Frans van Poppel: a sort of farewell. Liber Amicorum. - NIDI

ever-changing societal and normative context of behavior and the need to adopt a long-termperspective.Suggesting research topics is one thing, coming up with convincing results is quite another.Frans’s results appeal to a wide audience (going beyond historians and demographers)because of his mixed methods approach. His hypotheses are well-grounded in the literature,including 19 th century medical reports, government enquiries, ethnographic material, andegodocuments. They are tested on representative datasets, often the result of painstaking datacollection, in many cases by Frans himself. Finally, the analytic handling of the data hasalways been –as far as I can see– of great quality. His dissertation on marriage and divorceshows his great love for history and literary sources in the detailed analysis of contemporarydebates between politicians, church officials, social reformers, and eugenicists on the ‘proper’age to marry. Popular attitudes to marriage are studied through regional customs, proverbsand may other sources. In the same book, however, Frans tackles the regional variation inmarriage in a linear regression model, and goes on to study remarriage hazard ratios in one ofthe first event history analyses to be performed in Dutch historical demography (Van Poppel,1992). Another example of his sophisticated mixed methods approach is his study with HugoRöling on contraceptive behavior of medical doctors, in which they combined a history ofdebates on contraceptive techniques with family reconstitutions of a large number of medicalprofessionals in Holland. They showed that although doctors were clearly pioneers of birthcontrol in their private lives, concerns for the respectability of their profession preventedthem from openly advocating neo-Malthusianism (Van Poppel and Röling, 2003).The success of Frans’s research stems –in part– from his fine nose for data. In his earlier work,historical census data still played a large role, but Frans soon cast his net wide to includesources as diverse as cause-of-death statistics, collections of marital records (e.g. Gouda),automatically reconstituted family trees (GenLias), archives of churchyards, interviewswith priests and parishioners, and complete life course reconstructions of regional or evennational samples of individuals. This could imply, as in the case of the Historical Sample ofthe Netherlands, a long-term involvement in organization, quality control and disseminationof the specific data infrastructure.Agenda-settingHis success can also be attributed to his ability to collaborate across disciplines, generationsand frontiers. Until recently, historians kept very much to themselves, in terms of data andmethods. The ‘collaborative model’, as shown by Frans, expanded the scope and relevance ofhistorical work through the fine-tuning of hypotheses and results, incorporating specializedknowledge (e.g. on statistical modeling), and allowing for large scale or comparative research.A recent example is the special issue by Frans and Tommy Bengtsson in Explorations inEconomic History (2011) on change over time in social class differences in child and adultmortality. They refute conventional wisdom by showing that, for a long time, high incomeand high social status were not consistently translated into health benefits. Even more recentis his cooperation with Spanish authors (Van Poppel et al., 2012) who had demonstrated thatchild survival affected fertility decisions in pre-transition populations. By replicating their18