I AM NORMAL TOO
Normalization, stigmatization and discipline in a rehabilitation project in Amsterdam
Master thesis in Sociology
Track: Urban sociology
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Social Science
Marije Kuin
Student number: 6131514
Marije_kuin@hotmail.com
July 2014
First supervisor: Dr. W. J. Nicholls
Second supervisor: Drs. F. Janssens
1 Acknowledgements
__________________________________________________________________________________
I would like to thank my first supervisor Walter Nicholls and my second supervisor Freek Janssens for their useful feedback and reassuring support during and after the thesis seminars. Their comments have been really helpful to narrow down the never ending opportunities for this thesis that kept popping up in my head and find the right focus for my research. Also, I would like to thank the other students in my thesis seminar, especially Sarah Watson and Tianyi Fang, for all their critical remarks that helped me to figure out what I really wanted to research.
I would also like to thank some of my friends for commenting on my thesis when I was no longer able to find the flaws in my writings. I thank Maartje Weijenberg for her constructive feedback and her very sharp eye for too much space between two words. I would like to thank Sterre ten Houte- de Lange for her fierce feedback on my first draft and for keeping me on my toes. Further, I would like to thank my father for correcting all the little spelling and grammar mistakes ‘that’ I made. I also want to thank Max van Essen and Guilherme Ferreira for correcting my English in the final version of my thesis. Lastly, I would like to thank Lotte Baan for the endless study sessions together at her house until late at night, every night, for weeks. And for her fresh input during the short breaks we allowed ourselves.
In addition, I wish to thank my mother, father and sister for listening to me when I was stuck and helping me to restructure my thoughts. I would like to thank Margot Potemans and Simone Claushuis too, for letting me ventilate all the little achievements and huge frustrations along the way.
And last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to all the supervisors and young adults in the rehabilitation project for taking time to tell me their stories. I would also like to thank Joop and Mark for their trust in me and for granting me access to their project. Thank you.
Marije Kuin
University of Amsterdam July 2014
3 Abstract
__________________________________________________________________________________
This thesis research explores how disciplinary techniques are used to normalize behavior of young adults in a rehabilitation project in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Seventeen in depth interviews have been conducted: five with the supervisors of the young adults and twelve with the young adults themselves.
The young adults in the project are normalized towards the aim of the rehabilitation project: independent living. This means they need to earn their own money, run their own household, are not dependent on substances and do not have debts. This aim is the norm for the behavior of the young adults although many of them will never completely reach this goal. The supervisors, as judges of normality, set and maintain this norm. These behavioral norms in the project not only create docile bodies, but through the normalization of behavior broader values are instilled as well to create docile minds. Although both the supervisors and young adults agree on the norms for behavior, the young adults think that they are normalized before the supervisors think they are. This is caused by overestimation of the capacities of the young adults by themselves and by others, which motivates them to live up to the expectation of normality.
Further, the young adults in the rehabilitation project feel stigmatized because the project is associated with being stupid and pathetic. Subsequently, the young adults consciously control whom they disclose this stigmatizing characteristic to for they show reactive, proactive and intermediated responses. Paradoxically, the supervisors recommend that the young adults accept that they are not normal so that they recognize the need for normalization.
The purpose of the rehabilitation project is supported by basic and individual rules. These rules discipline behavior because they prescribe which behavior is allowed and hence normal. The rules on housing, having a useful activity during weekdays and the central meeting point where the supervision is located subject the young adults to cellular, organic and genetic discipline. Disciplinary techniques such as addressing behavior, controlling behavior, doing required activities together, sanctioning and complimenting are employed to maintain the norms to reform deviant behavior and create normal, docile individuals. The use of discipline leads to docile bodies and ultimately to docile minds.
The young adults in the rehabilitation project take on an ambivalent stance towards the discipline bestowed on them in the project as they value rules that provide safety and resist rules that limit their behavior. Even though all of the young adults resist the rules from time to time, compliance will eventually become a habit as they grow older and find meaning in life. Then, they realize that they need a change to make something out of life. This stimulates subjection to the process of normalization. Most of the young adults in the rehabilitation project report no resistance or only a low
4 level of resistance as they display committed compliance and fatalistic or opportunistic compliance. The fatalistic or opportunistic compliance is motivated by being childish, juvenile and stubborn. However, two of the young adults show more severe resistance as they describe a combination of detached and strategic compliance next to open resistance. They take a hostile position towards the rehabilitation project. The overall high level of compliance with and limited resistance to the discipline and normalization in the project might be explained by the voluntarily setting of the rehabilitation project: resistance to the discipline is pointless when the young adults want to be normal.
5 Table of contents __________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract 3 1. Introduction 7 2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Normalization 11 2.2 Stigmatization 13
2.3 Disciplinary institutions and disciplinary techniques 16
2.4 Responses to the process of normalization 18
3. Methodology
3.1 Population and place: young adults and supervisors in a rehabilitation project 21 3.2 Study design and data collection: case study and interviewing 22
3.3 Data analysis: grounded theory 24
3.4 Operationalization of concepts 25
3.5 Ethics concerning the research 25
3.6 Reflection on data collection 26
3.7 Limitations of the research 27
4. Analysis: normalization
4.1Purpose of the rehabilitation project 29
4.2 Normal life 32
4.3 Common values 34
4.4 Ready to leave the project 36
5. Analysis: stigmatization
5.1 Application of stigma 41
5.2 Reactions to stigmatization 43
6. Analysis: disciplinary techniques
6.1 Basic rules in the rehabilitation project 49
6 7. Analysis: responses to the process of normalization
7.1 Appreciation of the rules in the rehabilitation project 57 7.2 Compliance and resistance according to the supervisors 59
7.3 Compliance and resistance by the young adults 61
8. Conclusion and discussion
8.1 Conclusion 65
8.2 Discussion 68
Bibliography 71
Appendix 1. Interview guides young adults and supervisors (English and Dutch) 75 Appendix 2. Informed consent forms young adults and supervisors (English and Dutch) 83
7 1. Introduction
__________________________________________________________________________________
This thesis is a case study of a rehabilitation project for young adults in Amsterdam. This study aims to understand the influence of rehabilitation of deviant behavior on the lives of the young adults by focusing on their views and the perspectives of their supervisors. More specifically, this research will focus on which disciplinary techniques are experienced by young adults in a rehabilitation project and how these techniques are used to normalize the individuals in this project.
Rehabilitation of deviant youth has not been very popular the last forty years among policy makers, but this ideal has never been completely abandoned either (Cullen 2013). As part of the correctional system, rehabilitation of young adults aims to diminish deviant behavior by offering treatment that aims at reforming deviant behavior. But, how are young adults rehabilitated in practice?
As a student in Amsterdam, I moved from student housing to student housing many times. One of the student projects I have lived in also incorporated a rehabilitation project for young adults. I soon learned that many of my close neighbors were engaged in this rehabilitation project. Every now and then, they showed up at my doorstep with stories about their troubles and difficulties. They talked about imprisonment, abuse and abortion and there were rumors about prostitution, theft and drug trafficking. They also talked in length about the support that they received in the project and how they were corrected every time the supervisors discovered wrongful behavior. Although they were often frustrated with the care they received and the restrictions following their unconventional ways of making money, they always choose to stay in the rehabilitation project, even though they were free to leave at any moment. This seemed to be a continuous circle: they kept running into trouble, their behavior was restrained by the supervisors, they were frustrated about it but never left and then it started all over when they again engaged in deviant behavior. Given this observed circle, how is the rehabilitation project supporting the young adults to abstain from deviant behavior and what is the norm for behavior towards which the young adults are rehabilitated in the project?
Following from this observation, the purpose of this study is to explore how disciplinary techniques, as experienced by young adults in a rehabilitation project are used to normalize deviant behavior of the young adults. The research will do this by building on the literature on normalization, stigmatization and discipline.
The research will do this first by exploring what normal behavior is to the supervisors and young adults in the project. In order to examine this, theory on the process of normalization will be used to understand how the purpose of the rehabilitation project illustrates the prevailing norms for behavior of the young adults in the project. These norms will be related to what is perceived as normal life and common values by the supervisors and young adults. Herewith, normalization can be
8 understood as a process in which not only behavior is made normal and docile, but docile minds are created as well through the inculcation of values. Furthermore, the perspectives of the young adults and the supervisors on the moment young adults are ready to leave the project will be addressed to investigate the reflections of the young adults on the process of normalization of the young adults. Second, building on the literature of stigmatization, the influence of stigmatization on the lives of the young adults will be explored to expose the difficulties that the young adults in the rehabilitation project experience. Stigmatization of certain characteristics such as low intelligence, conduct and mental disorder, delinquency and substance abuse creates impediments that need to be overcome or minimized to become normal individuals. Herewith, stigmatization is related to normalization. Drawing on the literature on disciplinary institutions and disciplinary techniques, this research will further seek to examine the use of disciplinary techniques in the rehabilitation project to understand how the norms for behavior are maintained in the project. Both controlling and rewarding disciplinary techniques reform the behavior of the young adults towards the norm. When the discipline on behavior is internalized, the young adults will become docile individuals. Moreover, docile bodies will result in docile minds as not only the behavior becomes normalized but also the attitude or mindset of the young adults. Finally, this study aims to investigate the responses of the young adults to the process of normalization. The attitude of the young adults towards the rules and regulations in the rehabilitation project will be explored first by analyzing what the young adults think of the disciplinary techniques that aim to normalize. Building on the literature on compliance and resistance, the reactions of the young adults, according to their supervisors and the young adults themselves, will be analyzed. This is valuable because compliance and resistance signal whether or not the disciplinary techniques in the normalization process bestowed on them is perceived as legitimate.
The appearance of these theoretical concepts in practice will be examined in this thesis research through interviews with supervisors working in the rehabilitation project and young adults who are living in the project.
Following from the above, the main research question addressed by this thesis research is:
How are disciplinary techniques used to normalize behavior of young adults in a rehabilitation project?
The main question will be explored in more detail in the following sub questions:
What is normal behavior according to young adults in a rehabilitation project and their supervisors?
9 What disciplinary techniques are employed to normalize behavior of young adults in a
rehabilitation project?
What are the responses of young adults in a rehabilitation project to the disciplinary techniques that are employed to normalize their behavior?
Although much research has been conducted on which rehabilitation programs are most effective, little research is conducted on how these rehabilitation programs try to produce normal individuals through disciplinary techniques. In addition, most of the available research on rehabilitation, normalization, stigmatization and discipline does not examine the perception of the individuals that are rehabilitated, normalized, stigmatized and disciplined. This research aims at providing a contribution to close this gap by offering an insight in the experiences and views of young adults in a rehabilitation project combined with the perspective of their supervisors. I hope to provide a better understanding of how young adults in a rehabilitation program perceive the use of discipline that is bestowed upon them. These insights may be useful to shape rehabilitation programs in the future that are directed at normalization, since they allow a better comprehension of what disciplinary techniques do to the life of young adults.
To answer the research questions, this thesis starts with the theoretical framework in chapter two in which several theoretical perspectives will be addressed. This chapter will look into literature on normalization, stigmatization, disciplinary institutions and disciplinary techniques and finally, responses to the process of normalization. In the third chapter, the methodological considerations of this research will be discussed. Following the methodological chapter, four analytical chapters will review the empirical data, building on the theoretical framework. In the eighth and final chapter, the conclusions of this thesis research will be presented.
11 2. Theoretical framework
_______________________________________________________________________________
In this theoretical chapter, the literature on which this thesis research builds will be discussed. The process of normalization will be addressed first. The second paragraph will review the literature on stigmatization. Disciplinary institutions and techniques will be reviewed in the third paragraph and the chapter will conclude with a paragraph on responses to the process of normalization. The theoretical literature will be related to literature about young adults in rehabilitation projects in all four of the paragraphs.
2.1 Normalization
As the form of the project signals, the young adults that are living in the rehabilitation project are living there because there seems to be a need to rehabilitate them. But, why do they need to be rehabilitated and who decides which behavior is acceptable and which is not? This paragraph will look into the process of normalization to shed light on the distinction between normal and deviant.
In order to diminish deviant behavior, individuals are subjected to a process of normalization in which they learn to behave according to the present norms. Normalization is therefore understood as a process in which standards are imposed on conduct (Garland 1990, pp. 169-170). In this process, behavior is shaped towards the norm:
“That the rule be made to function as a minimum threshold, as an average to be respected or as an optimum towards which one must move (Foucault 1977, pp. 183).”
Normalization is applied to deviant individuals or groups by incorporating them in as much conventional, everyday activities as possible (Parker et al. 2002, pp. 942). The actualization of normal behavior is established through observation of the rules in those situations. Normal persons have incorporated the norms and standards for behavior and therefore act according to the expectations of others about what normal behavior is (Hathaway et al. 2011, pp. 455). Individuals, who show behavior that is not in accordance with the norms and standards concerning behavior, are perceived as being deviant (Hathaway et al, pp. 455). Thus, whether behavior is perceived either as normal behavior or as deviant behavior is dependent on the rules and standards that societies make and enforce (Becker 1963). Someone is not deviant in itself, but his or her behavior is seen as deviant because others apply the rules to them and label them as deviant. In this, deviance is created in the reaction of others (Becker 1963, pp. 9). Hence, “deviant is behavior what people so label” (Becker 1963, pp. 9). Following from this, normal is what people so label as well when rules are created. But, how and by whom are rules or norms created?
12 Differentiating between normal and deviant behavior entails some sort of categorization (Misztal 2001). Professionals that hold the power and knowledge to make distinctions between which behavior is normal and which is deviant create this classification (Powell 1998). These professionals can be seen as ‘judges of normality’ (Foucault 1977, pp. 304) as they shape the norm and subject the behavior of others to it:
“The judges of normality are present everywhere. We are in the society of the teacher-judge, the doctor-judge, the educator-judge, the ‘social worker’- judge; it is on them that the universal reign of the normative is based; and each individual, wherever he may find himself, subjects to it his body, his gestures, his behaviour, his aptitudes, his achievements. The carceral network, in its compact or disseminated forms with its systems of insertion, distribution, surveillance, observation, has been the greatest support, in modern society, of the normalizing power (Foucault 1977, pp. 304).”
Next to the omnipresence of judges of normality in our society, stereotypes of deviancy are transmitted and reinforced through ‘conversation culture and mass media’ (Parker et al. 2002, pp. 942). This results in a society wherein the understanding of what deviant and what normal behavior are, is widely spread. But how does this relate to the researched rehabilitation project?
Rehabilitation is aimed at reforming behavior:
“The word ‘rehabilitation’ is pregnant with the understanding that offenders are not like us – normal people who do not break the law. There is something wrong with them that needs to be fixed (Cullen 2013, pp. 308).”
Although just some of the young adults in the studied rehabilitation project have committed crimes, the quote above applies to deviant behavior in general as well. Rehabilitation of deviant behavior signals that individuals who break norms or rules are not normal people, but deviant people. Thus, the deviant behavior is wrongful and therefore needs to be corrected. Rehabilitation seeks to adjust wrongful behavior in four ways: First, address shortcomings in behavior. Second, regulate the individual by learning new competences. Third, changing the environment so that competences can be made useful. And forth, by providing normal alternatives for needs as income and housing (Haber & Smith 1971). This can be seen as a normalizing process as described above, for deviant behavior is reformed towards acceptable, normal behavior. Furthermore, the rehabilitation project in this study can be typified as ‘roomtraining’ (translated from the Dutch word ‘kamertraining’), a form of residential care, since one of the services provided is housing (Boendermaker et al. 2013, pp. 2). Young adults are prepared to live as independently as possible while living in the provided housing (Boendermaker et
13 al. 2013, pp. 3). Projects as ‘roomtraining’ try to stimulate the psychosocial development and self-reliance of the inhabitants in order to make them capable of a better participation in society: the individual problems must be addressed and reformed (Boendermaker et al. 2013, pp. 3; Callebaut 2001). The word ‘better’ in the former sentence must be interpreted as ‘normal’ because participating well in society implies participation in agreement with the norms. Hence, ‘roomtraining’ can be seen as a normalizing process in which deviant behavior is reformed to acceptable, normal behavior. The supervisors in the rehabilitation project are the professionals who can be regarded as judges of normality who are there to reform the behavior of the young adults towards normality. The behavior of the young adults is subjected to their supervision. The supervisors regulate the behavior of the young adults so that they behave according to the rules and regulations in the project that are based on the knowledge and power of the professionals. The next paragraph will elaborate on what it means to be labeled as not normal, or as deviant.
2.2 Stigmatization
As stated in the paragraph above, the young adults living in the rehabilitation project are perceived as not being normal, labeled as deviant, because their behavior is not in accordance with the common norms. Deviant characteristics can become stigmatized. This means that stigmatization is related to normalization, as the stigmatized characteristics need to be reformed. But how are individuals stigmatized and what are the consequences of stigmatization? In this paragraph, the attribution of a stigma will be laid out to answer these questions.
Most of the differences between people are ignored in interaction because they are not perceived as important in the interaction. But some characteristics that vary among people are noticed in a social situation because they influence the social situation. The characteristics associated with these differences are then labeled (Link & Phelan 2001, pp. 367). They come to be perceived as given categories: they are taken for granted. This label can evoke negative attributions to be attached to the labeled differences. The label then associates the person with negative characteristics that form a stereotype. Further, the labeled person will be placed in a separated social category based on the belief that the labeled person is different from others (Link & Phelan 2001, pp. 367). A distinction is made between them and us: the labeled or stigmatized.
Stigma refers to a variety of processes associated with the initial definition of stigma by Goffman (1963): “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” (pp. 3). This means that others attribute that stigma to someone. In this thesis, stigma will be used as the co-occurrence of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss and discrimination in a situation with power relations that allows stigma to develop (Link & Phelan 2001, pp. 367). A distinction can be made between two forms of stigma based on different reasons, or causes, for the attribution of stigma: existential stigma and achieved stigma (Falk 2001). Existential stigma is based on a characteristic that the stigmatized person has little or no
14 control over. Low intelligence and mental or conduct disorders are examples of this. Achieved stigma, on the other hand, refers to a characteristic where the stigmatized is at least partly responsible for. He or she gained the characteristic by their own doing. Examples of achieved stigma are (ex) delinquent and substance user (Falk 2001; LeBel 2008, pp. 411). Generally, individuals with an achieved stigma are held more responsible for it and are therefore more blameworthy (Corrigan et al. 2003, pp. 163). Now, what it means to the stigmatized will be discussed.
As the labeled person is set apart, he or she will be excluded and rejected. The link with undesirable characteristics creates a reduction of status of the stigmatized by the stigmatizers. Next to status loss the stigmatization leads to discrimination of the stigmatized (Link & Phelan 2001, pp. 367). Thus, stigmatization can have a negative influence on the life of the stigmatized as it evokes certain disadvantaging behavior by the stigmatizers. For the stigma to develop, social, economic and political power is needed: it takes power to stigmatize. Stigmatizers need the power to make the stereotypes broadly accepted and to enforce the social categorization of us versus them. This conceptualization of stigma might lead to the perception that the stigmatized helplessly subject themselves to the stigmatization (Fine & Asch 1988). However, as the degree to which the stigmatized characteristics are revealed to others influences the application of the stigma and thereby the negative consequences of the stigmatization, individuals who possess stigmatized characteristics often control the exposure of these characteristics to others. So, whether people experience the consequences of stigmatization depends on the disclosure of stigmatized characteristic. Subsequently, individuals show a wide variety of responses to stigmatization (Major & O’Brien 2005, pp. 412). A reactive response to stigmatization means the stigmatized try to keep the stigma a secret to others so that they will be treated as normal (Link et al. 1991, pp. 316). The stigma is concealed and situations in which the stigma can be disclosed are avoided. Sometimes, the stigma is selectively disclosed to certain persons in their surroundings. This reaction aims to avoid the possible consequences of stigmatization but it does not resist the attribution of stigma in itself (Siegel et al. 1998, pp. 10). Intermediated strategies to stigmatization entail partly disclosure of the characteristics that evoke the stigma, discrediting the stigmatizers and denying the discrediting character of the stigma (LeBel 2008, pp. 417; Siegel et al. 1998, pp. 14-17). When a proactive strategy towards stigmatization is adopted, the legitimation of the stigma is challenged through the resistance of the values and beliefs behind the stigma (LeBel 2008, pp. 417; Siegel et al. 1998, pp. 17). Proactive responses include telling others to prevent them from hearing it from someone else and thereby stay in charge of the disclosure (Siegel et al. 1998, pp. 17). Revealing the stigma has both advantages and disadvantages. Disclosure on the one hand, means that the stigmatized does not have to worry about hiding the stigma. Next to that, it opens the opportunity to receive help, support and approval from others. Disclosure makes it also possible to speak up against the stigma (Corrigan & Lundin 2001). On the other hand, revealing the stigma to others could lead to others expressing disapproval and exclusion from opportunities. It could also awake concerns about how others see them now (Corrigan & Lundin 2001).
15 In sum, stigma is developed in the process of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss and discrimination in a context with power relations that allow the stigma to develop. The status loss and discrimination that are part of the stigmatization result in negative consequences for the stigmatized (Link & Phelan 2001, pp. 367). The literature on labeling and stigmatization gives reason to believe that the young adults in the rehabilitation project under study are stigmatized on several grounds. The first two grounds laid out here are existential stigmas and the second two are achieved stigmas as described above.
First, the young adults in the rehabilitation project all have an intelligence quotient, or IQ, between 65 and 80, which means that they have an intellectual disability. People with an intellectual disability are a stigmatized minority in society at large (Rapley et al. 1998, pp. 807) and stigma is something that they have to deal with in everyday life (Jahoda & Markova 2004, pp. 727; Rapley et al. 1998, pp. 807). Research shows that an intellectual disability is associated with being less attractive, less likely to be successful and less emotionally stable than individuals without this disability (Lisle 2011, pp. 23-28).
The second ground for stigmatization for young adults in the rehabilitation project is that many of the individuals are diagnosed with mental health disorders as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism or a conduct disorder. Mental health disorders in youth are associated with being more violent, showing more anti-social behavior in general (Walker et al. 2008, pp. 918), being less popular and being more often rejected than others in social interactions (Hoza et al. 2005, pp. 420; Moses 2010, pp. 986). Stigmatization of individuals with a mental health disorder is expressed by stigmatizers as fear, avoidance, distrust, and anger directed toward them (Walker et al. 2008, pp. 912). This stigma is known to limit social and economic opportunities and reduce the well-being of the stigmatized (Walker et al. 2008, pp. 913).
Third, most of the respondents have been in contact with the judicial system because they violated the law. Some of the young adults have been in juvenile detention. Offenders, or ex-prisoners, are known to be stigmatized by the general public (LeBel 2008, pp. 3) because they are labeled as ‘dangerous, dishonest or otherwise disreputable’ (Young 1999). Otherwise, evidence shows that young delinquents do not feel stigmatized by their close surroundings as family and friends (Foster et al. 1972, pp. 204) but that they do feel stigmatized by future employees when they are judged on their characteristics on paper and not on personal interaction and personal presentation (Foster et al. 1972, pp. 205).
The fourth and last ground for stigmatization discussed here is that young adults in the rehabilitation project often use substances, or have a history of substance use, such as marijuana and less often, hard drugs as ecstasy and amphetamines. Substance users are often stigmatized because substance use is seen as unacceptable behavior (Adlaf et al. 2009, pp. 360; Fulton 1999; Kallen 1989). Drug users are perceived as being more dangerous and violent than non-users (Corrigan et al. 1999; Link et al. 1999, pp. 1331). Further, they are seen as weak, immoral and causing a risk to society
16 (Kallen 1989). The negative influence of this stigma is that the stigmatized are more often avoided in social interactions by others than individuals who do not use substances (Adlaf et al. 2009, pp. 360; Albrecht et al. 1982, pp 1319).
Although these four stigmas can be separated theoretically, it is hard to disentangle them in real life since many of the young adults in the rehabilitation project carry multiple grounds for stigmatization at the same time. All of these grounds come together in the project where their deviant behavior is addressed. Thereby, living in the rehabilitation project can be seen as stigmatizing because receiving health care implies that the young adults carry characteristics for stigmatization. The fear of the stigma hence interferes with seeking the needed health care (Ojeda & McGuire 2006; Tucker et al. 1994, pp. 408). However, the young adults have admitted themselves voluntarily to the rehabilitation project in this study. This implies that they admit that there is a problem that needs to be addressed and that they thereby confirm the label of being deviant that is applied to them. Because the stigmas are practically interwoven, this research will focus on the stigma of living in the rehabilitation project itself, because this stigma is understood as based on the confirmation of the other, underlying stigmas. The next paragraph will focus on how the behavior of deviant and stigmatized individuals is shaped towards the norm to create normal individuals.
2.3 Disciplinary institutions and disciplinary techniques
As explained above, deviant behavior is often stigmatized and the stigmatization influences the everyday lives of the stigmatized. The rehabilitation project then aims at reforming the deviant behavior to more acceptable, normal behavior. But how is behavior normalized? How are normal individuals created? These questions will be addressed in the following.
To normalize behavior, disciplinary power is exercised through techniques. Disciplinary power is used to constrain and enable certain behavior (Lacombe 1996). In modern society, deviant behavior has become a thing to classify, specify, categorize, quantify and thereby reform it, make it better (Lacombe 1996, pp. 339). Accordingly, discipline is used to change individual behavior from deviant to normal. Rehabilitation is then a process of disciplining the deviant behavior so that the young adult will become normalized. But how do disciplinary techniques regulate deviant behavior in a rehabilitation project?
To control and predict individual behavior, disciplinary techniques are employed (Foucault 1977; Sandoff & Widell 2007). It will turn the young adults into useful individuals (Foucault 1977, pp. 211). Discipline works on different levels: the cellular, the organic and the genetic (Foucault 1977, pp. 167). Cellular discipline determines the spatial distribution of the bodies of the young adults. This technique is employed by enclosing, partitioning and ranking (Sandoff & Widell 2007). Enclosure is interpreted here as the spatial separation of individuals. Partitioning builds on that and states that every individual is assigned a place. Ranking refers to the hierarchical ordering of individuals (Sandoff &
17 Widell 2007; Townley 1993). Organic discipline subsists of the coding of activities and prescribing which movements are made to carry out the activities as productive as possible. It aims at establishing a rhythm in actions that starts to feel natural so that it will become the normal way of doing things. Discipline that is genetic is aimed at controlling behavior over time (Foucault 1977, pp. 167). It entails the segmentation of practices in time so that behavior is modeled in a temporal sequence (Towney 1993). For example, wake up at a certain time, then go to work, cook dinner after that and go to sleep at a fixed time. Through these techniques, discipline ‘makes’ individuals (Foucault 1977, pp. 170) because discipline works on the individuals but it also works through the individuals. To make it more concrete, the young adults in the rehabilitation project are subjected to:
“… a whole micro-penality of time (latenesses, absenses, interruptions of tasks), of activity (inattention, negligence, lack of zeal), of behaviour (impoliteness, disobedience), of speech (idle chatter, insolence), of the body (‘incorrect’ attitudes, irregular gestures, lack of cleanliness), of sexuality (impurity, indecency) (Foucault 1977, pp. 178).”
But discipline is not only used to punish behavior, it is also used to reward behavior. Punishment and gratification are both elements of disciplining behavior as longing for rewards and fear of punishment both stimulate normal behavior and restrain from deviant behavior (Foucault 1977, pp 180). Rewards can be expressed for example as compliments, privileges, presents or status. Furthermore, rewarding behavior should be preferred to correcting behavior because rewarding is more pleasant for both the individual who carries out the discipline and the disciplined individual and it is equally effective (Foucault 1977, pp. 180). Discipline then, maintains a norm for good and bad behavior in both rewarding behavior with privileges and correcting behavior with punishment (Foucault 1977, pp. 181/183). In short, discipline normalizes behavior.
Following from this, a rehabilitation project can be seen as an institution that encompasses various disciplinary techniques that are applied in reaction to the rule breaking behavior of the young adults, to their deviant behavior. Institutions as the rehabilitation project reproduce rules about ‘security, curfew, permitted visitors, drugs’ and guard them through social control (Cohen 1979, pp. 346). Next to the use of controlling behavior, the behavior of the rehabilitated is also reformed towards the norm with the use of rewards in the treatment (Empey & Rabow, 1961). The social control on the rules and the rewards for good behavior are disciplinary techniques as presented above. Through these disciplinary techniques the behavior of the young adults in the rehabilitation project is normalized. The disciplinary techniques employed in the rehabilitation project under study are the focus of this research. The analysis will therefore shed more light on which techniques are used to produce normal behavior. To understand reactions to the disciplinary techniques in the process of normalization, the
18 next paragraph will elaborate on compliance with and resistance to disciplinary techniques in the normalization process.
2.4 Responses to the process of normalization
So far, the paragraphs above have explained how norms for behavior are established, that deviant behavior is often stigmatized and thereby is related to the process of normalization and how disciplinary techniques are used to normalize behavior. But, how do individuals respond to this process of normalization? This paragraph will discuss two possible reactions to this process in institutions: compliance and resistance.
When power is exercised through disciplinary techniques, this can result in either compliance with or resistance to these techniques (Foucault 1976). The goal of disciplinary techniques is, in short, to create individuals that are compliant with social norms. Compliant, or in the words of Foucault docile, individuals do not need to be governed because they will act according to the norms on their own (Lysaugth 2009, pp. 390). Compliance is reached because of the internalization of the norms through disciplining someone’s behavior:
“Within a regime of disciplinary power, each person - by internalizing the norms and surveillance of the social order - effectively disciplines herself or himself (Lysaught 2009, pp. 390).”
A docile individual is a normal individual because the behavior of the person is in accordance with the norms. So, first a discourse of normality is shaped, as stated in the first paragraph of this chapter. Then disciplinary techniques control deviant behavior so that the disciplined person will show normal behavior. This is most effective in an institutionalized setting because the institution enables the use of disciplinary techniques. Eventually, the norms and rules that are affirmed by the discipline will become accepted as normal (Lysaught 2009, pp. 391). The norm then has become internalized and the individual is normalized: the behavior of the person is compliant with the norms.
However, disciplinary techniques in the process of normalization can result in compliance as well as resistance. Resistant behavior is aimed at some sort of change through actions that oppose the current situation (Hollander & Einwohner 2004, pp. 536/538). Resistance can be openly carried out or it can be more concealed (Crewe 2007, pp. 257; Hollander & Einwohner 2004, pp. 345). An example of openly resistant behavior is explicitly voicing discontent or outright refusing to perform certain behavior. Overt resistance increases the risk of a negative reaction from the authority that is opposed, while covert resistance is less likely to be sanctioned. The fear of being punished for the opposing behavior is therefore a possible motivation to hide resistant behavior from the disputed authority. However, when resistance is performed openly it is not because the individual is no longer afraid of
19 repercussions, but because the individual experiences a need to speak up to achieve justice or take responsibility in the situation (Öhrn 1998). Although covert resistance does not directly confront authority, the opposing behavior often is recognized as opposition by the resisted authority (Öhrn 1998, pp. 344).
Within an institution, dependent on the degree to which the discipline is perceived as legitimate, compliance and covert resistance can take on several forms. First, there is committed compliance where the discipline employed is seen as normative right and legitimate. The subservient ones see their former behavior as bad and are in need of change. Therefore, they show little resistance to the disciplinary techniques. They do not feel their subjection to the power. They rather comply with the discipline as a restructuring of the self as active agents (Crewe 2007, pp. 265-266). Second, there is fatalistic or instrumental compliance when the subservient follow the rules because that is just how it works in the institution. Opposed to the former group, these people do not see the discipline as justified or legitimized. The discipline is mostly seen as inevitable so resistance is pointless. When resistance is showed, it is expressed through legitimate means to show frustration (Crewe 2007, pp. 267-269). The third reaction to discipline is that of detached compliance. These people show compliance but are disengaged from the institution and its goals and means. Instead, they reconstruct themselves autonomously. Compliance with the discipline makes this easier so there is very limited resistance (Crewe 2007, pp. 270). The fourth way to react to discipline is that of strategic compliance and manipulation. The displayed compliance then is a means to disguise opposition. Underneath the acts of compliance they hold hostile attitudes toward the disciplinary institute. The discipline is not seen as legitimate but they go along with it because that will help them to get out of the institution faster. Hidden resistance is carried out in illicit behavior or active disruption of the institute and its techniques (Crewe 2007, pp. 271).
Although the reactions of compliance with or resistance to power described here are based on populations in total institutions, these reactions might as well be found in an institution that is less ‘total’ and more open, such as the rehabilitation project. When living in a rehabilitation project, behavior is restricted and regulated to a certain degree as well.
In conclusion, normalization is a process in which a norm is imposed on behavior in order to reform deviant behavior into more acceptable, normal behavior. In maintaining a norm for behavior, deviant behavior is shaped as well by judges of normality. Rehabilitation then, is a normalization process as deviant behavior is reformed into normal behavior. Stigmatization of certain deviant characteristics, such as low intelligence, conduct and mental disorders, delinquency and substance use, leads to status loss and discrimination. To avoid these negative consequences, the stigmatized often control the exposure of grounds for stigmatization. Hence, the stigmatization of certain deviant characteristics is related to normalization because the process of normalization aims to diminish the grounds for, and thereby negative consequences of stigmatization. To normalize behavior, disciplinary techniques such
20 as punishing and rewarding behavior are employed. The rehabilitation project maintains certain rules through these disciplinary techniques in order to normalize behavior. Subsequently, the disciplinary techniques in the normalization process evoke reactions from the disciplined individuals. The various degrees of resistance to or compliance with the discipline in the rehabilitation project are related to the perceived legitimation of the discipline and normalization that the young adults are subjected to.
This study will contribute to the existing literature mainly because it will address the practical implications of normalization, stigmatization, disciplinary techniques and the responses to the process of normalization of young adults in a rehabilitation project. This research will help to understand how deviant, stigmatized young adults are normalized with disciplinary techniques. Because there is little research on this subject that includes the perspectives of young adults in rehabilitation projects, the value of this analysis especially lies in the focus on the views of the young adults in the rehabilitation project under study, next to the perspectives of their supervisors.
In the next chapter, the process of gathering data for this research will be considered, before the theoretical framework will be used to analyse the data in chapter four to seven.
21 3. Methodology
__________________________________________________________________________________
In this third chapter, the choices made during the collection of the empirical data will be discussed. In the first paragraph, the population and research site will be considered. The second paragraph will review the study design and the data collection. Then, the data analysis will be described in the third paragraph. The fourth paragraph will introduce the operationalization of the used concepts and in the fifth paragraph ethics concerning the research will be reviewed. A reflection on the process of data collection will be offered in the sixth paragraph and this chapter will conclude with the limitations of this research in paragraph seven.
3.1 Population and place: young adults and supervisors in a rehabilitation project
This research examines young adults in a rehabilitation project in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The research population consists of young adults between 18 and 35 years old with diverse ethnic backgrounds such as Surinamese, Antillean, Moroccan, Turkish and Dutch. As over eighty percent of the young adults in the project are male, only three women have been interviewed. One of the criteria for admission to the rehabilitation project is that the young adults have a diagnosed intellectual disability: their IQ has to be between 60 en 85. Research has found that individuals with an intellectual disability engage more in deviant behavior than individuals with no intellectual disability (Douma & Dekker 2007, Hall 2000, Holland et al. 2002). Another qualification for living in this rehabilitation project is a so-called CIZ- indication. This is an indication from the institute Centrum Indicatiestelling Zorg which grants care under the law for special healthcare in The Netherlands (Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten). Hence, all young adults in the rehabilitation program are in need of care, more specifically, they are in need of support to learn how to live on their own after juvenile detention and or because their home situation no longer allows them to live with their parents. This can be related to behavioral problems of the young adults or to an insecure situation within the household, independent from them. Some of the young adults have been in institutions for many years prior to living in this project. Next to the young adults living in the rehabilitation project, this research includes the supervisors of the young adults. The age of the supervisors varies between twenty and mid-fifty and just over half of the supervisors in the project are male. All of the interviewed supervisors hold the same position of personal mentor to on average three young adults and at the same time, general supervisor to all the other young adults in absence of their personal supervisor. They have been working in the rehabilitation for at least a few years. Since all supervisors take care of several young adults, they were able to provide information based on their general experiences
The project is located in 24 small apartments in a large student-housing complex with over a thousand student houses. The apartments are made of remodeled containers such as used for shipping. Each container has its own front door, bathroom, kitchen, and living room/bedroom. Next to the
22 complex, there is a central point where the supervision of the youth in the program is based. It is opened 24/7 and there are always at least two supervisor to provide help when needed. There, they can also do their laundry and make calls and there is also a common room and a common kitchen.
As already mentioned in the introduction, this study site is selected based on my familiarity with this project since I lived in the student housing close to several persons who participate in this project. The project sparked my interest as I saw how complex the support for the youth is and how both the young adults and the supervisors sometimes struggled with the discipline in the project. These struggles make it an interesting case to get a better understanding of how disciplinary techniques are used to reform deviant behavior into normal behavior.
3.2 Study design and data collection: case study and interviewing
To gather data to answer the research question, a case study is conducted. A case study provides the opportunity to give a ‘detailed and intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman 2008, pp. 52)’, of a rehabilitation project for young adults in Amsterdam. In this research, the case study provides practical, context-dependent knowledge (Flyvbjerg 2006, pp. 224) about how disciplining techniques are used to normalize behavior. Case studies further afford narratives to be developed (Flyvbjerg 2006, pp. 237/241). The data then consist of rich descriptions and interpretations from the perspective of the young adults and the supervisors on discipline and normalization.
The data is collected through interviewing. Seventeen semi-structured interviews have been conducted: five interviews with supervisors and twelve with young adults currently living in the project. The interviews with the supervisors lasted between 45 and 90 minutes where the interviews with the young adults were much shorter: 15 to 45 minutes. Interviewing produces detailed knowledge about the perspective of the young adults and it gives the respondents the opportunity to tell their stories: it creates narratives that give account of the subjective reality and the context in which this reality is shaped. This is important, because this research aims as stated above, to provide insight into the lived, personal experience of disciplining techniques that stimulate normalization of young adults in a rehabilitation program (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 109-110; Wengraf 2001). The interviews are semi-structured because an interview guide with predetermined questions is used. All the questions or topics are addressed during the interview, but the order and formulation differed per interview, as the interviews followed the answers given by the respondents. This way, the structure of the interview is flexible and additional issues that came up during the interviews could be included in the data (Bryman 2008, pp. 438). Saturation is reached with twelve interviews with young adults in the rehabilitation project because the research population is not very segmented on theoretically important characteristics as disciplinary techniques and stigma (Bryman 2008, pp. 462; Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 89). Because all the supervisors that are interviewed take care of multiple young adults, saturation is reached with only five interviews among supervisors.
23 To find young adults and supervisors who were willing to participate in the research a gatekeeper was approached. The gatekeeper is someone from the staff of the organization that runs the rehabilitation project. He was willing to ask the supervisors to participate in the research. The supervisors who volunteered asked the young adults in their care to do an interview as well, as did several other supervisors in the project. Thus, five supervisors and twelve young adults were recruited to participate in the research.
This form of respondent recruitment can be characterized as convenience sampling. The respondents are recruited this way because limitations in accessibility of the respondents had to be considered (Bryman 2008, pp. 183). On the one hand, convenience sampling is used in this research because respondents in the rehabilitation project and their supervisors are needed to provide an answer to the research question. On the other hand, not all the young adults that live in the rehabilitation project were accessible for this study. After all, most of the respondents for this thesis research, the young adults, are living in a rehabilitation project, which makes them vulnerable. It is not always in their best interest to participate in a research like this. Therefore, convenient sampling is used: we have to work with what we have.
The interviews are conducted in Dutch because all the respondents speak Dutch and therefore feel comfortable speaking it. Conducting the interviews in Dutch and the flexible structure of the interview enhanced the established rapport between interviewer and interviewee (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 124). A good rapport during the interviews leads to a higher quality of data because the respondents feel at ease and therefore are willing to talk more freely and elaborate more broadly. Rapport also helps to stimulate the respondent to talk and to be as honest as possible about their accounts (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 124-125; Weiss 2004, pp. 149-150) Special attention is given to creating rapport with the young adults because they are a vulnerable and sometimes difficult group to interview. Moreover, they are asked to talk about the support that they receive and the young adults and this can be perceived as sensitive information. Because the respondents are expected to feel more comfortable to talk in a familiar setting (Hall 2000, pp. 282), all interviews but one are conducted in a room at the central meeting point where the supervision is located. One interview has taken place at the respondents’ house because that was more convenient to her.
To make participation in the research more attractive to the young adults, all of them are told that they would receive a compensation of five euros after completing the interview. It was felt by the gatekeeper that this would increase their willingness to engage in the research and that it was fair as the young adults would donate their free time and private stories to the research. Other compensations are examined but in consultation with the gatekeeper, money is considered the most valuable to the respondents: five euros on top of their weekly budget is very much appreciated. Giving a monetary compensation to the respondents might have influenced the information they provided (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 123). On the one hand, it might have made them more eager to give the
24 right answers. To overcome this, the respondents are told before the start of the interview that there are no good or bad answers to the questions and that the interview would focus on their experiences. On the other hand, the compensation might have encouraged them to elaborate more on their answers than they otherwise would have done. This is a good thing for the research, because they were more likely to talk about their own experiences. Contrary to the young adults, the supervisors do not receive compensation because it is less needed to get them to participate in the research and five euros is less valuable to them.
3.3 Data analysis: grounded theory
With consent of the respondents, the interviews are (voice) recorded. Next to that, short notes are made by the interviewer immediately after the interviews about the context of the interview and the impressions of the interviewer. This helped to put the provided data into context while analyzing. After the interviews, the recordings are transcribed in Dutch with all the inconsistencies of speech in it. Quotes used in the thesis are translated from Dutch to English. Further, speech is cleaned up to make the quotes more readable. Repetitions, hesitations and incorrect pronounced words are left out or altered. In this way, the incoherent speech does not distract from the content of the quote (Weiss 2004, pp. 193). Alterations are made carefully so that the content itself changed as little as possible.
Besides cleaning up the speech, speech used as quote in the analysis, is anonymized. Names, places and other characteristics that could lead to the respondents or the rehabilitation project are left out or changed. The respondents and the organization are made unrecognizable in the quotes (Weiss 2004, pp. 198). To assure this, the staff of the rehabilitation project has read the research before admission so that changes could be made regarding anonymity.
The transcriptions of the interviews are used to analyse the data. The analysis is done based on the principles of grounded theory, as this is a suitable method because it is useful to understand behavior and processes from the perspective of the respondents (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 208). This is called the emic perspective. As stated above, this is the type of data that is needed to answer the research question. Because coding based on grounded theory uses the verbatim transcripts of the interviews, which consists of the respondents own words, the analysis is rooted in the data (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 208). During the coding process, memos are created that helped to make the coding process transparent (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 208). The coding process is both deductive and inductive. It is deductive because coding started with relevant theoretical concepts as identified in the operationalization chapter below. The coding process is also inductive, as new concepts are identified as they come up from the data. The analysis is conducted in a constant comparison between the transcripts and the conceptual framework (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 208).
25 3.4 Operationalization of concepts
To provide a clear understanding of the research purpose, the main concepts in this research will now be made more explicit building on the literature presented in the theoretical framework: normalization, stigmatization and discipline. First, normalization is understood as a process in which standards of behavior are imposed on deviant conduct (Garland 1990, pp. 169-170). The young adults are asked why they think they are living in a rehabilitation project and what they think is the goal of the project. Next to this, they are asked to talk about what has to change before their supervisors think they are ready to leave the project and how this differentiates from when they think that they are ready to go. Further, to understand the normalizing process, they are asked to paint a picture of a normal life and what they think the supervisors would say when asked to describe a normal life. Finally, they are asked to describe their life in three years to understand what they hope for in life.
Second, stigma is understood as the co-occurrence of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss and discrimination in situations where power relations allow stigmatizing (Link & Phelan 2001). To learn whether the young adults feel stigmatized, they are asked if people in their social network outside the rehabilitation project, know that they are living in a rehabilitation project and if they think it is best to keep it a secret to others in general and to who specifically. Further, they are asked if they have been treated differently because they live in the project and what they think that others outside the rehabilitation project think about them. They are also asked if they think that living in the rehabilitation project has had consequences to them in interaction with others and whether they have been discriminated against.
Third, discipline is perceived as a power mechanism that is aimed at controlling and predicting behavior (Foucault 1977; Sandoff & Widell 2007). To understand the disciplining of behavior, the young adults are asked to describe the routines and regulations in the rehabilitation project: what is allowed and what is not. The questions focused on housing, work, relationships with family and friends and on alcohol and drug use. The young adults are requested to talk about rules that they like, rules that they dislike and why they do so. They are also asked to elaborate on consequences of violations of the rules and rewards for conforming to the rules. Further, they are asked whether they receive help, and what kind of help, when they have trouble following the rules. This helps to understand the ways in which discipline is applied.
In addition to asking these questions to the young adults in the rehabilitation project, these questions are also asked to their supervisors with some small adjustments. These interviews were more extensive and focused on informal rules as well. The interview guides for the young adults and the supervisors are included in Dutch and English in appendix 1.
3.5 Ethics concerning the research
The majority of the respondents in this research are young adults who have received various forms of care during their lives because they have a variety of problems. Therefore, they can be considered a
26 vulnerable group. To protect this group as much as possible, all respondents are asked to sign an informed consent form before the start of the interview. The informed consent form helps to explain the object of the study. Further, it explains what the respondents can expect of the interview. All of the respondents were willing to sign, often even before they had read it. Therefore, the respondents are talked through the informed consent form before the interview started.
The informed consent form states that participation in the research is voluntary and that the respondent does not have to answer questions when he or she does not want to and he or she can stop the interview at any time. The informed consent form for young adults states that the respondent will receive a compensation of five euros after completing the interview. The form also states that the interviews are voice recorded and transcribed later. Further, the respondents are granted anonymity: their names will not be used in the thesis or any other report, nor will the names of the organization or the exact location of the project. Lastly, no one will have access to the recordings or the transcripts besides the researcher and the staff of the rehabilitation organization.
With the conditions stated in the informed consent form, I hope to provide as much anonymity and confidentiality to the respondents as possible in this research. Also, by explaining that the participation is voluntary, what the research is about, and what happens with the data after the interview, I hope that the respondents experience as little harm as possible (Hammersley & Atkinson 2007, pp. 213-214). The informed consent for both the young adults and the supervisors is included in Dutch and English in appendix 2.
3.6 Reflection on data collection
Four out of five supervisors are interviewed before the interviews with the young adults started. This is done on purpose so that answers given by the supervisors could inform the interview guide for the youth. For example, based on the information gathered in these interviews, the interview guide for the young adults is altered to make the questions more concrete. After the first interview with a young adult, the interview guide is changed further because some of the questions were still not concrete enough for the respondents to answer. For example, the question, ‘can you tell me something about the rules in the project’ is split up in several questions that ask the respondents to name two or three rules on housing/work/drugs etcetera. However, some respondents continued to struggle with the questions and were not able to answer several questions extensively because they could not motivate why they felt a certain way or were not able to think of an example that illustrated their answer.
Another impediment during the interviews was that some of the respondents did not formulate their answers clearly. Some of them were hard to understand, which made it challenging to follow up on their answers. To overcome this, I have summarized and reformulated many of their answers to check if I understood what they were saying. Also, I used their response and body language to see if I was right. To reduce the information loss as much as possible, those interviews were transcribed the same day with the interview fresh in mind. Further, my role as interviewer probably influenced the
27 information gathered during the interviews as well. To not stand out, I dressed casually for the interviews. Nevertheless, I could not change the fact that I was a Dutch, white female who, even when I used straightforward words, was clearly higher educated then they were. I am under the impression that some of the young men that I interviewed were a little overwhelmed by me or were even shy. This might have influenced the interviews in that it made them more reluctant to talk and that it took longer to establish rapport.
As mentioned above, all the young adults who participated in the research received five euros for their participation. The supervisors confirmed during the process of data collection that this was very helpful to engage the young adults in the study. Some of the youth probably only agreed to do the interview because of the money. At first, I was afraid that those respondents would give only minimal responses to my questions to spend as little time as possible on the interview. But, as far as I could tell, none of the respondents deliberately hampered the interview. After all, they seemed to enjoy answering the questions and liked having my full attention.
3.7 Limitations of the research
One of the most heard criticisms on case studies is that they have a limited external validity because they focus on one case that includes only a limited number of research units (Flyvbjerg 2006, pp. 224, Verschuren 2010, pp. 127). In defense, one can argue that generalization of research results is often overrated because it is not the only way in which knowledge can be accumulated. The value of an example, of a case, is herein underestimated (Flyvbjerg 2006, pp. 227). Research results from a case study might have a different goal than generalization to populations as:
“…case studies, like experiments, are generalizable to theoretical propositions, not to populations or universes (Yin 2009, pp. 15).”
The case study aims at expanding and generalizing theories (Yin 2009, pp. 15). Following this statement found in the literature, this thesis does not try to use the case of the rehabilitation project to generalize the findings to all rehabilitation projects with similar characteristics. This thesis aims at providing an in-depth example of a case, the rehabilitation project, to expand and generalize on the theoretical framework on normalization, stigmatization and discipline laid out in the previous chapter.
Getting access to the respondents through a gatekeeper has also limited this thesis. The recruitment of respondents depended on the gatekeeper because he asked the supervisors to participate and they selected the young adults (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011, pp. 93). This might have influenced the data in that certain people, with uncommon characteristics or opinions, might be excluded from the research. However, the researcher feels that given the inaccessibility of the research field and the vulnerability of most of the respondents, working with the gatekeeper produced the best possible result. Working with a gatekeeper has several advantages as well. First, the gatekeeper
