David Magnusson was born in 1925 in Nässjö, Sweden. He trained in Education at a Teacher's Training College (1942–46) and held posts as both an elementary school teacher and a school psychologist between 1946 and 1955 before completing a doctoral degree in psychology at the University of Stockholm in 1959. He was Professor of Psychology at the University of Stockholm from 1969 to 1992. Internationally-known for theoretical and empirical contributions to a holistic-interactionist model of human development, his research has shed fresh light on personal behaviour in the context of proximate and distant environments. Elected Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1979, he chaired its Section for Economics and Social Sciences from 1991 to 1999. He was Vice-President of the Swedish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences from 1977 to 1983, chairing its Executive Committee from 1980 and 1983. He served on the Executive Committee of the European Science Foundation from 1983 to 89, and was elected as its Vice-President for the years 1986 to 1989. He thus became an important founding member of the Academia Europaea (AE) in 1988 and served as one of its first Vice-Presidents between 1988 and 1997.

AB: Here we are in Stockholm for an interview with a founding member and first Vice-President of the Academia Europaea, Professor David Magnusson. Thank you for coming today David, I am really glad that you have agreed to share your reminiscences on the founding visions of the Academia Europaea. Before discussing Academia, however, I would like you to talk a little about your background, where you come from, what in your upbringing has influenced your career?

DM: I was born on a small farm in Sweden's southern highlands, as the second of five children, four boys and a girl. The way we lived and worked on the farm has meant a lot for me, not only in my private life but also in my scientific work. We always worked together. The way we constantly collaborated founded my view of myself and my place in society. The factor that determined what we would do was nature, whether it was spring, summer, autumn or winter. What we could decide was how we would do it.

AB: You knew what was expected of you.

DM: Yes, the important element was what needed to be done. I think that has helped to form my professional life. In an interview I did for the SRCD (Society for Research in Child Development) archive in the US, I was asked whether I had reached all my goals in life. I responded: ‘I have never had any other goals than to do well what I was doing and to complete it’.

AB: I also read in the interview that getting to school wasn't easy in those days, transport wasn't as efficient as it is nowadays. But I think that your experience on the farm was very telling for your whole life. What a privilege it was to grow up in the same countryside as Carl von Linné – to have lived in that kind of environment, which puts you in touch with many diverse objects. Perhaps this experience also gave you an orientation towards diversity in life as well?

DM: Yes, after the village school, I went to the local secondary school. There was no gymnasium in my neighbourhood so I chose to apply to a College for Elementary School Teachers. After four years of study there I spent six years as an elementary school teacher. At the end of that period I took the exam that allowed me to go on to university.

AB: This teaching experience exposed you to children and their development and also different development strategies, didn't it?

DM: Yes, certainly. After the six years as a school teacher, I moved to Stockholm. There I studied for a year at a clinic for problem children and worked for another year as a school psychologist before I went to Stockholm university as a research assistant. Rather soon I was asked to run a course in measurement theory. For each lecture, I wrote what became a chapter in a volume on test theory. It was published by an American publisher and has been translated into a number of languages. The atmosphere at the department of psychology was dominated of a behaviouristic perspective. My main concern in psychological research was and is individuals. How does an individual think, feel, act, and react in a specific situation given the situation conditions? When I expressed this view of psychology as a scientific discipline, I was told that it was scientific prostitution.

AB: This must have been during the 1960s.

DM: Yes. However, my scientific career took a different course when our research council, in 1963, funded a trip to the US. There I encountered a very different scientific world and had the opportunity to meet and talk with some prominent scientists. One of them became a close, life-long friend.

AB: Did you find any potential tension between your recognition of the uniqueness of individuals, on one hand, and your commitment to measurement and the development of general theory, on the other hand? It seems to me that measurement indicates an assumption that all relevant matters are measurable but the bases of personal uniqueness may include facets that are not in fact tangibly measurable, at least in quantitative terms.

DM: Yes, a characteristic feature of the situation in psychological research at that time was a communication gap between what we may designate experimentalists, who knew everything about empirical methods, and those who had what we may call a clinical view. During my time, first as secretary and later as president of the Swedish Psychological Association, in the beginning of my university career, I tried to help overcome that gap. My position was and is that there need not to be an opposition between specialists and generalists in a specific field, as long as they are aware that they are trying to understand the same kind of processes. The holistic principle underlying this proposal was well expressed as long ago as in 1749 by the Swedish naturalist Carl von Linné, when he proposed about nature that such a relation exists between all parts, that if just one disappeared, the whole would not last.

AB: I know. I think that this experience of diversity in nature and in individual development is somehow very close to views expressed by Linné in his Skånska resa for example. Everything he wrote regarding landscapes and life was placed in its own specific temporal and spatial context. Your development theory also somehow gathers a lot of insights along those lines and puts them into a theoretical framework, which I think is absolutely excellent. So I just wonder if that isn't continued in your work with the Academia Europaea and your current science foundation? Because, in a way, the countries can be seen almost as individuals with their individual traditions and what you are trying to bring together is a collaboration between diverse members, respecting the integrity of each but at the same time seeking a European project. Would you like to speak a little about your work with the Academia, and even before that, I think, the ESF.

DM: In 1970 I became a member of the newly organised Swedish Social Science Research Council. In 1977 it was merged with the Research Council for the Humanities, into one for ‘Social Sciences and Humanities’. For six years, as long as I was a member of the council, l served as vice chairman of the board and for three years as chairman of the executive committee. Then, in 1983, I became the Swedish member of the council of the European Science Foundation. There I initiated something that played a role in the development of European networks, and perhaps I should say a few words about that?

AB: Yes, I think because that the idea of networks was very much a Swedish idea wasn't it?

DM: At least we were involved in different ways. Swedish representatives were active in the process from the beginning. The ESF network process had its background in early September 1984, at a meeting in Paris with the ministers of science and education in Western Europe. An important role in the discussion was played by Kerstin Niblaeus, who represented Sweden. The politicians discussed the importance of scientific collaboration on the European scene and concluded, wisely enough, that the political bureaucracy was not fitted to shoulder the responsibility for European science policy. As a result, the European Science Foundation took over and invited all science ministries of Western Europe to suggest plans for networks at the European level. In response to the invitation, the Swedish ministry asked me to write a proposal for a network. After a discussion with Kerstin Niblaeus among others, I accepted this challenge and wrote a proposal for a network on longitudinal research on individual development. The ministry accepted the proposal and sent it to ESF. The ESF committee for networks, led by Arnold Burgen, suggested the Swedish proposal be established as the first ESF network and the ESF Council accepted it. So a network committee for longitudinal research on individual development, consisting of prominent scientists from different fields, was established. Eleven countries became involved and financed regular conferences. We had symposia in each of these countries and eight volumes were published by Cambridge University Press. In 1986 I was elected Vice-President of the ESF and served in that position through 1989. During that period, in early 1986, I was invited to a conference in Berlin or Bonn. A number of scientists and scholars were invited to the meeting. For a couple of days we discussed in general terms the conditions for scientific progress on the European scene.

AB: And what decisions were reached during those discussions in Berlin?

DM: No actual decisions were made. At that time in Europe several discussions were in progress about the need for an organisation based on individual membership, but the Germans did not follow it up in concrete terms. Before Christmas, in 1986, the Royal Society in London invited a group of 12 scientists and scholars to a meeting initiated by Arnold Burgen, at that time responsible for the Society's international affairs. The discussions continued in 1987, in meetings led by Arnold Burgen. The Royal Society acted as our host during the whole period and also put an active, experienced secretary, Stephen Scott, at our disposal. He did an excellent job. Let me emphasise here that without Arnold Burgen's eminent leadership and the continuous support by the Royal Society during the founding process, the Academia Europaea would not exist in its present form. In January 1988 the important decision was made to found an academy. Arnold Burgen started a morning session by declaring: ‘Now we must come to a conclusion, we cannot go on like this, only talking about it.’ And then he asked: ‘shall we stop here or shall we move forward, take a decision and make something concrete?’ I remember the silence that followed; nobody said anything. Since I sat next to Sir Arnold, at his left side, it was natural that he turned to me to express my view. My response was: ‘Two points; first, I think that the idea about an organisation built on individual membership and excellence has a strong raison d’être, and second, it is time?’ Then Brian Phillips, president of London University, went in and supported the idea; nobody argued against. This was the start of a hectic period of preparations for the formal establishment of the Academia in the autumn of 1988.

AB: And the official name of the Academy: was Ernst Seibold involved in getting that [Latin] name of Academia Europaea?

DM: Yes, he was a member of the founding committee. At that time he was president of the European Science Foundation, where I served as Vice-President together with Ruurd van Lieshout and David Spearman. Seibold was not very active in the discussions but did not argue against the foundation of the Academia Europaea. A crucial issue right from the beginning of our discussions was how to draw the line between the territories of the Academia and the ESF. A basic difference between the two was that the ESF was an organisation of organisations, while the Academia was an organisation of individual members. An agreement was reached about the respective goals and tasks of these organisations. The main task for the Academia should be to identify crucial issues for scientific analyses at the European level. If these analyses led to consequences in terms of scientific programmes, such activities should be a matter for the ESF to discuss. At least as long as I was active, the presidents and vice presidents met regularly and the relations between the two organisations were characterised by respect and esteem. I left the board of the ESF at the annual congress in 1989. I had been asked to stay for another period but I wanted to spend more time with the Academia, since I saw the assets and the contributions it could give to European science.

AB: Yes, but your network, was it constituted by individual scientists or did it involve primarily a collaboration of councils?

DM: Neither. As I described before, the decision to start networks was taken by the ESF Council as a response to the political meeting in Paris in 1984. The start of my own network was decided with reference to the Swedish plan.

AB: So in a way, it's what I am trying to get at, as the seeds of the idea of an Academy based on individual membership. Could these be traced perhaps to that idea of the successful networks?

DM: In one sense there was a connection, since Arnold Burgen chaired the ESF network committee and later became the leader of the process of founding the AE. Let me say here that the organisation of the ESF networks was handled in a very cost-effective way.

AB: Yes but to return to Academia, since you probably are the best living source of insight into what the grounding visions were, could you repeat a little of what those visions were and how well they have been pursued over the years.

DM: In my view, the role of the AE on the European scene should not be to duplicate what was already being done well by existing research organisations, such as academies, national research councils or national and international discipline-oriented societies. The AE had to define its own niche by identifying common issues on the European scene for which no other organisation was responsible or regarded as its territory, i.e. to move to fill a gap and contribute with identifying issues on the European scene that could be the target of theoretical and empirical analyses. In that vision, two areas that met the criteria and could be of common European interest were identified. The first was basic education. Analyses presented by the OECD and other organisations showed that the quality of basic education differed between European countries and that low quality was a general problem. Careful analyses of this issue were important for two reasons. It could help to improve the quality of scientific work at the national level and a higher quality of scientific activities would lead to better conditions for scientific collaboration across national borders.

AB: And what other queries were raised?

DM: The second area that was discussed concerned the societal and cultural consequences of the rapidly growing IT market. Technical aspects of this development would be handled by natural sciences and the market. The possible consequences for individuals, societies and cultures of the rapidly growing IT market, which we now have to live with, had not been analysed to the extent that it deserved. In my opinion, it should be a niche for the AE to take responsibility for. Since I left the board of AE, my contacts have been rather sparse and my restricted knowledge prevents me from evaluating the activities. One remark only: I have understood that financing, already a problem in the AE's early history, is still a difficulty. We are regularly reminded of the need for financial contributions. In my view, these reminders would be more effective if they were accompanied by a presentation of the visions for which our contributions are needed.

AB: Exactly.

DM: I remember the first symposium on basic education. It was organised by Torsten Husén, the internationally known educationist, in Stockholm and was financed by the Swedish Riksbanksfonden. The published proceedings were discussed publicly in the old parliament building in Stockholm. Discussions were also held in the Czech parliament and by the European Council.

AB: It diffused quickly.

DM: It really became what we wanted. From the very beginning, the Academia played the secondary role we had intended, presenting ‘state-of-the-art’ reports of central immediate interest. At an early stage Brussels asked us for a state-of-the-art report on DNA research, which at that time was expanding very rapidly. We soon managed to form a group of prominent scientists from different countries in Europe. They got down to work immediately and it was not long before we were able to report back to Brussels. This activity demonstrated the AE's strength and potentialities. We started in a way that was in line with our vision. I don't know all that much about how close the planning of subsequent activities remained to that vision because I left Academia after two periods as a Vice President.

AB: But to follow up on that idea of getting that state-of-the-art synopsis on a particular theme, was there an intention that this could be suggested as a research project to the ESF or to some other research councils or was it just addressed to the EEC?

DM: The report was sent to the EEC, and that completed our task.

AB: Okay, and the relationship between the Academia Europaea and the national academies, was there much talk about that or was it simply left to all European Academies to handle?

DM: One of the issues that was discussed during the process of establishing the AE was the relations to other European organisations and to national academies. As far as I remember, there were no real problems.

AB: As for the national academies, are they not constituted by individual memberships?

DM: They are, at least the ones I know about. But we did not want to become a new administrative body for all national academies.

AB: Now, David, you've been associated with the Academia from the very beginning and you understand what the vision was. How do you feel now about whether it has succeeded over the years in promoting that idea? Has it been successful do you think?

DM: I don't want to be a judge of what has happened since I left the board of the AE. I was asked to become president after Arnold Burgen but felt I had too many other duties and was not the right person. Times change and so do conditions and which activities are important and appropriate for the AE. As I saw it, our main role from the beginning was not to concentrate on the scientific world but rather to identify problems in the societies and cultures that the scientific world could analyse and investigate.

AB: I think there is an issue of communication between the different subject area groups. I'm not sure they are in touch with each other, so hopefully discussions like this, when they reach the section heads, could be catalysts for discussions among the groups. It seems to me that there is a very uneven spread of subject areas. The other challenge has to do with AE members coming to meet each other at a national level. So I wonder whether in countries such as Sweden, with its long tradition of scientific orientation, the Swedish members of Academia Europaea ever meet to discuss these issues?

DM: No, and in my opinion there is no reason why they should. As I see it, the Academia can't meet the demands of an Academy at the European level, if it does not clearly stick to its role or niche, as I tried to summarise it earlier. This reminds me of something I learned from Chairman Mao during the Student Revolution at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. I had just become a full professor and sat with the students during their evening and night sessions. What I found was that the students’ criticism of the university's system was well-founded but their solutions had little contact with reality.

AB: Naive?

DM: To be able to talk with the students, I had to be at least as acquainted as they were with Chairman Mao's writings. One of the Chairman's points was: the necessary condition for success in political and administrative decisions is that you make a correct and careful analysis of the reality that you want to work in. This statement holds also in research, not least in social sciences. I have tried to teach my students that they must always return again and again to an analysis of a phenomenon they want to understand and start from there, matching methods and research strategies to the characteristics of reality. That was my approach in the process of establishing the Academia.

AB: Mao also said that in any problem situation, having done this homework, one should find out what the greatest contradiction was.

Well, David, you have done so much for Academia and for all the other institutions where you took a leading role administratively and intellectually and I think your insights into the origins of the Academia Europaea will be very inspiring for those of us who will view this recording or read the text. Thank you again for granting this interview.

DM: Thank you very much.