Amsterdam Ferry Years riding
the ferry Primary mode of transportation
Babs Female 57 Dutch 57 F2 20+ Walking
Michiel Male 59 Dutch 59 F3 22 Bike
Robin Female 43 American 1.5 F3 0.8 Bike
David Male 39 Iranian 13 F3 6 Bike
Lilo Female 38 Dutch 37 F3 12 Bike
Sam Male 32 British 2 F3 2 Bike
Nannet Female 30 Dutch 30 F3 30 Bike, walking
Debbie Female 30 Dutch 30 F3 0.7 Bike
Jessica Female 28 Arab-American
4 F3 2.5 Bike
Laura Female 22 Moldavian 4 F3 1.5 Walking
George Male 51 Dutch 50 F3,
F4/F5
531 Bike, skateboard
Naomi Female 49 Dutch 47 F4/F5 14 Walking
Meeting the Participants
Before meeting each participant, a survey was sent to gain demographic information (age, gender, identified ethnicity, current city of residence, how long in the Netherlands, country of birth, and identified “home country”), ferry riding routines (which ferry they rode, what days and timeframes they rode the ferry, how they get to the ferry (bike, public transit, walking, car), and average waiting time before boarding the ferry), and a question asking what behaviors they found rude while waiting and boarding the ferry. The introductory questionnaire not only assisted in planning interviews (i.e., scheduling interviews based on ferry riding knowledge), but also provided preliminary insight to what each participant found rude before the participants were aware of the specifics of the study. This allowed a
comparison of identified rude behaviors before and after time for reflection by participating in multiple tag-along interviews. After phase three commenced, a follow-up survey was sent
30 Some names were changed based on the request of the participant.
31 Overall riding the ferry for about five years, but only eight months as a regular commuter.
to each participant to ask about the specific informal social rules observed during the project32 (see Appendix 4). For both surveys, all questions were optional.
While the course of each subsequent interview was individualized based on the participant, each initial meeting was consistent for all. I arrived early to every meeting and sent a photo of myself so each participant could find me. Once they arrived, I discussed the general aim of the project (to understand the unwritten rules while waiting for and boarding the ferry) without alluding to any behaviors or actions that I had observed in previous phases.
I asked the interlocutors to point out and describe anything they found rude while we were together and mentioned I might ask them to comment on something I observed. The goal was to ride at least three times with each ferry commuter. During the initial meeting, I encouraged all participants to vocalize any questions or concerns. After all questions or concerns were addressed, we completed our first tag-along interview by waiting, boarding, riding, and offboarding the ferry together. During the first tag-along, I did not point out anything as I wanted the participant to be in full control of their observations. If the ferry commuter had time after offboarding the ferry (some had time constraints to get to work or home), we had a discussion of what they noticed and felt.
Subsequent Interviews
Over the course of the next four weeks, the subsequent interviews had multiple successes and learned failures. I was able to complete 49 successful tag-along interviews (averaging 4.1 tag-alongs per person) between the timeframes of the 6:12 AM morning ferry and the 6:00 PM evening ferry (averaged 2 morning rides, 0.5 afternoon rides, and 1.5 evening rides per person). During this phase, I remained very focused on respecting every interlocutor’s personal schedule and maximized discussions during the waiting and while on the ferry. Typically, I knew if the participant was in a hurry prior to meeting as I inquired about any time constraints while setting up the meeting, allowing for follow up conversations after the ferry ride if possible. Additionally, to protect the health of my participants, I always
32 This also provided an interesting comparison of what I observed and discussed during tag-along interviews versus what each interlocutor was willing to reflect on with more time. Some participants did not offer much during the interviews but willing to write out what they thought was rude, while others were quite vocal during the interviews but did not write much in the surveys.
40 wore a mask when governmentally mandated33 and took a rapid COVID-19 test before each interview day.
The structure of the subsequent interviews varied by participant and what happened during the tag-along. Sometimes I would not say anything and let the interlocutor talk and point out what they saw, at times I would observe a reaction to an observed behavior and ask them to elaborate their feelings, sometimes I would comment on my own observation and ask, “did you notice x” and if they did notice we would discuss what they thought about the event, and occasionally participants would share stories from past rides to discuss a rude behavior. Repeated rides with each ferry commuter helped build trust, and once a good relationship had been established, interlocutors would even send me text messages about what they observed or ferry related news outside of our scheduled interviews.
During phase three, I realized the preferred mode of transportation for each
participant had in impact on the interview. For ease of not having to deal with my bike while interviewing, I conducted all tag-along interviews as a pedestrian. However, since I took the role of a pedestrian commuter, it interfered with the bikers’ natural routine (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, 86). I realized participants were potentially not waiting in an area where they normally would wait or they would walk their bike onto the ferry (some preferred to ride on), all to accommodate me. As soon as I realized this, I began to ask each biker interlocutor,
“what would you do if I wasn’t here?” To limit the effect of my presence, I also attempted other interview formats to introduce different observational styles. I gained permission to video record some of the participants during the waiting period or to observe from afar (not wait together) so we could later discuss what was observed. However, these strategies were quickly abandoned as recording was extremely tough due to crowd density and whenever I attempted to observe from afar, either I missed seeing the participant (due to crowdedness) or the participant automatically acknowledged me and came over to say hello since we had built a rapport. Therefore, the most fruitful form of approach was to wait and ride together
understanding the limitations my interference imposed.
Alongside the successful interviews, many mishaps occurred throughout this phase, such as missing the ferry to meet the participant on the correct side at their desired departure
33 Masks were no longer obligatory part way through phase three. However, if an interlocutor had communicated, they preferred me to continue to wear a mask, I would have happily obliged (this did not occur).
time (especially important for the F4/F5 ferry since it ran less frequently), I followed the wrong person onto a ferry34, cancelled appointments due to COVID-19 infections, or unplanned timing overlapped with other participants35. Thankfully, every interlocutor was extremely gracious and was very understanding of all these mishaps. Many participants even went out of their way to continue to support the project by waiting for the next ferry or rescheduling for another time.
Regardless of the obstacles, various constructive forms of information were collected that could not have been acquired by (onsite or CCTV) observation and short, one-time conversational interviews. The uniqueness of each participant provided better insight into cultural, personality, and personal preference nuances for a variety of different situationally driven ferry experiences. Listening to stories about past interactions, discussing reactions to events on the spot, and feeling the energy of the participants (if a participant was stressed, I also felt stressed) provided a well-rounded collection of information regarding the unwritten rules for the ferry.
The Most Important Rules
After completing all three phases, information collected from the entirety of the fieldwork was reviewed investigating for potential themes. Manually coding fieldwork notes from each phase, the reoccurring themes that emerged were running late, time of day,
weather, cultural, red/green areas, offloading, crosscutting/weaving, cutting/pushing forward, keep distance, scooter/cars, smoking, playing music, move body/objects, dirty looks, turning body away, body posture, rule follower, relaxed, efficiency, and a miscellaneous theme for all other interesting comments that did not apply to the previous categories. These themes were then constructed into groups of answering what the rules were, reactions (or non-reactions) to the rules being broken, and situational factors that influence the determination of the ferry social rules. The initial research question could then be answered for what informal social rules are expected by Amsterdam ferry commuters and the most important rules include: do not invade personal space, wait to board until the ferry is fully unloaded, do not cut in
34 It was the second interview after a long break between rides. A similar looking person waved to me right before the departure of the ferry and I had assumed they gestured for me to follow them. Once on the ferry, I realized my mistake, but the ferry had already left.
35 This frequently happened for the evening observations as commuters typically travelled at the same time. I often had to cancel an appointment with another as I was still on the ferry with an interlocutor that arrived a bit late
42 line/push forward, wait in the proper red/green painted area, no weaving/crossing through the middle of the waiting areas, turn off your motorized vehicle’s engines, no smoking, and do not play loud music. Phase one and two’s observational analysis provided answers to how Amsterdam ferry riders reacted with facial responses, body alterations, use of objects, and modified use of space. However, the information gathered from phase three was critical to examine the circumstances or factors that influence the definition of the unwritten rules.
While there was an overall consensus for the above-mentioned rules across participants (also verified by reactions during observations), the severity of the annoyance depended on
personality type, culture, personal preference, and situational factors, contributing to the social rule definition’s ambiguity.
Ferry Rider Personality Types
Personality traits are different than culture, as they refer to the traits, attributes, qualities, and characteristics of an individual that can be gained through biological or environmental learning36 (Matsumoto, Frank, and Hwang 2013, 19). Within this study, the upcoming personality traits described were identified by emotion-based desires influencing actions and decisions (e.g., a relaxed person chose to ride the afternoon ferry because it is more relaxing journey). During phase three, it was discovered that personality types affected the definitions of the social rules while waiting and boarding the ferry. The most prominent personality types discovered with influential power were rule followers, relaxed, and efficiency driven people.
The Rule Follower Commuter
Sam and Michiel demonstrated qualities and desires to be considered to have a rule following personality. Their personal preferences and motivations for action were driven by the desire to follow formal rules. While the other 10 ferry commuters did not reference informal rules in conjunction with formal rules, the rule followers were heavily influenced by the government’s suggestions and mandates; Sam and Michiel preferred to follow the formal rules as stated. In conversations of how Sam felt about various rules, he would often mention signs posted about what to do (e.g., which side of the ferry to ride on, what area to wait for
36 However, it could be argued that some environmental learning could develop from culture.
For example, someone may have the personality of a rule follower due to the influences of experiences of the culture in Britain.
the ferry) or reference municipality rules. When chatting about the incongruent government rule of mandated masks on the ferry (governmental rules mandated masks on public transit but it was not mandated for outdoor activities, the ferry was a form of outdoor public transit not making clear which rule to follow), he responded with his preference to comply and addressed the ambiguity by stating, “it’s the rules, isn’t it?”
Michiel also expressed on multiple occasions his desire to follow the government’s guidance. During tag-along interviews, he was the only one to ascribe the red/green painted waiting areas as painted by the government. Therefore, following the visual-colored signals was a way of listening to the government’s advice. The action Michiel found the most annoying was smoking and this was the only rule he felt was worth a verbal confrontation (especially if the smoker looked underage, two instances of breaking a formal rule!). He shared that if he were to confront a smoker on the ferry, he would always address the
individual by explaining it was “forbidden,” relying on the backing of the governmental rule to support his reasoning.
The Relaxed Commuter
Ferry commuters with a relaxed personality were, not surprisingly, less bothered by any of the broken informal social rules and rarely reacted. Overall, all the participants leaned toward a relaxed rider profile, but the most noticeable relaxed riders were Robin, Naomi, and Babs. Unique to these riders were the elements of choice to continue a relaxed state
throughout their commutes. All three consciously chose to ride the ferry at less busy times to maintain a mood of relaxation, prioritizing their desire of relaxation over efficiency. Naomi would often walk 4km to enjoy the trip to the ferry docks. She explained even if she was running late, would still take the same pace to the ferry and contently expressed, “your attitude sets your journey.” Robin also routinely planned her ferry times to travel at less busy times in the afternoon and always left her destination early enough so she would not have to feel rushed. Babs would wait back before boarding letting others board first explaining that all the people in a hurry could go first since she was not in a hurry. Her relaxed nature influenced her prioritization of a relaxed boarding over getting on the ferry first.
44 All these choices motivated by their personality type led Robin, Naomi, and Babs to identifying less and lower severity of rude behaviors37. Additionally, the energy they
projected could have a calming effect on others lowering the annoyance of broken rules for others. When I rode with each of them, I realized my fieldnotes were filled with how relaxing the ferry ride was. Their relaxed personality influenced my ferry experience and subsequently my annoyance of others’ behaviors.
The Efficient Commuter
The final personality type that arose demonstrating influence on the perception of the ferry informal social rules was an efficient personality. Similar to the relaxed riders, Jessica and Lilo maintained very specific routines for maximizing efficiency to and on the ferry. For both, from the timing that they left their home or work to how they exited the ferry all demonstrated intentional efficiency. Jessica and Lilo left their original location at the latest possible moment to create the shortest overall commute time to their next destination. As they rode their bikes to the ferry, they would look to see if the ferry was visible and slow down or speed up depending on the calculated length of time it would take to arrive when the ferry was pulling into the dock (with the goal of not having to stop and wait). Once arrived at the ferry dock, both had specific sides they preferred to wait and board. The preferred position was determined by the side they needed to exit off the ferry (i.e., if they needed to turn left off the ferry, they would wait and board on the left side of the ferry to be able to ride off the left side of the ferry and easily turn left38). Jessica entertainingly even shared her dreams of efficiency stating that she dreamed to never have her feet touch the ground (off her bike), always moving, never interrupting her commute of efficiency.
This desire for efficiency is not sustainable on a daily basis and if interrupted can cause a shift in irritability altering the severity of the defined social rules. On a tag-along interview with Jessica, due to crowdedness we were not able to board the ferry and were directed away to wait for the next ferry. This interruption to Jessica’s routine severely
impacted her. We moved to the neighboring ferry dock to wait for the next ferry but were not able to wait on her preferred side. Jessica explained since we would have to cut across when
37 During my tag-along interviews with Robin, Naomi, and Babs nothing disrupted the relaxed journey so I was unable to explore how definitions may have changed based on the personality type being challenged.
38 Debbie and Laura also maintained this same routine for waiting for the ferry, but their expressed motivation was to not be impolite and cross in front of others (an identified informal social rule) while offboarding.
we offboarded (due to not exiting the ferry on the desired side), we would likely be yelled at.
As we waited and boarded the wrong side, I could feel the tension from her routine being interrupted. Normally a very energetic, friendly person, I could sense the shift to irritability and hyper focus on how to reclaim the lost time, ultimately more susceptible to increasing the severity of the offense of others breaking the social rules (including herself).
Ferry Commuter Culture and Sub-Cultures
Throughout phase three, nuances of culture arose from being a ferry commuter and cultural history (i.e., previous communities of association that shaped behavior) impacted the conceptualization of social rules. However, expected sub-cultural groups did not seem to impact the perceptions of the informal rules. At the beginning of phase three, I assumed there would be a ferry commuter sub-culture of bikers and pedestrians in regard to the ferry
informal rules, but distinguishing comments never arose. Whether a biker or pedestrian, the interlocutors never discussed any differences between the two groups. Additionally, during tag-along interviews, George and Nannet used different forms of transportation (see Table 1) and their alternating sub-group association did not modify their expectations of the informal social rules or critiques of other’s behaviors. However, the sub-cultural group that was referenced were Noord inhabitants, but this group was only referenced by people who belonged to the sub-cultural group and only referenced behaviors and attitudes not in relationship with the assessment of ferry informal rules39, such as the term “Noord is gestoord” (North is crazy) (Jessica, tag-along interview, March 6, 2022). There was no mention of Noord people being more or less tolerant of rule breakers, more or less likely to offend the informal rules, or differences of interpretations to the social rules.
Identifying ferry commuters as the main cultural group within this study, tourists were acknowledged as a differing cultural group and association with this group impacted the expectation and severity of the social rules. The term tourist included any person that was not a local and did not understand the social rules of riding the ferry. Similar to previous studies (Guan and Lee 2022, 6), due to the intercultural lack of knowledge for the unwritten rules, ferry commuters found their nonadherence unacceptable but were allotted more forgiveness
39 Qualities and behaviors mentioned in associated with Noord people were working class, tough, loyal, and criminal behaviors. Non-Noord inhabitants only mentioned Noord with the context of a geographical location and did not mention aspects of the sub-culture.
46 than a regular ferry commuter. George explained that tourist “don’t know how to behave” so he was more forgiving of their noncompliant actions, especially “if you don’t know you are in the wrong” (tag-along interview, March 25, 2022).
Additionally, past cultural group experiences influenced the definitions of how ferry commuters defined the expected social rules or how they enforced (or did not enforce) the informal rules. Jessica chose never to confront anyone disobeying a rule (no matter the severity) due to her experiences from growing up in a seedier town. In her past, she was fearful of knives or guns, so this fear followed her causing her to never want to confront a rule breaker. Sam also shared his reactions to people zooming up on their bikes was based on past experiences. Each time he tensed up and grimaced because the past experiences of bike riding in the UK made him worry about being crashed into. Lastly, proxemic expectations was linked to cultural pasts. Both Naomi and Robin discussed how living in other places of the world affected their expectations and reactions to proxemic behaviors while waiting and boarding the ferry. Robin having lived in India and Nepal did not expect much distance from others and found the Amsterdam ferry queuing practices very relaxing. Naomi preferred the proper queue lines that she remembered from New Zealand, she explained queueing “suits my character” (tag-along interview, March 24, 2022). However, her relaxed personality influenced her not to get upset when people did not queue in Amsterdam.
Lastly, cultural elements regarding conflict were discussed. While no conflict was observed during the tag-along interviews, anecdotal stories about past ferry rides and conflict exposed intercultural differences contributed to reactions of conflict. David shared a story when he confronted a scooter rider and asked him to turn off his engine (speaking English).
The scooter rider responded angrily with threats. David believed the harsh reaction was due to him not being Dutch (or non-local), identified by his looks and language. He came to this conclusion because when a Dutch man came to intervene, the scooter rider was instantly calmed down and complied by turning off his engine.
Ferry Commuter Personal Preferences
Personal preferences had a clear influential impact on the definition and enforcement of the unwritten rules, particularly regarding respecting personal space, smoking, and playing music. Nannet explained playing music was not annoying if she liked the type of music they were playing (matching her personal preference). Similarly, Laura explained that music is a very personal thing, so she did not understand why people would disturb other people’s vibes.
Almost all the interlocutors did not like smoking, so when around someone smoking during
the ferry commute, they would react by moving away from the smoker (however, not move away from other rules that were not adhered to). Lastly, personal space expectations were sometimes developed by personal preference. Different definitions of waiting or standing too close to each participant varied from just not physically touching to Hall’s definition of personal space (two and a half feet to four feet) (([1966] 1969, 120). While some
interlocutors attributed their preferred preference of space to their cultural past, such as living in India, others linked their preference of space to other factors such as the personality type of being an introvert.
Situational Factors
Lastly, situational factors impacted the expectations of the informal rules, specifically, which ferry was travelled on, the time of day, weather, and whether the participants were running late or on schedule. Each situational circumstance could be amplified based on the participant’s personality type, such as running late is more impactful to an efficient rider.
Surprisingly, the situational factor of crowd density did not seem to impact the perception of the informal rules except by being more accepting of invading personal space when it was crowded.
The Ferry
The dynamics of waiting, boarding, and riding the ferry changed drastically between the three different ferries observed. Frequency and length of the route of each ferry was the main cause to alter the nuances between each ferry. The F3 ferry arrived every four minutes with a four-minute ride and was often much
more crowded in comparison to the F2 and F4/
F5 ferry. The F3 ferry transported locals and tourists to and from the Buiksloterweg dock which hosts multiple tourist attractions (Eye Filmmuseum, A’DAM Lookout) and this area has multiple high tower apartment buildings
serving many locals. The F2 arrived every six Image 8: Map of F3 and F2 ferry line (GVB n.d.a).
minutes with a six-minute ride. It travelled to the IJplien dock which is a residential area causing the ferry to serve primarily locals. The F4/F5 was the longest ferry arriving every 15