (Charleroi campus). Her research and teaching interests include party politics, representation and political participation from a comparative perspective. She has published her work in Party Politics, Political Studies, Parliamentary Affairs, The Journal of Legislative Studies, Representation, Acta Politica and the Journal of European Integration. She regularly contributes to research and publications on Belgian politics.

Emilie van Haute
Emilie van Haute is Chair of the Department of Political Science at the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and researcher at the Centre d’étude de la vie politique (Cevipol). Her research interests focus on party membership, intra-party dynamics, elections, and voting behaviour. Her research has appeared in West European Politics, Party Politics, Electoral Studies, Political Studies, European Political Science and Acta Politica. She is co-editor of Acta Politica.
Editorial

Explaining Vote Choice in the 2019 Belgian Elections

Democratic, Populist and Emotional Drivers

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 3 2020
Auteurs Patrick van Erkel, Anna Kern en Guillaume Petit
Auteursinformatie

Patrick van Erkel
Patrick van Erkel is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Political Science of the University of Antwerp, where he is connected to the research group M2P (Media, Movements and Politics). His research interests include electoral behaviour, public opinion, political communication and polarization. He has published in journals such as the European Journal of Political Research, Electoral Studies, European Political Science Review and Political Communication.

Anna Kern
Anna Kern is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science of Ghent University. Her research focuses on political participation, political equality and political legitimacy. Her work has been published in journals such as West European Politics, Local Government Studies, Social Science Research and Political Behavior.

Guillaume Petit
Guillaume Petit is a researcher in political science. His research focuses on democratic innovations and social inequalities facing political participation. He obtained his PhD at the University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne. He has been affiliated with the department of political science of the Vrije Universiteit Brussels and with the Institute of Political Science Louvain-Europe (Ispole) at UCLouvain as a postdoctoral researcher, within the EoS-RepResent project that led to the present special issue.

    Adriaan Koelma fits in with the list of legal scholars who helped to shape the early history of the (local) administrative sciences in the Netherlands, which was dominated by a legal approach to local administration. In that respect, he was not only a follower of the first Dutch public administration scholar, Gerrit van Poelje, but also his successor. He held the chair in Public Administration in Rotterdam, which Van Poelje vacated in 1933, first as a lecturer and later as a professor (from 1946 onwards). Nowadays, Koelma is mainly remembered for the state commission named after him: he (in vain) advocated the introduction of districts (next to municipalities). He was chairman of this state commission that was installed by Minister Beel on 19 December 1946. He fulfilled his scientific activities in addition to a career in the Dutch civil service. Koelma was a typical ‘self-made man’ who worked his way up from junior employee at the municipal clerk’s office of Dordrecht to municipal clerk and, if only briefly, mayor of Alkmaar. His experiences in the Second World War had a great influence on his later life. Due to a war-related illness, he had to give up the chairmanship of the Koelma Commission in 1947 and in 1948 his professorship and role as mayor of Alkmaar. This war also gave him insight into the pernicious influence of Nazi ideology on governance theory and governance practice. He could not have suspected how hard the German occupier would put the Dutch administration and its servants to the test during his public lesson of 1934, because at that time the Nazi regime in Germany had not yet shown its true nature at the local level of government.


Dr. Rik Reussing
Dr. G.H. Reussing is onderwijscoördinator van de joint degree Public Governance across Borders aan de Universiteit Twente en redactiesecretaris van Bestuurswetenschappen.

Prof. dr. Marcel Boogers
Prof. dr. M.J.G.J.A. Boogers is hoogleraar Innovatie en Regionaal Bestuur aan de Universiteit Twente, senior adviseur Openbaar Bestuur bij BMC en hoofdredacteur van Bestuurswetenschappen.
Vrij artikel

Verantwoorden met gevoel

Taalkundige analyse van de impact van verantwoordingsrapporten in het openbaar bestuur

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 3 2020
Auteurs Prof. dr. Thomas Schillemans en Marija Aleksovska Msc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper analyzes the impact of linguistic characteristics of accountability reports on public sector organizations. It does so by analysing hundreds of accountability reports by four public sector bodies using the linguistic tool LIWC. The research question is: what linguistic characteristics of accountability reports are related to a bigger impact on the evaluated organization? The impact of three strategic choices is assessed. First of all, the impact of strategic positioning. Authors of texts can maintain a position of power in the choice of language (high clout) and speak top down to the recipient or they can take a more egalitarian, face to face, position. Secondly, authors can choose to use many complex linguistic phrasings, with causal reasoning for instance, or they can opt for simpler texts. Finally, the text can be littered with emotional, positive and negative, wordings or can be set in a neutral tone. Our analyses suggest that more emotional accountability reports are consistently related to a better reception and seem to have more impact. This has important consequences both theoretically and practically, which are discussed in the paper.


Prof. dr. Thomas Schillemans
Prof. dr. T. Schillemans is hoogleraar Bestuur en beleid aan de Universiteit Utrecht, Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap. Daarnaast is hij als co-decaan verbonden aan de Nederlandse School voor Openbaar Bestuur.

Marija Aleksovska Msc
M. Aleksovska, Msc is promovenda aan de Universiteit Utrecht, Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap.
Toont 1 - 20 van 825 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 41 42
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.