Discourses on active citizenship
among social entrepreneurs in
Amsterdam
MSc Urban Sociology, 2014
Author: Jui-‐An Fan (10635599)
1
stSupervisor:
Dr. A.P.M. Veldboer
2
ndSupervisor: Dr. S. Metaal.
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 4
1.Introduction ... 5
1.1 Problem formation ... 5
1.2 Research question and sub-‐question ... 7
1.3 Relevance ... 8
2.Literature review ... 9
2.1 Active citizenship ... 9
2.1.1 Citizenship and active citizenship ... 9
2.1.2 Dutch policy discourse on active citizenship ... 11
2.2 Social entrepreneurship in Europe ... 12
2.3 Discourse analysis and resonance model ... 14
3. Methodology
... 17
3.1 Operationalization of the main concepts ... 17
3.2 Data collection & data analysis ... 18
3.2.1 Policy discourse on active citizenship ... 18
3.2.2 Personal discourse on active citizenship ... 18
3.2.3 Data analysis ... 20
3.3 Object of analysis ... 20
3.4 Reflection ... 21
4. Personal discourse among social entrepreneurs
... 234.1 The opening of a story ... 23
4.2 Discourse on everyday practices in communities ... 27
4.2.1 Everyday practice ... 27
4.2.3 Individuals and active citizenship ... 37
4.2.4 Conclusion ... 40
4.3 Discourse on the government ... 41
4.3.1 The government is… ... 41
4.3.2 Relationships with the government ... 46
4.3.3 Conclusion ... 51
5. Resonance model
... 526. Discussion and conclusion
... 577. References
... 60Appendix
... 64Abstract
With the trend of privatization of public welfare, “active citizenship” is at the center of the process of remaking citizenship. From a perspective of governance, community involvement is a strategy used by the government to promote
moralized responsibility. Citizens are expected to be self-‐responsible and bear responsibilities for their surroundings. From a perspective of everyday life, the study aims to clarify how social entrepreneurs in Amsterdam recognize active citizenship and (re)produce the discourse on active citizenship in everyday practice. By examining how policy discourse resonate among personal discourse of social entrepreneurs, the relationship between the citizens and the state will be reveled. The results showed that the personal discourse on active citizenship is based on liberal thought, which regards citizens as autonomous, rational and self-‐regulating individuals. Citizenship means rights to act as agents. Choice, not responsibility, is the preferred option. Individuals are liberated from
communities with tightly bounded solidarities, but commitment for a particular neighborhood is still possible. These social entrepreneurs focus on redistribution of power instead of moralized responsibility. Their narratives mostly accord with the "Empowerment talk" used in English policy discourse.
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem formation
The last two to three decades have witnessed a growing interest in active
citizenship. Based on liberal, communitarian, and civic republican approaches in early political thoughts, the discussions surrounding citizenship focus on rights, responsibility and participation. Citizenship is then defined as not only a given status but also an active practice (Jones& Gaventa, 2002). In line with the trend of privatization of public welfare, “active citizenship” is at the center of the process of remaking citizenship, which shows the relationship between the citizens and the nation-‐state is changing (Newman & Tokens, 2011:9; Hulgård, 2010). Citizens are expected to overcome welfare service dependency and shoulder personal responsibility for their own lives and surroundings, from employability, health to social cohesion and livability of their communities (Houwelingen et al., 2014:242; Newman & Tokens, ibid.)
Newman & Tokens (ibid: 10) point out that policymakers adopt active
citizenship as a strategy to either reach policy objectives or discipline citizens.
According to framing theory, policies encourage people to adjust their view of reality in the process of meaning production by policymakers (Rochefort & Donnelly, 2013). In the Netherlands, the government employs “responsibility talk” within policy documents to appeal to people’s sense of active citizenship in order to seduce them to engage more in the society (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013).
Several studies (Newman & Tokens, ibid; Hurenkamp et al., 2012) have noted that community involvement is of importance to reframe citizenship. From a perspective of governance, Uitermark & Duyvendak (2008) address that governments get more and more fragmented in today’s world. That is, the
hierarchical state is no longer responsible for social problems as much as before. While horizontal governance becomes a new focus to deal with social problems in the communities or inter-‐organizational networks. On the one hand, varied institutional actors become “partners” that cooperate with each other in
networks rather than toe the line through hierarchies of command. On the other hand, the horizontal governance goes hand in hand with new vertical control techniques. Based on Rose’s (1996) discussion on government through community, Marinetto (2003) proposes that community involvement is a strategy used by the government to promote a particular type of personal morality (reactivate self-‐responsibility) and offer positive images of living for individuals and their communities. Therefore, in the Netherlands, the topic of “rights” seemingly subordinates to the topic of “responsibility” in public discourse on active citizenship.
Furthermore, in terms of individuals as citizens, the domain of responsibility is extended to community. Many questions thereby arise: How can individuals deal with the conflicts between rights and responsibilities? How can we explain rights and responsibilities in civic participation? Is participation about responsibility on individuals? What is the domain of this responsibility? Is the responsibility for individual themselves, the communities they belong to, or even more, the
nation-‐state? From a perspective of people’s everyday life, people participate in the public realm close to them where they have social life with others (Graaf et al., 2014). Through everyday practice, people acquire the understanding of living conditions. Their lived experiences lay the foundation for them to take control of their lives as everyday practitioners. In other words, citizenship is either a given condition of everyday participation or a result through everyday practice. From both governance perspective and everyday-‐life perspective, the purpose of this study is to clarify whether individuals make sense of citizenship in line with the expectation of the nation-‐state by analyzing how individuals perceive themselves as citizens and how they fulfill citizenship in their everyday practice.
People perceive and identify themselves as citizens by interacting with dominant structures of power and discourse (Jones& Gaventa, 2002). The literature is full of discussions surrounding the definitions of “discourse”, however, Hajer’s (2005) definition is used in the study: “Discourse is defined here as an ensemble of ideas,
concepts, and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices.” Based on social-‐constructionism, language is not a neutral medium of
and works within the frame of public discourse, in which a subject-‐position is offered. S/he approaches the reality through the discourse embedded in the society and thereby interprets and takes action in the given subject-‐position. Personal discourse is about social practice. Utterance either reflects on or constitutes the reality where we live in. By the analysis of personal discourse among active citizens, the research aims to intensify efforts on how the active citizens respond to the policy discourse and how they produce or reproduce discourse through their everyday practices.
The research subjects are social entrepreneurs in Amsterdam. Social enterprise has been promoted by both the active citizens and the government with the trend of privatized public welfare (Hulgård, ibid). These social entrepreneurs actively participate in the communities through their neighbourhood business, which is related to a defined population living in a geographically defined area with social purpose or for the benefits to the community. The research will examine in what way citizenship is reframed by these social entrepreneurs.
1.2 Research question and sub-‐questions
The research will focus on whether the Dutch policy discourse on active citizenship is mirrored in the personal discourse held by the social entrepreneurs in Amsterdam.
The main research question is:
How does the policy discourse on active citizenship resonate among social entrepreneurs in Amsterdam?
The main research question could be formulated by 3 sub-‐questions, as follows: (1) What is the policy discourse on active citizenship in the Netherlands?
(2) What is the personal discourse on active citizenship of social entrepreneurs? (3) Is the personal discourse of social entrepreneurs on active citizenship in line with the policy discourse?
1.3 Relevance
Most empirical research has been done on active citizenship from a perspective of governance rather than everyday practice. The results will thus bridge the literature gap between the policy discourse and the personal discourse, which offer policymakers a framework to reflect on policymaking. Moreover, as Lister (1997) has differentiated “to be a citizen” from “to act as a citizen”, the study focuses on social entrepreneurs who not only recognize active citizenship as the given status but also put into practice. The study therefore is of importance and sociological relevance to examine how agency is embedded in social relations. And the last, in response to the trend of privatization of welfare states, there is more and more space for social entrepreneurs in civil society (Hulgård, ibid). The results will contribute to the understanding of whether civil society has gained momentum in recent years.
2. Literature review
2.1 Active citizenship
2.1.1 Citizenship and active citizenship
Citizenship is defined as a judicial status of a person and an active practice in numerous studies (Jones& Gaventa, 2002; Jochum, 2005; van Houdt,
2011). By tracing back to early political thought of citizenship Jones& Gaventa (ibid.) provide a brief overview of three mainly theoretical approaches to discuss citizenship: citizenship in liberal thought, citizenship in communitarian thought and citizenship in civic republican thought.
Liberal thought is based on self-‐interested and independent individuals, and the role of the nation-‐state is to protect its citizens to maximize their interests and exercise their rights. Citizenship thus is a formal status that entitles individuals to the same formal rights that are enshrined in law. The liberal perspective of citizenship places individual interests rather than collective interests in the central part, which is criticized by communitarians. Communitarians argue that individuals are not completely independent since all individuals are in relation with others and belong to a larger community. An individual is a
socially-‐embedded citizen, whose sense of identity is produced through the relations with other members in the community. The individual's interests and identities can only be realized through the relationship with others. Participation is regarded as virtues, and "common good" will be produced in the process of practice. And the last, the civic-‐republican approach puts emphasis on combining self-‐interested individuals and the sense of community belonging to a particular nation-‐state. Citizenship is a civic identity produced by a sense of belonging to a particular nation-‐state. Thus, all citizens have responsibilities to participate in public affairs and community lives for the expression of citizenship and social membership.
According to the three approaches, active citizenship can be understood as a social right that active citizens realize in order to reach freedom; as a form of agency and practice; as a relationship of accountability between public service providers and their users (Barnes, 1999:82 in Jones& Gaventa, 2002).
As Lister (1997:4) notes "To be a citizen in the legal and sociological sense means
to enjoy the rights of citizenship necessary for agency and social and political participation. To act as a citizen involves fulfilling the potential of that status". On
the one hand, under the law and norm of a nation-‐state, a citizen is bestowed on rights and duties. On the other hand, citizenship means the act of any citizen engaging in social and political affairs. Lister’s theory (1997; 1998) about citizenship is developed on the basis of liberal thought. Citizenship as rights enables people to act as agents. Individuals are autonomous actors who have capacity to act towards their needs. They are aware of the capacity to act in social relations, in which agency is embedded. If individuals are conscious of their capacity to act, and see their activities as citizenship practices that embody the sense of agency, a collective force for change may arise in civil society. According to Lister’s theory, the research hypothesis is that social entrepreneurs are the ones who believe people have capacity to act. It is
expected that the discourse among them will accord with citizenship as agency since they actively participate in the neighbourhood.
With the shift from government to governance, participation is more relevant to partnerships with the voluntary sector. The process of responsibilization in public policy aims at the improvement of poor neighborhoods and social
cohesion within communities (Newman & Tokens, ibid: 181). Marinetto (2003) asserts that community involvement is a strategy used by the government to promote a particular type of personal morality (reactivate self-‐responsibility). However, Newman & Tokens (ibid: 180) remind us that “responsibility cannot be
simply understood as something devolved from the state onto citizens. Citizens are already tied into relationships of mutual responsibility.” From a communitarian
perspective, this responsibility might be produced in the relationships with others within a community in terms of commitment to a group. Many studies in Newman & Tokens (ibid.) also point out citizens do not reject responsibility. Instead they oppose to the reduction of their freedom of choice when they are not treated as subjects or actors to fulfill their rights. It seems that the conflicts about individual rights and given responsibilities exist in the relationship between the citizens and the nation-‐state. The research results will clarify whether there is a tension between right and responsibility.
2.1.2. Dutch policy discourse on active citizenship
The Dutch government promotes the idea of “a shift from welfare state to participatory society”: the society where all citizens are involved to take
responsibilities for themselves and engage in community cohesion, and thereby enhance their well-‐beings (Houwelingen et al., ibid: 242). With responsibilization of public policy, active citizenship occupies the heart of the so-‐called
“participation law”-‐ Dutch Social Support Act (SSA). It reframes the
responsibilities between the government and the citizens, and between the citizens themselves (Verhoeven & Tonkens, ibid). According to SSA, all Dutch citizens are asked to increase their influence at local level by delivering social services or supporting others, especially for the vulnerable groups. Moreover, it was shown in the recent king’s speech from the Throne 20131. “(…) The classical
welfare state is slowly but surely evolving into a participation society. Everyone who is able will be asked to take responsibility for his/her own lives and immediate surroundings.” All in all, active citizenship is influenced by the communitarian
thought in the Netherlands. As far as citizen participation is concerned, citizens become more self-‐reliant and responsible to engage in the neighbourhoods where they live to enhance social well-‐being. Every citizen is expected to recognize him/herself as a member of a responsible society whether they are service users or not (Newman& Tokens, ibid: 181).
Policy is a process of meaning production that framed by policymakers, which guides citizens to observe reality and limits what can be said, felt, and demanded (Bröer& Duyvendak, 2009; Rochefort& Donnelly, 2012). Verhoeven& Tonkens (ibid) incorporate the emotional aspect of framing rules— “feeling rules” to compare the English discourse with the Dutch discourse used by the
governments to appeal to citizens’ feelings toward “active citizenship” and motivate them on move to voluntary action. They point out the two reform initiatives employ different talks to structure policy discourse on participation. In comparison with English discourse, which uses “empowerment talk” to “invite” citizens to take action by blaming on the government, the Dutch policymakers employ “responsibility talk” that participation is about every citizen’s duty to
1A selection of speeches from the Royal Family contains of government policy for the forthcoming term, which is given in English on the website.
http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/globale-‐paginas/taalrubrieken/english/speeches/speeches-‐from-‐ the-‐throne/speech-‐from-‐the-‐throne-‐2013/
legitimate citizens’ negative feeling toward themselves. The research points out the mainly differences between English discourse and Dutch discourse, as follows:
(1) The reason why active citizenship has to become normal, in Dutch discourse, is that too many passive citizens fail to contribute to society, while English discourse legitimizes negative feelings toward the failed big government.
(2) Dutch discourse stresses active citizenship is more about responsibility to help others than shared power. English discourse shapes active citizens as key actors to change society, in which shared power is necessary.
(3) Dutch discourse is about individuals who are asked to deliver to society (especially local neighbourhoods) since they have a duty to help each other. English discourse is about individuals belonging to communities, in which citizens are working together for the communities and each other.
(4) Dutch discourse may trigger unpleasant feelings, for instance, fatigue, but there is no alternative to shouldering responsibility. On the contrary, English discourse conveys positive, energetic and optimistic feelings to seduce citizens to become active by participating/doing voluntary works in communities.
Both empowerment talk and responsibility talk on participation are policy choices of policy makers. Although every citizen is expected to adjust his/ her views and values in accord with the frame of the policy, the message receivers respond to the policy through the process of selection according to internalized framing. For the study, English discourse and Dutch discourse are regarded as two categories of discourse on participation, and used in resonance model.
2.2 Social entrepreneurship in Europe
More recently, research on social entrepreneurship in Europe has been primarily concerned with reframing the relations among three sectors — welfare state, market and civil society. Social entrepreneurship is proposed due to the trend of privatized public welfare in European welfare states. The welfare state becomes
an enabling state, which promotes participation and individual responsibility (Hulgård, ibid). In line with the trend, there is also a trend toward new forms of bottom-‐up movements in civil society. Nicholls (2008: 15-‐16) mentions
cooperative organizations in civil society arise when the nation-‐states or the market cannot offer public goods or service to the citizens (that is called “social market failures”). As has been mentioned in the previous subsection, the third sector is expected to deliver service to support citizens and take place of public service. Social investment is a key of policy-‐making, which is not only related to individuals, for example, active labour market policy, but also social capital and local communities. Hulgård (ibid.) categorizes the discourse on social
entrepreneurship by analyzing policy documents and narratives among large-‐scale initiatives. First, social entrepreneurship is promoted to provide welfare service, increase active citizenship and democratic participation. Second, social entrepreneurship is linked to social economy as an alternative to
market-‐based solutions. Third, social entrepreneurship can be generated from both bottom-‐up initiatives and top-‐down process. Therefore social
entrepreneurship in European context can be understood as a part of tradition of the social economy, which is often compared to the market-‐oriented economic activities in the USA. These discourses show that social economy is potentially a cornerstone to supply the function of welfare states. However, it also makes room for active citizens to create a bottom-‐up movement that is possible to influence their future (Bridge et al., 2009:79; Hulgård, ibid).
Hulgård’s definition of social entrepreneurship as "the creation of a social value
that is produced in collaboration with people and organisations from the civil society who are engaged in social innovations that usually imply an economic activity" is used in the study. He further defines economic activities in a broad
sense On the one hand, the entrepreneurs take economic risk and have ambition . of producing good or services for social value. On the other, the participants benefit from these good and service. Thus, the definition of a social entrepreneur in the research is: a person who is good at connecting resources and cooperating with various agencies in different sectors (i.e. civil society, public organizations and private enterprises) flexibly to reach their social goals rather than pursue self-‐interests.
2.3 Discourse analysis and resonance model
According to Hajer (2005), discourse is defined as “an ensemble of ideas, concepts,
and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices.”
Discourse contains “framing rules” and “feeling rules” (Bröer& Duyvendak, 2009). Framing rules form a specific interpretive frame to individuals, which limits and enables individuals to ascribe meaning to reality. Feeling rules concern the emotional aspect of framing rules. People have histories filled with “framing rules” and “feeling rules” which together constitute their subjectivity and personal discourse (Bröer& Duyvendak, ibid). When people identify a public discourse, they respond to it by personal discourse according to their
internalized framing rules and feeling rules. To show how policy discourse resonate by the personal discourse among social entrepreneurs, the research will use resonance model in discourse analysis. Resonance means echo or repercussion (Bröer& Duyvendak, ibid.). This model is based on Hajer’s (1995) discourse theory, which will represent three kinds of relationship between public discourse and personal discourse: consonance, dissonance and autonomy (Bröer& Heerings, 2013). Dominant discourse means all utterances refer to it, while other kinds of knowledge are only referred to occasionally. A certain form of knowledge becomes dominant discourse when it is institutionalized through law, practice, policy or organization (Hajer, 2005). Consonance means people adopt the public discourse; dissonance means people partially adopt a public discourse; autonomy means people reject the public discourse and express another discourse. For the research, the dominant (public) discourse is Dutch policy discourse on active citizenship. And the personal discourse is the utterances from social entrepreneurs who actively engage in their neighbourhood business.
Rochefort & Donnelly (2013) address that “narratives are devices that bring order and meaning to a situation.” People convey the facts that they recognize in a story form. Hajer (2005) defines story lines as: “the medium through which
actors try to impose their view of reality on others, suggest certain social positions and practices, and criticize alternative social arrangements.” A narrative does not
reconstructs reality (Hinchman & Hinchman, 1997: xvi). People reproduce or reject public discourse according to how people recognize public discourse through the internalized framing rules and feeling rules. As a story-‐ teller, the person builds connections among his/her past experience, the present and the prospect for the future to tell the self to take action. Ringmar (1996:73) clarifies the relation among narrative, identity and action:
“From the perspective of the story's participants, the directness of narrative can be understood in terms of the intentional aspect of action. To be a conscious human being is to have intentions and plans -‐ to be trying to bring about certain affects -‐ and the link between intention and execution is always rendered in narrative form. In this way story-‐telling becomes a prerequisite of action: first we attach metaphors to our unfathomable selves, to the situations we are in, and then we go on telling stories about ourselves and our situations thus understood. We tell ourselves what kind of a person we were/are/will be; what kind of a situation we were/are /will be in; and what such people as ourselves are likely to do under these particular circumstances.”
Therefore, story is self-‐reflexive and intention-‐oriented. By analyzing the narratives of social entrepreneurs, the research aims to know how they
recognize their situations and what are their inner concerns that trigger actions. Ringmar (ibid: 75) also reminds us not to categorize these people as a group of active citizens:
"An actor is not what a person or a group "really is" since actors exist only in the narratives they tell about themselves or that are told about them. Actors exist in stories and nowhere else, and stories are governed by narratological, not ontological, requirements.”
These social entrepreneurs are individuals with their personal interests and concerns. However, they might have similar narratives on active citizenship. Hajer (2005) defines “discourse-‐coalition” as: “a group of actors that, in the
context of an identifiable set of practices, shares the usage of a particular set of story lines over a particular period of time.” A discourse-‐coalition is not necessary
lines to legitimize or criticize certain practices. On the other hand, since
discourse is in interrelation with practices, a discourse-‐coalition form when the story lines are (re) produced and transformed in the actors’ everyday practice. For the research, it is expected that social entrepreneurs with varied
backgrounds and personal interests form a specific discourse-‐coalition by sharing story lines.
3. Methodology
3.1 Operationalization of the main concepts
Since the purpose of the research is to examine how personal discourse on active citizenship of the social entrepreneurs resonates policy discourse, the first
concept of the research is “discourse”. Discourse is defined as “an ensemble of
ideas, concepts, and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an
identifiable set of practices” (Hajer, 2005). Based on resonance model (Bröer and
Heerings, 2012), the relationship between policy discourse and personal
discourse among entrepreneurs will be expressed through three kinds of form as follows. (1) Consonance: when the discourse of social entrepreneurs is similar to the policy discourse, the personal discourse is consonant with the public
discourse. (2) Dissonance: when the social entrepreneurs partially adopt or partially reject the policy discourse in their discourse, the personal discourse is dissonant with the policy discourse. (3) Autonomy: when the social
entrepreneurs reject or do not refer to the public discourse but put forth other arguments in the personal discourse, the personal discourse represents
autonomy to the policy discourse.
The second concept of the research is “active citizenship”. Although the aim of the research is to find out how the social entrepreneurs define “active citizenship” by the personal discourse, the concept of “citizenship” still can be
operationalized from three dimensions: active practice, the relationship with the government, and the domain of participation. Citizenship is defined as a given status and predominantly as active practice. To understand how the social entrepreneurs “act as an active citizen” in their everyday practice, they were asked about the reason why they started the neighbourhood business and were also asked to describe the projects they were conducting in the neighbourhood. Moreover, citizenship is regarded as the relationship between the citizens and the nation-‐state. Therefore, the social entrepreneurs were asked about their opinions on the government related to neighbourhood business. Dutch government employs “responsibility talk” in public discourse, thus the social
entrepreneurs were asked about perceived duties. And the last, to understand the conflicts between individuals and groups on citizenship, the social
entrepreneurs were asked about how did they thought of the abstract concept “community” and their communication with other residents in the
neighbourhood.
3.2 Data collection & Data analysis
The research question contains of Dutch policy discourse on active citizenship and personal discourse on active citizenship of social entrepreneurs. In the section, data collection of policy discourse and personal discourse will be discussed separately.
3.2.1 Policy discourse on active citizenship
Policy discourse is already shown in the chapter of literature review. It is based on mainly academic papers and several public documents in English. Verhoeven & Tonkens’ research (2013) on policy discourse in England and the Netherlands is used as two categories of discourse on active citizenship. Other recently
academic studies and public documents are used to examine the policy discourse analysis in Verhoeven & Tonkens’ research. These academic studies are:
Hurenkamp et al. (2011), Hurenkamp et al. (2012) Kleinhans et al. (2013), and
Newman& Tokens (2011). And the public documents are the throne speech (Troonrede) in 2013 that presents the government policy in the forthcoming term and an English summary of research results in Burgermacht op eigen kracht?, which is an empirical research focuses on citizen participation in five
Dutch municipalities published by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP). The research published by SCP is widely used by Dutch government, local authorities, civil servants and academics2.
3.2.2 Personal discourse on active citizenship
For the research, personal discourse is referred to narratives of social
entrepreneurs. Actors convey the facts they are aware of in story form, and give meaning to their experiences and situations. To understand the narratives of
2 Introduction of SCP on the official website:
social entrepreneurs, 11 interviews have been conducted. These interviews were semi-‐structured, based on a question list that surrounded by three main topics as been mentioned in the previous section: everyday practice, the government and community. With broad and open-‐ended questions related to the three topics, respondents’ narratives have been close to the research questions and answered in-‐depth. These interviews started with the practical questions, for example, the opening question was “why did you start this neighbourhood business”, and then abstract questions “how do you think of community in general?” or questions in detail “do you think your communication is different from the municipality?” Except for the opening question, the questions were asked without a specific order but according to the respondents’ answers.
The interviews lasted around 45 minutes to an hour. One was conducted through Skype, and others were conducted in working places of the neighbourhood businesses of the respondents. It was not only cozier for the respondents to share their experiences and thoughts in their familiar spaces, but also beneficial for the research to observe the daily lives of the neighbourhood businesses. Before the interviews, a short introduction about the research was given. All the interviews were conducted in English, recorded and transcribed in detail.
The interviewees were chosen based on snowball sampling. To access a
particular category of people, social entrepreneurs, the initiatives introduced by the book Pioniers in de stad that focuses on neighbourhood business mainly in Amsterdam was used to search for potential subjects. In total, 14 contact information of the initiatives were found. Some of the initiatives are individual businesses, and others contain of several neighbourhood business. The first contacts to the interviewees were through e-‐mail addresses and phone numbers on the website of these neighbourhood businesses. These respondents
approached via E-‐mail, texts, or direct phone calls were given a brief
introduction of the research and research permission. One of the respondents was approached by directly visiting the sites of the initiative. The other
respondents were approached through the contact information that given by previous interviewees or e-‐mail receivers. Representativeness of the sample is not guaranteed since the true population is unknown. The reliability is low because it’s difficult to ensure the consistency of the respondents’ narrative over
time. The external validity is relatively low because there is no random sample chosen by snow sampling method. The internal validity is high because
respondents are limited to a small subgroup of the population, which ensures the sharing of the same traits within the interview group. However, most of the initiatives introduced by the book are also reported by other mass media, for example, the magazine Stad in Transitie. Thus, sampling bias is reduced as far as possible.
3.2.3 Data analysis
The research uses discourse analysis based on resonance model. Policy discourse is in terms of Verhoeven & Tonkens’ (2013) framework, while
personal discourse is according to the transcripts of the interviewees. All of the interviews have been literally transcribed as possible. During the process of analysis, I used the strategy of organizational categories and then theoretical categories (Maxwell, 2013:107-‐108). The first step was roughly naming the subject matter of the segment to identify what the respondents said was relevant to. Organizational categories were taken from respondents’ own words. And the latter task was coding based on theoretical categories. These quotes from the transcripts were categorized into a more general framework according to the mainly topics (and its subtopics): community, everyday practice and the government. Through data coding, the discourse on active citizenship of the social entrepreneurs has been found. After analyzing the narratives, the
resonance model has been used to examine how the personal discourse among the social entrepreneurs resonates the policy discourse. These results will be presented in the next chapter.
3.3 Object of analysis
The objects of analysis are the social entrepreneurs in Amsterdam. On the basis of Hulgård’ s study (2010), the definition of a social entrepreneur is: a person who is good at connecting resources and cooperating with various agencies in different sectors flexibly to reach their social goal rather than pursue
self-‐interests. These social entrepreneurs have been working for neighbourhood with social purposes. Some of them are volunteers, and the others receive partial income from their neighbourhood business. Most of them are highly-‐educated people and professionals. Their professional fields were various, and therefore
more or less influence on their everyday practice in the neighbourhood. All neighbourhood businesses locate outside of city center. To protect the identity of the respondents, pseudonyms have been used. Every neighbourhood business and neighbourhood was also given a code name as the table below. The job role is according to self-‐proclaimed title of the respondent. If there is not any
self-‐proclaimed title, “business leader or business initiator” is used. All of the respondents are the leader of their business. The title of “business initiator” is used to stress out the social entrepreneur who starts the neighbourhood business in the beginning.
Name Job role/title Sex Neighbourhood Neighbourhood
Business
Anna Social Designer Female 1 A
Ben Business Initiator Male 2 B
Carl Business Initiator Male 3 C
Danny Business Leader Male 4 D
Elaine Community Consulter Female 5 E
Frank Business Leader Male 6 F
Graham IT Specialist Male 7 G
Henry Business Initiator Male 8 H
Ivy Communication Artist Female 9 I
Joe Community Artist Male 10 J
Kate Business Leader Female 11 K
3.4 Reflection
The possible limitation is the language barrier. Data collection of public
discourse and personal discourse are both possibly influenced by the language barrier. All Dutch data that contains of Dutch academic works, policy documents, and the information from mass media have been excluded in the research. Thus the interview, academic works in English and English documents are the rest data I could collect. All the results have been presented in the research about the neighbourhood businesses are according to the interviews. Before the interviews, I browsed the reports and websites about related to the neighbourhood
to collect preliminary information. Furthermore, the content of the interviews might be limited due to the language barrier likewise. All the interviews were conducted in English. The respondents’ narratives might be influenced by their language skills. During the interviews, to avoid the language problem as possible, once the respondent mentioned Dutch words that s/he couldn’t express in
4. Personal discourse among social entrepreneurs
4.1 The opening of a story
In this section, results about the social purpose of these social entrepreneurs will be presented. The respondents were asked why they started their
neighbourhood businesses. Based on the narrative analysis in the literature review section, it is not surprising that most of the respondents answered the question in story form, offering a condensed version of their past lived
experiences, what they are doing now and the direction they are heading toward. The results will therefore likewise be discussed as stories, with actors, settings, events, and audiences. I will point out a causal relationship developed through the stories of these social entrepreneurs and the intentional aspect of action that the stories express.
Let us examine a typical story:
“This place is surrounded by 5 neighbourhoods, like the poorest
neighbourhoods in Amsterdam. Although it’s a neighbourhood with lots of problems, when the initiator started this project, there was no culture at all in the area. Like there was only a library and few activities. (…) We think we should make more connections with local residents and help them find their own talents, and give them a stage or a place to discover their talents. Most of them are lonely, unemployed, so they just stick to their own surroundings. They don’t engage with the neighbourhood. So we try to do projects and help people get involved with each other, and make connections between different parties. (…) The purpose is to revive the neighbourhood, to mix all kinds of people, from 1-‐90 years old, alcoholics to members of different subcultures. Get them involved, not only like consumers but as producers.” (Frank, Business
Leader)
Here the setting was an impoverished neighbourhood with some problems and “no culture”. Most of the local residents had been lonely and unemployed and lacked both connections to the neighbourhood and opportunities to develop
themselves. However, after the chief actor, the initiator of the neighbourhood business, started his business, something changed. A rhetorical strategy of contrast was used to problematize the situation before the pioneer entered the stage and juxtaposed it against the scene after he arrived. By using this strategy of contrast in his narrative, the storyteller legitimized his purpose, practice and beliefs for the neighbourhood (Ruebottom, 2013). In other words, the story was much more persuasive to the audience. The practices of the initiator with his/her partners had brought change. The entrepreneurs organized various projects and cultural events (which Frank mentions later), making the neighbourhood more “cultural”. Moreover, they bridged different parties and created connections between individuals who came to the neighbourhood. No matter what group a person was categorized in, for instance, elderly or alcoholic, s/he was welcomed to be involved. The social entrepreneurs tried empowering these people to become active as producers rather than consumers. The storyteller believed the everyday practice of connecting all kinds of people would bring about positive outcomes for the neighbourhood.
Most of the respondents’ narratives began with a description of problems in their neighbourhoods: unemployment, language barriers, the lack of social networks among residents, security issues, poor living conditions, and so forth. Next, a group of people, the social entrepreneurs (who lived or worked in the neighbourhood), wanted to do something for the neighbourhood, that is, to solve the “problem” described.
The respondents often employed the rhetorical strategy of downplaying when they described “the problems”. They transformed “the problem” in the
neighbourhood into another account based on their beliefs. As Graham, an IT Specialist who assisted G-‐business in building an online platform to connect resources, information and residents in the neighbourhood stated:
“[G-‐business] was started by three other people here in the neighbourhood. And they wanted to talk with other people living here about society, you can call them problems in this neighbourhood, and about their dreams, wishes, to improve the situation in the neighbourhood. So they started to organize some events. (…) It mainly focuses on inspiring other people in the
