Stigma-feelings and effects on social networks of young, “highly skilled” Italian and Polish migrants : a case-study in Amsterdam

(1)

S

TIGMA

-F

EELINGS AND

EFFECTS ON SOCIAL

NETWORKS OF YOUNG

,

“

HIGHLY SKILLED

”

I

TALIAN

AND

P

OLISH MIGRANTS

:

A

CASE STUDY IN

A

MSTERDAM

.

Master's Thesis in Sociology

Track : Urban Sociology

Francesca Palamidessi (10435883)

f.palamidessi@gmail.com

First Supervisor: Walter Nicholls

Second Reader: Freek Janssens

2

nd

July 2014

(2)

Abstract

Europe is facing a sharp increase of anti-immigrant discourses and European migrants are increasingly becoming targets of social bias and stigma. Within this context, the purpose of this study is to examine the stigma and its effects on the networking strategies of European immigrants by using a comparative research on young, highly skilled Italian and Polish migrants living in Amsterdam.

I have analyzed how the different levels of stigmatization, experienced by the two groups with local people, result in the similar or different networking behaviors. Hostility plays a major role in affecting social networks of migrants. Therefore, this investigation tries to provide an interesting study case about migrant networks by assessing different levels of hostility of two groups with similar educational backgrounds.

The evidence shows that the differences in levels of stigmatization of the Italian and the Polish migrants create two distinctive networking patterns. The particular position of each group in the host society produces different strategies to deal with co-ethnic networks. However, both groups show a similar tendency to socialize with other networks, as they both avoid the Dutch people and prefer to assimilate with transnational migrants. The relevance and the innovation of this study lie not only in providing contributions to the literature and filling the existing gap, but also in suggesting new kinds of networking strategies in “super expat” cities.

(3)

Acknowledgments

I own my deepest gratitude to the people who have supported me in the last few months, especially in those moments of stress and discourage.

I would like to sincerely thank my first supervisor, Dr. Walter Nicholls, for providing me helpful feedback to improve my research and for inspiring me throughout the project. This thesis would not have been possible without his guidance and understanding.

My deepest gratitude is extended to Kasia C. who dedicated a lot of her time in correcting my errors and who provided me with very helpful comments.

I would express my thanks to all the participants of this research that allowed me to conduct this study and to gather so interesting data!

I would extend my gratitude to my family and my sisters for supporting my decision to move alone to the Netherlands and to apply for this Master. Thank you for your tireless efforts on encouraging me!

Special thanks go also to: Tania, for her precious encouragements that pushed me forward every day, thank you for being my best flat mate; Kasia and Ayman, for their love and good moments, as being my family; Alvaro, my best friend, who was constantly cheering me up from thousands kilometers of distance; Toni, for his extra help and for our distracting moments.

A huge thank you is expressed also to my classmates, friends in Amsterdam, my team leader, my team and my colleagues of Booking.com, and friends back in Italy as well. To Sara, for being such a great support in whatever country I am, and to Giulia, “the half part of my brain”.

Last but not certainly least, I would like to express to deepest gratitude for my mentor Daisaku Ikeda, and for all the members of SGI who daily encouraged me in challenging my fears and in giving the best with this research.

(4)

1. Introduction

1.1

Problem formulation

Immigration is one of the most discussed issues of the contemporary political European agenda. In the first five months of 2014, two major political events have shown a strong increase in anti-immigrant discourses and a wide spread of Euro-skepticism throughout all Europe.

The majority of voters in Switzerland approved a referendum to limit the number of European migrants in their country. The referendum sounded an alarm for the European integration, since Switzerland has always been in favor of migration flows. In fact, Switzerland has a long tradition of labor migration1 and is part of the Schengen area2, a free circulation zone for European citizens. Switzerland’s case sparked a heated debate among politicians of other European countries, aggravating the concerns regarding internal migration. The British newspaper The Guardian (11/02/2014) reported that “Geert Wilders, the right-wing Dutch populist, called the Swiss result "fantastic" and called on the Netherlands to follow suit” and that Marine Le Pen, leader of France's National Front, said the same about France, "This Swiss victory will reinforce the will of the French people to stop mass immigration"”.

In May 2014 the European elections reconfirmed the unexpected result of Switzerland's referendum. Euro-skeptic parties increased their numbers and gained ground. As mentioned in The Economist (31/05/2014), “Europe, hitherto a bastion of European federalism, is set to become the beachhead for all sorts of anti-Europeans”. Regardless of their legal status or their citizenship, EU-migrants are gradually becoming targets of bias and stigma.

The aim of this study is, therefore, to examine stigma and its effect on social networks of those

1 In 1970 Switzerland counted a labor force composed by a 40 % of foreigners (Castles and Kosack, 1973).

2 The Schengen area and cooperation was founded in 1985 (Europe.eu). The Schengen area marks the possibility of free movements of citizens without passports. The agreement was firstly signed by France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Then, Italy joined the cooperation in 1990, followed by Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Austria. Few years later the agreement was extended almost to all the Member States. Switzerland joined as associated country in 2008 (Europe.eu).

(6)

6

European migrants who have become the protagonists of the anti-immigration arguments. This research tries to call attention to and shed light on the emic perspective of two small3 European migrant groups, the Italian and the Polish, living in the “multicultural”4 (Vermeulen, 2013) city of Amsterdam.

In the following sections, a more detailed description of the object and the purpose of this study will be offered, with an explanation of its findings’ relevance and innovation for the Migration studies.

1.2

Object of the study

Within the context of the anti-immigrant European debate, this investigation provides an insight into the process of stigmatization and its mechanisms. This study analyzes whether young, highly skilled5 Italian and Polish migrants, living in the city of Amsterdam6, perceive feelings of stigma in their everyday interactions with locals, and whether and how experiences of stigma shape their social networks7 in the host country. The data were collected from 20 semi-structured interviews, 10 with young, highly skilled Italian and 10 with young, highly skilled Polish immigrants, living in Amsterdam.

The analysis investigates the stigma-feelings perceived by these migrants as national groups, the way in which they encounter stigma in the new country (for example through media or, social interactions), the labels assigned to them, the reactions and strategies adopted to deal with stigmatization, and lastly, the effects of stigma on social networks.

The ultimate aim of this study is to examine whether and how experiences of stigma of highly skilled migrants have consequently affected their networking behaviors and strategies, for example, their choice of friends, and preference for socializing with foreigners, co-ethnics, or native Dutch. In

3 In comparison with Moroccans, Turkish and Surinamese, Italians and Poles are considered small groups for their minor extension.

4 Vermeulen (2013) considers Amsterdam as a multicultural city, characterized by an open environment for foreigners, in contrast to Berlin. The supportive space is created through numerous subsidies and opportunities accessible by immigrants in Amsterdam (Vermeulen, 2013).

5 Csedo (2008) defines “high-skilled” migrants as individuals with higher level of schooling, who have completed tertiary education. The higher education leads the individual to be considered as a higher level of human capital (Csedo, 2008). Interestingly, Doorn Van M., Scheepers P., Dagevos (2013) in a recent study among six smaller immigrant groups in the Netherlands, showed that higher educated migrants perceive more personal discrimination. The exposure to Dutch politics, the experience of relative deprivation in the job and education environment and the participation in associations are the elements that can be attributed to the sense of discrimination (Doorn, Scheepers, Dagevos, 2013).

6 For the multicultural aspect and integration policies (Joppke, 2007) Amsterdam seems a city where it might be more difficult to find stigmatization of migrants.

7 By social networks, I mean the group of friends, relatives previously emigrated, neighbors, colleagues and people known in other contexts by the immigrant, for example in recreational activities.

(7)

7

situations of stigma and hostility, combined with low exit options8, migrants are more likely to take refuge within their ethnic communities (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). However, in the case of stigmatized highly skilled migrants, the possibilities of success in the host country should be higher and individuals more open towards the local community or others foreigners. Therefore, the effects on social networks might be different than those described by Portes and Sensenbrenner. For this reason, the main purpose of this research was to investigate whether stigmatized migrants with high exit options tend to create close relationships with their national community, or are more likely to socialize with foreigners or local people.

While considering their relations with Dutch society, it is crucial to understand that Poles and Italians are stigmatized differently9. On the one hand, the Polish, together with other Eastern European migrants, have been strongly stigmatized by Dutch politicians, media, and citizens. During the last few years Polish people have been continuously attacked. On the other hand, the Italians have never been publicly stigmatized in The Netherlands and never reached the level of stigmatization of Polish migrants. In conclusion, the comparison of the experiences of Italian and Polish migrants, with similar educational backgrounds, but different levels of stigmatization, will allow us to identify similarities and differences in stigma-feelings and networking strategies, existing between the two groups. The originality and the challenge of this research lie in the interpretation of the distinct effects that different levels of stigma might generate on networking behaviors of the two stigmatized European migrant groups.

1.3

Research questions

The central research question addressed by this thesis is:

In what way do young, highly skilled Italian and Polish migrants, living in Amsterdam, feel stigmatized by the Dutch society and what are the effects of stigma on their social networks?

This macro-question is analyzed further by addressing the following sub-questions:

• How do these migrants encounter stigma in the local society?

• What are the labels assigned to these immigrants and the values given to the labels?

• What are the reactions and the strategies adopted by these migrants to deal with stigma?

• How are these immigrants’ friendships and networks affected by their encounters with

8 By exit options, I mean life' opportunities and the possibility to have career success in the host society. 9 See the section “Context of this study” for more details.

(8)

8 situations of stigmatization by locals?

1.4

Relevance

The body of literature on migration focuses on international flows and illegal migration, disregarding the importance of inter-European migration. Therefore, this study brings the attention of researchers and social scientists on the dynamics of the contemporary European migration and tries to cover the existing gap in the literature. The aim of this research is not to analyze the European anti-immigrant political debate or to examine the top down strategies of the States on the European integration process, but rather to offer a deeper understanding of the emic perspective of stigmatized migrants. Thus, this thesis contributes to the contemporary debate on and literature about European migration, by giving voice to those oppressed, “invisible” migrants, who have become the targets of hatred.

Stigma-feelings, as well as experiences and effects of stigma on networking behaviors of European migrants are the central focus of this thesis. Consequently, this investigation will seek and analyze similarities and differences existing in stigma feelings and social networks between the Italians and the Poles, using the comparative approach. The results of this research will provide evidence affirming that, despite similarities in the educational backgrounds, age, and the time of stay in Amsterdam, differences in levels of stigmatization determine distinct pathways of networking behaviors of migrants. Moreover, the findings will show two networking patterns, chosen by the two migrant groups, different from those described in the literature. These innovative results will provide insight into new networking theories on stigmatized migrants in highly diverse cities10.

Therefore, this research aims to fill the existing literature gap, and to further expand the knowledge on European migration, from the standpoint of EU-migrants. The relevance of this study lies not only in offering original, comparative ways of looking at stigmatized European immigrants, but also in providing new findings on networking strategies of migrants and in advancing the research on networking theories of migration literature.

10 Super diverse cities are for example Amsterdam, London, and Paris. These cities are characterized by an extreme multicultural population.

(9)

9

2. Theoretical Framework

The concept of “stigma” has been addressed by the primary literature in reference to those individuals who are defined as “vulnerable” or “marginal”11. Vulnerable people are considered outsiders, or different from the “normal”, and stigmatized. These individuals might not have full access to social services, benefits, and rights, or not be completely recognized as members of the society. Recent studies focus mainly on stigmatized disabled people (Schneider, 1988), sex workers (Pheterson, 1996), the homeless (Kennedy and Fitzpatrick, 2001), or illegal migrants (Van der Leun, 2006)12. Contrary to the literature on migrant stigma, not only those without legal status are stigmatized. Also individuals with legal status have been considered “marginal” and stigmatized throughout the different societies, because of their distinct ethnicity.

The literature on the stigmatization of legal migrants focuses primarily on the relationship between migrants and host societies and the problems associated with being “outsiders” in the new country. Research conducted outside Europe, especially in the United States, directs its attention toward the dynamics of racism and the stigmatization of Afro-Americans (Collins, 1986; Crenshaw, 1989). Diversely, European research centers in particular on the discrimination of international migrants, considered “the others”, and is based on comparative field studies of two or more ethnic communities living in a European country (Wagner et al., 2006; Doorn et al., 2013; Blokland, 2003; King and Mai, 2009). The literature addressing the stigmatization of European migrants is not extensive. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to widen the understanding of European migration and fill the gap in the existing literature.

The theoretical framework will provide the key concepts of the process of stigmatization

11 “Vulnerable” individuals are those who are part of a minority group, characterized by a high marginalization from the society and by a status of anonymity. Disable individuals, illegal migrants, homeless or sex workers are an example of “vulnerable” individuals because they are considered as outsiders and they are affected by a stigmatization.

12 Actually, in recent years the concept of stigma has been studied by sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and many other academics. For this reason, the range of case-studies about stigmatization varies from very different subjects (Link and Phelan, 2001), including also exotic dancing (Lewis, 1998), cancer (Fife and Wright, 2000), debtors (David, 1998), mothers who are lesbians (Causey and Duran-Ayuditung), deft people (Goffman, 1963), and unemployed people (Goffman, 1963).

(10)

10

necessary for the interpretation of the data collected. Firstly, a definition of the concept of “stigma-label” will be given and the ways in which ethnic stigma can unfold in the society will be explained. We will also analyze the factors that affect the creation of stigma and its levels, as well as look at, the situations in which a migrant can encounter stigma and at the power relationships that are created between a “dominant” and a “stigmatized” group. Secondly, we will show how the “confrontation” of the two groups generates reactions and strategies in migrants and stigmatized migrant groups. Lastly, we will describe how stigma can shape the networking strategies of “highly skilled” migrants.

The results chapter is dedicated to explanation of this study’s findings. The concepts introduced in the theoretical framework section will be analyzed through the lens of the data, collected in the interviews.

2.1 Feeling “different”: Perceptions, labels and situations

An individual can be recognized as “ordinary” or “natural” according to those elements and attributes that determine the person to be “ordinary” in a society. There are social settings that establish the specific categories of people more likely to be seen and accepted in that space (Goffman, 1963). When we see a stranger in our society, his appearance is the first element anticipating his different attributes and his unknown category.

When the term “stigma” was originated by Greeks, it was used to define something unknown and unusual in the Greek society, therefore “bad” and, possibly dangerous, such as a criminal or a traitor. External physical attributes were seen as concrete reasons for stigmatizing somebody:

“[...] bodily signs designed to expose something unusual and bad about the moral status of the signifier” (Goffman, 1963, 1).

A stigma represents, then, an attribute (Goffman, 1963) of a person that draws the attention of the other and sharply marks the difference (Goffman, 1963) from the other:

“While the stranger is present before us, evidence can arise of his possessing an attribute that makes him different from others in the category of persons available for him to be, and of a less desirable kind – in the extreme, a person who is quite thoroughly bad, or dangerous, or weak. He is thus reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one. Such an attribute is a stigma, especially when it is discrediting” (Goffman, 1963, 2-3).

(11)

11

Stigma corresponds to a “discrediting attribute” that represents “the other” as weak, dangerous or bad (Goffman, 1963). Even though the stranger might think him or herself to be “normal” and like “the others” in his or her society, he or she may perceive that he or she is treated differently and is not completely accepted in this environment. The “normal” can see that the stranger does not possess the same attributes (Goffman, 1963) and for this reason does not accept the individual in the society. Migrants are stigmatized for their “ethnic label” (Barth, 1969), created by the local community because of their “contrasting cultural traits” (Barth, 1969, 40). Stigma in fact represents a label or “something that is affixed” by a particular society (Link and Phelan, 2001).

Regarding the attributes exposing the differences between migrants and “locals”, we can stress the skin color, hair type, cultural practices, language, religion, and political and social behaviors (Castels, 2000). The stigma-label can be constructed out of visible or invisible, and external or internal characteristics. The appearance (Link and Phelan, 2001), such as the skin or hair color is the first element used to label a migrant. The cultural values (Link and Phelan, 2001), such as religion, language or customs, can be other reasons for the creation of stigma. Other visible and invisible characteristic can be social identities or behaviors (Link and Phelan, 2001), as sexual orientation or occupation. A direct example is given by Barth (1969) when he explains that Lappish immigrants are stigmatized for their broken Norwegian. They are described as people with low living standard and without industrial skills (Barth, 1969). In the case of the Lapps, the stigma is felt as a “mark”, created by the established group, based on their “inferior” physical, social, and communicative characteristics (Barth, 1969). In the Norwegian society, Lappish migrants are indeed discriminated against because of external and internal characteristics.

By considering the attributes defining the distinction between stigmatized and dominant groups, we need to consider that stigma closely depends on the levels of distinctness of the two groups. In fact, migrants can be more or less stigmatized in a society, according to the level of differences between locals and new comers. The more the distinctions of the incoming group are accentuated, the more likely this group is to be stigmatized by local people (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). As Portes and Sensenbrenner affirm:

“The more distinct a group is in terms of phenotypical or cultural characteristics from the rest of the population, the greater is the level of prejudice associated with these traits [...]” (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993, 1329).

(12)

12

stigma of migrants. In relation to this research, we might affirm that Poles are more stigmatized by Dutch people than Italians, since they have stronger distinctions with the local society, due to their visible and invisible characteristics. The level of their distinctiveness determines their higher level of stigma in the Dutch society.

At this point, we might ask ourselves why there are differences that matter more in the construction of stigma in a society, and who decides on their importance. By reflecting on the concept of stigma, it is relevant to affirm that there are differences that are ignored in a society, and others that carry more weights (Link and Phelan, 2001). For example, we might not be interested in the color of one’s house or in one’s bank account number, but instead we may pay more attention to the color of the skin, or one’s ethnic identity, the human and socially relevant differences (Link and Phelan, 2001). We can state that stigma-labels are not accidentally chosen by a single person. Rather, the selection of those relevant differences is a long social process (Link and Phelan, 2001). In fact, stigma represents a selection and an identification of human differences that matter socially (Link and Phelan, 2001).

The reasons found by Link and Phelan (2001), explaining why social selections of human differences are consequences of social processes, are twofold. Firstly, simple categories are required to make groups, for example “black” and “white” (Link and Phelan, 2001). Secondly, attributes differ in time and place. For example, something that was relevant in the XVII century in America is not probably considered important anymore today in Europe (Link and Phelan, 2001). It needs to be recognized that labels are created through social processes with an accurate selection of the differences that are important in the specific context. Therefore, the stigmatization is a socially constructed process, depending on relationships and social contexts (Major and O'Brien, 2005). As Major and O'Brien affirm, “stigma is relationship and context specific” (Major and O'Brien, 2005, 395), since it does not exist in the person, but it is constructed trough the relationship with somebody and in a specific context. By changing social context, stigma may change as well (Crocker, 1998). For example, an ethnic group might be more or less stigmatized in a society than in others, as the Polish and the Italians of this study case. Thus, it can be affirmed that stigma is a socially constructed13 process in a specific context and time, where the context and the time are two dependent variables of the concept of stigma.

Regarding the emic perspectives of stigmatized migrants, we might say that feelings of stigma

13 Lecture of Manolis Pratsinakis about “Stigma” on 04/03/2014 of the course of Ethnicity, Class and Gender in a Comparative analysis, held at the University of Amsterdam.

(13)

13

can be weaker or stronger in accordance to the level of stigmatization experienced by them. The awareness of being stigmatized can arise from a person’s feelings of distress, shame (Goffman, 1963), inferiority, inequality, non-acceptance, depression, victimization, hostility, or fear of interaction with the others. The intensity of these emotions will be stronger or weaker depending on the different levels of stigmatization. For instance, in a case of a harsh experience of discrimination, feelings of stigma would be stronger and the level of stigma would be high. With a lighter experience of stigma, the feelings would be softer and the level of stigmatization would be lower. As it will be seen in the results of this research, differences in levels of stigmatization are extremely important as they generate distinctive effects on networking behaviors of migrants.

About situations in which a migrant can encounter stigma, we may affirm that there are micro or macro level situations in which stigma can unfold. On a micro level, an individual might realize his stigmatization by others through presence, contact and interactions. Body language and words used in a conversation may lead a person to think and confirm that he is not accepted by the new society. During first contacts with local people stigma-situations can create confusion (Goffman, 1963) in the stigmatized because they cannot really understand how they are categorized by others.

The importance of contacts and interactions in stigma situations has been stressed by the research conducted by Doorn Van M., Scheepers P., Dagevos (2013) on six smaller immigrant groups in The Netherlands (Afghani, Iraqi, Iranian, Somali, Polish and Chinese). The study shows that higher educated immigrants perceive more discrimination than lower educated immigrants because of their more frequent contacts and interactions with the local society (Doorn, Scheepers, Dagevos, 2013). In fact, the exposure to Dutch politics, their relative deprivation in terms of education, work and the political participation seem to have generated more possibilities of conflict and situations of discrimination. Individuals with low education have less possibility to enter into contact with locals (Doorn, Scheepers, Dagevos, 2013) and therefore are less exposed to stigma situations. In this research we will not provide a comparison between low skilled and high skilled migrants or we will not focus on the number of contacts of migrants in the local society. Rather, the results found by Van Dorn et al. contributes in supporting the fact that feelings of stigma may be perceived by high skilled migrants through their everyday interactions with Dutch people. We would expect that high skilled migrants would be less likely to feel stigmatized, however, it will be seen that even the least likely cases can experience stigma feelings through interactions with locals.

(14)

14

person will immediately understand that he is not treated in the same way as the other members of that society. In a situation of over-exposure and direct eye-attention (Goffman, 1963), without interaction or contact, the stigmatized person would easily recognize that he possesses something “different” from the others. The stigmatized is likely to feel exposed by others or uncomfortable because of his physical or behavioral differences, attracting the attention of others (Goffman, 1963). With time the stigmatized person will supposedly be more able to manage these situations (Goffman, 1963) and to react faster than before or to know already which strategy to adopt.

In extreme cases stigma experiences become ordinary situations of everyday life and may re-define the identity of the others. For example, as Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) describe, peasants from Southern Italy recruited in American factories and mines did not anymore have a clear idea of their nations left behind. For this reason, the only choice for defining themselves relied on the acceptance of the American definitions of their own identity, based on stereotypes (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). In this case stigma played a key role for the redefinition of their national identity, based on the point of view of the locals.

Furthermore, social isolation is also a way to recognize the presence of stigma (Goffman, 1963). A person realizes he is stigmatized when he is avoided (Goffman, 1963) or not considered by others. In this case, contact and interactions are almost absent and replaced by distance. Feelings of loneliness and rejection (Pinel and Bosson, 2013) might arise in the mind of the person.

On a macro level, a migrant can encounter public episodes of stigmatization, for example through media, newspapers, TV, advertisements, political measures or social interventions. Media might use images and words with a direct or indirect intention to stigmatize certain “vulnerable” migrant groups. The negative label given to a migrant by the media and the society is called public stigma (Pinel and Bosson 2013). The description of the micro-macro levels in which individuals come across to stigma, examined above, will help us to recognize how the migrants of this study-case encounter stigma feelings in the Dutch society. Both micro and macro situations of stigma will be illustrated in the results section.

Lastly, it is important to reflect on the power-relationship between stigmatized migrants and the dominant group. This last part will provide the foundations for understanding the concepts of the next section, dedicated to the reactions and strategies of stigmatized migrants.

Migration is one of the forces that are able to erode the power of the nation state (Castels, 2000). Stigma in fact represents a form of defense for those migrants that are seen as a “danger to

(15)

15

living standard, life styles and social cohesion” (Castels, 2000, 278), or as an “alien invasion” (Portes, 2000), threatening the local society. Through the creation of stigma, local people can protect their culture and social power and maintain a sharp division and distance between “normal” and “bad”, or “we” and “they” (Elias, 1994). In particular, the creation of stigma generates the reduction of the migrant to a single negative attribute (Goffman, 1963, 2-3), a label (Barth, 1969), or a “bad characteristic” (Elias, 1994). On the one hand, this reduction intensifies the vulnerability of migrants (Portes and Zhou, 2010), making them feeling under-powered and devalued. The dominant group maintains a control over the “inferior” group through processes of high or low humiliation and oppression (Elias, 1994). On the other hand, stigma gives ground to local people to attack the “vulnerable” group and to reaffirm the strength of their local social power and their community identity against the “stranger” (Elias, 1994). As Elias affirms:

“Exclusion and stigmatization of the outsiders by the established group were thus powerful weapons used by the latter to maintain their identity, to assert their superiority, keeping others firmly in their place” (Elias, 1994, 23).

Therefore, through patterns of social and political inequality, the “dominant group” can decide whether the “disadvantaged” group (Link and Phelan, 2001) can be accepted into the host society and can access the resources and opportunities (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993), as well as the obligations in the new society (Castels, 2000).

During these situations of stigmatization, experienced through social, economic and political inferiority (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993), conflicts or fights with locals are highly probable. The “confrontation” of migrants with the receiving society might determine a clash between the two groups (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). The measure of the clash between the two groups is influenced by the level of the groups' distinctiveness:

“The cultural and linguistic distance between home country and receiving society and the distinctness of immigrants relative to the native born population govern, to a large extent, the magnitude of the clash. […] The salience of many cultural practices and their reenactment after immigration do not come about spontaneously, but usually result from the clash with the host society and they are, in this sense, an emergent product.” (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993, 1329)

The clash with the “dominant” group provokes feelings of stigma in the “disadvantaged” group and the higher is the magnitude of the clash and the harsher the experience of stigmatization will be. Clashes

(16)

16

and conflicts cause the reenactment of some particular practices or different behaviors. Therefore, it might be affirmed that the clash between locals and stigmatized migrants activates the production of those social reactions and strategies, used to face stigma.

In conclusion, we have seen that the stigma of a migrant represents an “ethnic label” (Barth, 1969) that is socially constructed through the selection of relevant, visible or invisible differences, in a specific context and time. The more distinct is a migrant, in comparison with the local people, the more a stigma can unfold in that person. Levels of stigma can be different and stigma feelings may be stronger or weaker, in accordance with those different levels of stigmatization. Moreover, stigma can be encountered in micro or macro level situations and the reasons why stigma is construed is to defend the cultural and national identity of the local group and to exert a power on the minor- “disadvantage” group. Clashes with locals provoke migrants to create reactions and strategies to deal with the stigma situations.

The next paragraph will outline a description of the different reactions and strategies that are adopted by migrants as individuals and as national groups, while facing stigma. By understanding all these main aspects of the stigma process, it will be possible to analyze the types of the effects of stigma on social networks.

2.2 Dealing with stigma: strategies and reactions

During the process of stigmatization, the clash with the local society provokes different emotions in the labeled individual. The “confrontation” (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993) with the local society causes a sense of stress, fear and uncertainty in the “disadvantage” migrant. The experience of stigma represents a risk and a threat to the personal-social identity and self-esteem (Major and O'Brien, 2005). As Crocker affirmed:

“A person who is stigmatized is a person whose social identity, or membership in some social category, calls into question his or her full humanity—the person is devalued, spoiled, or flawed in the eyes of others.” (Crocker, 1998, 89)

By facing a stigma situation, the migrant is induced to react and to make particular choices. A stigmatized person can choose to “escape self-awareness” (Pinel and Bosson 2013) or to “resolve the self-standards” (Pinel and Bosson 2013), depending on which choice seems to be more successful for the individual. In presence of personal confidence people may choose to resolve the differences and

(17)

17

“keep up the fight” (Pinel and Bosson 2013, 56). With a lack of confidence in the possibility to resolve the discrepancy between them and the locals, they might choose to escape (Pinel and Bosson 2013).

Moreover, in order to respond (Goffman, 1963) to these stressful and harmful situations of stigmatization (Major and O'Brien, 2005) an individual may try to create engaging and/or disengaging in-group or out-group strategies (Major and O'Brien, 2005).

One strategy consists of the attempt to be more visible and evident14 in the new society. For example, the members of the Nicaraguan community of Miami (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993) resorted to revivals of folk items and original ethnic practices, in order to “reassert their own identity and distinctness” (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993) in the society. In this case the outside discrimination represents a force that pushes migrants to reinforce the unity and the solidarity of their community, the ethnic group becomes a source of moral support and comfort (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993).

Another way to deal with the stigma is represented by the covering strategy15. Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) describe the case of a Vietnamese electronic manufacturer, working in California, who Anglicized his name and cut the networks with his ethnic community. This example shows that immigrants might prefer to hide their origins and to assimilate themselves to the local society (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993), by accumulating the national capital (Hage, 2000) of the new country. In order to resolve and diminish the differences that separate “them” from the majority and to feel accepted, migrants may try to “accumulate” and “enhance” their new national profile (Hage, 2000). By converting their cultural achievements, social styles, look, accent, dispositions, and personal characteristics into the ones of the new country, they would be able to claim to be part of that community and to seek a social legitimization (Hage, 2000). Usually this strategy brings a separation from the main ethnic group and assimilation with the local society. The original language is substituted by the local language as an element of diversification from the ethnic group and integration into the new community. The covering strategy is not only used to seek the approval of the local community, but sometimes it functions to show embarrassment or shame or distance towards the ethnic group.

An extreme case of the covering strategy would be the correction or improvement of particulars that are failing in the stigmatized (Goffman, 1963), for example through the help of skin lighteners or speech corrections (Goffman, 1963).

14 See note 13.

(18)

18

Moreover, another strategy that might be located between the one of visibility and the one of covering, seen above, consists of maintaining the in-group and out-group relations16. The stigma in this case is accepted, as it creates a balance between “the established” group and the stigmatized. Individuals that opt for this strategy try to accept both cultures.

In this paragraph we have seen how an individual reacts and interacts in a context of stigmatization and the types of strategies to deal with stigma. In the following part the attention will turn to the social behaviors of a stigmatized group within the society. However, before focusing on the strategies adopted by groups, it will be relevant to reflect on the factor that pushes migrants to choose one strategy over another one.

As we discussed above, power relationships between dominant groups and the migrants play a key role in the production of social strategies. By making a comparison of the position of the dominant and the stigmatized group in the host society, we might affirm that they have two different positions or social statuses (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The social status of a group means “a ranking or hierarchy of perceived prestige” (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, 11) and reflects the position of a group in a society. The stigmatized group has a lower position, as its members perceive to be “inferior” or in a “second class” (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The “lower” is the status of the group, or the more the group is stigmatized, the lower is the internal competition of the group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The differences of social status between groups, for example of their social inequalities, tend to aggravate the clash and also the strategies. The factor that favors one strategy over another one is the status relations between the “dominant” group and the “subordinated” group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Some strategies will be chosen over others as they are more favorable for increasing the status of the stigmatized group or its members in the host society.

A strategy used by members of an ethnic group with “low status” would be the individual social mobility. Through this attempt, a member may try to leave or dissociate himself from the stigmatized group. Through this strategy, the aim of this person will be to process an upward mobility and to increase the status, from a lower to a higher one (Taffeta & Turner, 1986). This strategy represents an individual solution and implies a dis-identification with the in-group, for example as in the case of the Vietnamese manufacturer. Another possible strategy adopted to deal with stigma situations can be the activation of social group creativity. In this case individuals might seek positive distinctiveness from the in-group, through a redefinition of elements of the comparative situation (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

(19)

19

The social creativity might be processed by comparing the in-group and the out-group in a new dimension, or by changing into positive the attribute assigned to the stigma (for example “black is beautiful”), or by changing the out-group with which the group is compared (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) (for example by comparing themselves to other minor groups, more stigmatized than them). The last strategy described by Tajfel & Turner is the social competition, which refers to cases in which group members seek positive distinctions from the out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In this case, the “higher” status of the group will allow them to attempt a competition with the out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

At this point, after having considered the in-group and out-group reactions and strategies of migrants while facing stigma, the attention will turn to the effects of stigma on social networks. By analyzing the relation between the stigma and networking behaviors of “high skilled” migrants, it will be possible to understand whether and how stigma can shape the ties of these migrants.

2.3 Effects on social networks

The primary literature addressing the effects of stigma on life of individuals merely examines one circumstance at a time (e.g. AIDS, homosexuality, minority racial status) and assesses one effect at a time (e.g. self-esteem, interactions, job career). It is fundamental to keep in mind that stigma can affect many life chances of one's life, not only one (Link and Phelan, 2001). Stigma can constrain several life' chances of individuals, for example, “careers, earnings, social ties, housing, criminal involvement” (Link and Phelan, 2001, 381), as well as “self-esteem, academic achievement and health”17 (Major and O'Brien, 2005, 399). However, this research will focus on one effect of stigma on social networks.

A “social network” can be defined as “a network of social interactions and personal relationships” (Oxford dictionary, 2014), in which a person makes contact with others via interactions. In the lives of new comers networks are key points for their destiny. In fact, the success of immigrants in the receiving country depends substantially on their social capital, since migrants' skills are usually devalued in the new labor market and they generally have a poor control of the local language (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). The circumstance of “foreignness” is the particular element that makes them feel different from locals and brings individuals to be more united with their communities (Portes and

17 As Link and Phelan (2001) theorize, we need to take into account also that individual differences in their social, economic and cultural capital can shape the life circumstances of stigmatized people. Therefore, these elements can produce a substantial variation of outcomes and effects within stigmatized groups.

(20)

20

Sensenbrenner, 1993). By facing common adversities, migrants tend to build a higher sense of solidarity within their communities and to maintain mutual support (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). For instance, existing networks in the hosting country can facilitate the process of moving, limiting the economic and psychological costs of the migration (Menjivar, 1997) (Portes, 2000). Ties and networks can enable the life of these migrants in providing contacts for new jobs, or offering information and tips on how to survive in the new society (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). Ties operate in reinforcing the group solidarity and create a sense of protection (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). Immigrant flows are operating as social and cultural forces, which constantly strengthen social networks (Portes, 2000). Therefore, we might affirm that since ties are key points for the reconstruction and the success of immigrant's lives in the new society, the presence of stigma on these migrants may have strong effects on their social networks.

As Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) explain, there are several situations in which individuals are more likely to gather and to build networks. Firstly, the “confrontation” with the local society activates “dormant feelings of nationality among immigrants” and creates “feelings where none existed before” (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993, 1328). In particular, the social capital18 of bounded solidarity arises in individuals that are facing common adversities, or feel affected by common events in time and place (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). Bounded solidarity, or internal solidarity, is generated in an ethnic group, especially in “situational circumstances that can lead to the emergence of principled group-oriented behaviors” (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993, 1324). This mechanism depends on the sentiment of “we-ness” that emerges when members of a group face similar difficult situations (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993).

With the presence of an outside discrimination based on visible characteristics of migrants, for example phenotypical or cultural differences, or a blockage of exit option, for example, due to poor language skills, or in a situation of perpetuation of autonomous cultural repertoire, individuals tend to build a bounded solidarity with their ethnic community (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). The more of these three situations are reproduced in the society, the more opportunities immigrants have to create stronger sentiments of in-group solidarity among the members (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). The constant support from within protects migrants facing discrimination and facilitates the bonding of their

18 Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) redefine social capital as “those expectations for action within collectivity that affect the economic goals and goal seeking behavior of its member, even if these expectations are not oriented toward the economic sphere” (p. 1323). The authors distinguish four sources of social capital: value introjection, reciprocity transactions, bounded solidarity and enforceable trust. For the sake of brevity, we will focus only on the concept of bounded solidarity in the theoretical framework, as it is directly connected with discrimination of immigrants.

(21)

21

networks. In this way, the ethnic group is preferred over other groups, since it represents a place of safety and protection. For instance, Chinese migrants rely on the Chinatowns (Zhou, 2004) existing in numerous metropolitan cities of the world, as their ethnic enclaves protect them from external discrimination, perpetuate their ethnic culture and practices and enable them to find new opportunities in the hosting country (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993).

To summarize, perceptions of incomplete acceptance, together with low opportunities in the hosting country, produce an increase of bounded ethnic communities (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993) and a closure of networks into the “ethnic enclaves” (Ryan, 2011). Stigma situations can influence migrants into escaping from the prejudices (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993) and into choosing to gather in their ethnic communities.

Therefore, hostility can be considered a major variable in affecting the networking behaviors of migrants in the receiving country, as affirmed by the theory of Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993). By assessing differences in levels of hostility against migrants with similar skills, this research will provide an interesting test-case of this theory. This study will examine whether “high skilled” migrants, facing higher and lower levels of stigmatization, tend to bound solidarity with their ethnic network, as stated in the theory, or whether they adopt other networking strategies, in contrast with the arguments of Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993).

The empirical section of this study will show how the data collected in the interviews were analyzed with the help of the literature. The results will describe how “high skilled” Italian and Polish migrants are differently stigmatized in the Dutch society, the ways in which they encounter stigma and their reactions and strategies adopted to face stigma. By testing the theory of Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993), it will be possible to show how different levels of stigmatization may differently affect the networking strategies of migrants. The findings will allow us to reply to the research question and sub-questions and will provide evidence that differences in levels of stigma of migrants with similar educational skills might produce different networking patterns in the hosting society. The results of this thesis will eventually suggests further studies to advance a theory on new kind of networking behaviors of contemporary migrants of highly “expat-saturated” cities.

(22)

22

3. Methodology

This research tries to provide, within an anti-European immigrant debate, insight into the point of view of two “invisible” European migrant groups, the Italians and the Poles. In particular, this research tries to focus on the emic perspective of “highly skilled19” migrants and to grasp their feelings, perceptions and opinions regarding the stigma and the relation between stigmatization and social network.

We might think that “highly skilled20” migrants are less likely to be stigmatized, in comparison with “low” skilled migrants, since they have a higher cultural and social capital, better jobs and more opportunities for their careers. However, this study will be questioning this opinion and examine whether “the least” likely cases in the experience of stigma, represented by “high skilled migrants”, feel stigmatization in the hosting country as well. Moreover, we will show that stigma can dramatically shape networking behaviors, by determining migrants' social relationships in the new society.

It is not my aim to generalize the information gathered from this case study. Instead, my purpose is to provide “meaningful contributions to the knowledge” (Small, 2009) and to cover the gap existing in the literature on Sociological and Migration studies. The data will present an insight into the groups of the study, from the point of view of the participants (Flyvbjerg, 2006). As Flyvbjerg affirms, “often is not desirable to summarize and generalize case studies. Good studies should be read as narratives in their entirety” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, 241).

3.1 Technique and Operationalization

In spite of its limitations21, the technique chosen to conduct this study is the semi-structured interview (Bryman, 2012) (Hennink, Hutter and Bailey, 2011). This technique has allowed me to leave the flux of the information semi-opened and flexible (Bryman, 2012) and also to gather unexpected data. Through the answers of the respondents, I was able to deeply capture perceptions, feelings, subjective meanings and personal stories of the informants, related to the stigma, and collect a lot of information.

The interviews were constructed in a thematic order22, from general questions to specific ones. The first questions of the interviews, about migrants' backgrounds, aimed to warm up the conversation

19 See note 5. 20 See note 5.

21 See the section “Limitations and ethical considrations”. 22 See the Interview guide in the “Annex” section.

(23)

23

with the interviewees. Then, more probing questions were asked to individualize the different levels of stigma, for example, asking what they believe Dutch people think about them, how they encounter negative descriptions of their national identity in the society and in the media and which were the negative inputs seen. After that, through more specific questions, I tried to grasp whether they feel personally stigmatized in this society, by questioning for example, if they have ever had uncomfortable situations because of their nationality, or if they have ever felt judged or particularly called with a name in this society, the reasons, and how did they react. By comparing this primary data, it was possible to gather evidence that Italians and Poles are stigmatized differently.

By analyzing the stigma situations in depth, experienced with local friends, acquaintances, employers, people in the street, shop assistants or clients, it was made clear by the respondents that stigma had a major influence on their networking choices. As we have seen before, migrants' skills are usually devalued in the new labor market and they generally have a poor control of the local language (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). For these reasons the success of immigrants in the receiving country depends substantially on their social capital. In order to examine how different levels of stigmatization influence networking behaviors of migrants, I asked more personal questions related to more and less extreme situations in which they felt stigmatized and to the consequences of these episodes on their ties.

Starting from a negative stigma-episode that they reported to me, I tried to further investigate the information given, in order to test the theory of Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) on migrant networks. I tried to see whether negative events happened frequently to them and whether their networking behaviors with co-ethnics, locals, and other foreigners changed after that and in which direction. The questions asked were, for instance, if they have ever had problematic situations with Dutch people because of being Polish or Italian, how they reacted after that with them, if their friendship changed and in which way, if they preferred to stay with their ethnic community and why, if these episodes happened again and in which contexts. Also, I asked further questions more related to their opportunities and options in the new society, including the following: if they think that they have more opportunities in the Dutch society, how and why, if they think that by speaking English and having a degree they have more or less opportunities here, and which would be the limiting elements for their success in Amsterdam.

In conclusion, through the interviews I have analyzed the stigma feelings of “high skilled” Italians and Poles, by focusing on the perceptions of themselves in the Dutch society and by

(24)

24

investigating which are their everyday experiences of stigma-label, how they deal with it and how do they react to this episodes. To analyze how a stigma can shape networks, I asked questions to identify situations in which, during their exposure and contact with the local society, they have felt stigmatized and then I examined the consequences of those episodes on their networks.

3.2 Sample

Between March and May 2014, I collected 10 interviews with young high-skilled Italian migrants and 10 with young, high-skilled Polish migrants.

The selection of the informants was processed to recruit for maximum strategy and critical cases (Hennink, Hutter and Bailey, 2011), in order to have the maximum variety, a wide spectrum (Hennink, Hutter and Bailey, 2011) of opinions and detailed experiences in the population.

The two main characteristics considered for the recruitment were the nationality23, Italian and Polish, the age, between 26 and 36 years old24, and the highly skilled25 level of the immigrant. The length of their life in Amsterdam26 was taken into consideration with a minimum of six months27 and a maximum of four years28. The reasons why I made a selection on these bases concerns the fact that it was my intention to have groups with similar education, age and time of stay in Amsterdam, but different origin and levels of stigmatization. Differences in level of stigmatization were used as test cases for the theory of Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) on migrant networks. By analyzing similarities and differences across cases, I could assess how differences in levels of stigmatization of migrants with similar education can differently affect their networking strategies.

The tables below show some relevant information on the participants, first the Italian and the second on the Polish migrants. The columns represent their details: code-anonymous name, sex of the

23 By considering the nationality of the informants, this research does not try to give ethnic groups for granted as homogeneous and externally bounded group, following the tendency of groupism (Brubaker, 2002). Rather, sub-categories of national identities and their differentiation among them will be respected.

24 Between 26 and 36 years old because I am considering young individuals. Generally, individuals migrating for job or education opportunities are older than 25 years old. I have limited the maximum at 36 years old in order to not have too much differences in the range of the age in the population.

25 See note 5.

26 Or periphery of Amsterdam.

27 Six months were be considered as temporal limit period. In the first six months of an experience abroad usually the person has found already a job or a house and have settled down. Individuals that have lived more than this period in a country can have gathered more experiences in the new context. With the presence of stigma, more than 1 year would be required to feel or realize that exist a tendency to label the other.

28 I am considering 4 years as maximum length, in order to not have too much difference in the experiences of the participants.

(25)

25

person, English level, age, education (if not specified, all of them have studied in their original countries), job position or profession and Dutch language level29. With the help of the tables it is possible to see that the participant had different and varied educational backgrounds and currently have widely diverse jobs.

29 The level of Dutch and their studies about the local culture will help us in the analysis of the data in defining their willingness to enhance their national capital.

Italians Sex English Level

Years University studies Current Job/Profession Dutch

level

P1I M Fluent 27 Fashion Management, Studying in Amsterdam Bartender+ student No

P2I M Fluent 30

Bachelor + 2 Master in Politics and Latino America,

Studying in Leiden

Customer service agent + student No

P3I M Fluent 29

University + 1 Master Degree Artificial Intelligence,

Studying in Amsterdam

IT company + student Little

P4I M Fluent 28 PHD Astrophysics in Amsterdam Doctoral Student Little

P5I M Fluent 33 Architecture Architect Little

P6I M Fluent 27 Engineer Yacht Engineer No

P7I F Fluent 36 Psychology and Dance-therapy Customer Service agent Little

P8I F Fluent 29 Literature and Languages Souvenir shop + internship as Film

producer Fluent

P9I F Fluent 29 Modern Languages Unemployed Little

P10I F Medium 27 Archaeologist Waitress + Museum internship Little

Polish Sex English

Level Years University studies Current Job/Profession

Dutch level

P1Pl F 28 University + Master in Journalism and

communication Senior Customer Service Little

P2Pl F 29 Economics Unemployed Good

P3Pl M 32 Management Innovation and Project Assistant Little

P4Pl F 24 University + Master in sociology, studying in

Amsterdam Student No

P5Pl M 26 University + Master in European Studies Marketing agent No

P6Pl M 26 Library studies Order picker + Library assistant Little

P7Pl F 26 Economics Customer Service Agent No

P8Pl M 29 Banking and Finance Banking and administration Good

P9Pl M 31 Tourism Waitress Fluent

(26)

26

3.3 Access

The access (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007) to the respondents of this research was gained through a down-top strategy (Bryman, 2012), by asking those in my own social networks, by speaking with people at immigrant associations centers, or in bars and in the street.

To gain the access I did not have many difficulties with Italians, as I had already numerous contacts and I knew before this research the majority of the people that could have been included in the sample group. Also, I found some contacts in bars and through a religious organization. The fact of being of the same nationality and of speaking the same language facilitated the access and the confidentiality of the informants, allowing me to obtain more detailed information from them.

To gain the access to the Polish people was slightly more difficult. I had some contacts already from the company where I work and with other people outside. In order to find more respondents, I decided to go to the Polish library based in Amsterdam. The library is regulated by the DomPolski30, an association for Polish people living in The Netherlands that organizes cultural and social activities and provides support to co-nationals. By going there I found out that numerous Polish migrants go there not only to visit the library, but also because in the same building there is a psychologist and psychotherapist for Polish people. If you ring the bell to enter the building they only speak Polish, as these two services are only for their co-nationals and not for others. Despite these formal boundaries, I approached a girl that was going there too, asking if I could enter as well. Apparently she used to go there almost every week and she knew almost everybody in the association. In fact, she introduced me to the librarian and she gave me a contact of another person that used to go there. The girl represented my gatekeeper (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007), with whom I negotiated the access (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007) to some informants in the Polish community, as she gave me the permission to enter and facilitated the contacts with them.

3.4 Interviews and Analysis of data

The interviews were conducted in Italian and English. Even though I am considering high skilled migrants, with good English proficiency, I had taken into account that the quality of the information

(27)

27

could have varied in the case of Polish respondents, as the interviews were going to be conducted in English and not in their native language.

During the interviews I noticed that I was not having difficulties in gaining the confidentiality of the Italians, since all of them were quite open in answering my questions and adding details or examples.

By contrast, with some Polish informants, I had to make more efforts to “infiltrate on their social worlds” (Bryman, 2012). A few of them were quite reluctant in telling me about their own experiences and visions. They had given to me the permission to record the interview, however, after the interviews I realized that the reason why they were not comfortably speaking about their experiences was because of the recorder. As I will show in the results, some of them were afraid to not give “politically correct” answers and to show their real thoughts. In fact, some of them asked me if I was still recording because otherwise they would not have replied to some questions. In several cases, after I had switched off the recorder, the interviewee provided me information that eventually revealed their inner real opinion.

The interviews were recorded verbatim (Bryman, 2012) (Hennink, Hutter, Bailey, 2011) with the permission of the informants. The transcripts were written in the original language (in the case of interviews with Italians) and only the parts relevant to the research were translated into English. The transcripts allowed me to grasp the emic perspective of the informants, as they “enable researchers to understand the views of study participants in their own words (emic perspective)” (Hennink, Hutter, Bailey 2011, 208). Through the transcripts I tried to immerse myself and “interpret the experiences” (Hennink, Hutter, Bailey, 2011, 205) and the implicit meanings of the participants, with an inductive and deductive approach. By analyzing the data, I could “[...] understand social and cultural meanings attached to behavior and begin to explain and develop theory about people's actions for beliefs” (Hennink, Hutter, Bailey, 2011, 205) and “understand multiple layers of meanings of their actions” (Charmaz, 1995, 337). In the analysis I tried to pay attention to the words of the informants, without taking their meaning for granted (Charmaz, 1995).

The codes of the data were made with ATLAS.ti, a programme that facilitates the analysis of qualitative research. Firstly, active and specific “line to line” codes were created , since “line to line codes frees you to “go native” or prevents you “from becoming so immersed in your respondent’s categories or worldview that you fail to look at your data critically and analytically” (Charmaz, 1995, 343). The line to line codes helped me, as a researcher, to have a more in depth analysis, and attention