Locals for locals : dynamics of social cohesion in and around the Kinderfaculteit

Fien Hebly 10069399 University of Amsterdam Master of Sociology ‘Migration and Ethnic Studies’ Bowen Paulle Yannis Tzaninis August 2017, Amsterdam Words: 24.111

ABSTRACT

This is a naturalistic inquiry into how the Kinderfaculteit, a community organization, influences various dimensions of social cohesion. The Kinderfaculteit is a three-year-old neighbourhood initiative in Rotterdam South aimed at stimulating children’s cognitive and socio-emotional skills. This research is embedded in the discussion concerning social cohesion and the Dutch context of a participatory society. Social cohesion has been under pressure for decades, for it is said to be deteriorating due to globalization, individualism, migration and urbanisation. In the Netherlands we can see this corrosion of social cohesion reflected in the criticism on the multicultural society, leading to the marginalization of minorities, as well as in a declining trust in the state, who transformed from a welfare state to a more neo-liberal one. The Kinderfaculteit emerged in a disadvantaged neighbourhood and fits the profile of self-organization, an ideal of the neo-liberal state. As a disadvantaged neighbourhood, which are characterized by deficient social, cultural and economic capital, Pendrecht is under pressure by the state’s call for active citizenship. The Kinderfaculteit can be seen as a community organization because of the community-based desire for action combined with professional supervision. This method of social organization structures the Kinderfaculteit’s ambition to stimulate social cohesion, since the method of community organization is aimed at empowering the community. Social cohesion is expressed in various dynamics, as the Kinderfaculteit aims to achieve their primary goal; stimulating children’s cognitive and socio-emotional skills. Therefore, I argue that community organization offers a potential solution to the problematic situation of disadvantaged neighbourhoods who are asked to fend for themselves, because local motivation is enabled to flourish through professional support. A challenge though, is finding the right balance of professionalism without compromising the local character and spirit of the initiative.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... p. 4 1.1 The Dutch, the crisis and the neighbourhood ... p. 4 1.2 The Kinderfaculteit ... p. 6 1.3 Relevant empirical findings ... p. 9 2. Theoretical Framework ... p. 11 2.1 Community organization ... p. 11 2.2 Social Cohesion ... p. 12 2.2.1 Common values and civic culture ... p. 13 2.2.2 Social networks and social capital ... p. 15 2.2.3 Place attachment and identity ... p. 18 2.3 Disadvantaged neighbourhoods ... p. 19 3. Research question and aim of the research ... p. 21 3.1 Research question ... p. 21 3.2 Aim of the research ... p. 22 4. Methodology ... p. 23 4.1 Research methods ... p. 23 4.2 The research(er) and the challenges ... p. 25 5. Common values and civic culture ... p. 28 5.1 An Impression of the Kinderfaculteit ... p. 28 5.2 Volunteers ... p. 28 5.3 Common goals and aspirations ... p. 30 5.4 Codes of conduct and moral principles ... p. 31 5.5 Parent Council ... p. 32 5.6 Children’s Council ... p. 33 6. Social networks and social capital ... p. 35 6.1 Building and shaping social networks ... p. 35 6.2 Kinderfaculteit as community ... p. 39 6.3 Power dynamics in the Kinderfaculteit ... p. 40 6.4 Collaborations with other organizations in Pendrecht ... p. 42 6.5 Parent involvement ... p. 44 6.6 The establishment of new clubs in Pendrecht ... p. 46 6.7 The gap with high school students ... p. 48 7. Pendrecht – Place attachment and identity ... p. 49 7.1 Involvement in the neighbourhood ... p. 49 7.2 Feeling at home at the Kinderfaculteit ... p. 51 7.3 Role models ... p. 52 8. Conclusion ... p. 54 8.1 Discussion and recommendations ... p. 58 Literature ... p. 60

1. Introduction

1.1 The Dutch, the crisis and the neighbourhood

The call for a ‘participatory society’ by the King in 2012 (Troonrede, September 17, 2013) marked an on-going development in the Netherlands since the beginning of this century, of the government appealing to Dutch citizens to become more active and responsible (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013). Citizens are expected to be more involved in the general society, not leave everything up to the state and have a greater sense of responsibility to contribute to an enjoyable, safe and cohesive society. The people are expected to become active citizens, who take their rights as well as their responsibilities as citizens seriously. This change in tone of the government can be seen as a response to criticism on the forgoing welfare state, where the government was accused of taking on a paternalistic role that made citizens weak and inactive. This situation led to a supposed gap between state and citizen, with the state being unaware what was going on in society (Uitermark, 2015). In an attempt to close this gap the government invited citizens to take control, while they would take on an enabling role, but without interfering too much. This trend of the government calling for more active citizenship has, however, been much debated in the Netherlands. Some feel that the state is neglecting its own role. The state is filling the gap between state and citizen with the citizens it should try to protect, only for budgetary reasons. We can see a decline in faith from citizens in the Dutch government when at the same time the government is proclaiming their faith in its citizens to become more self-reliant (Idem).

This new attitude of the state to encourage active citizenship can also be seen in the context of international developments, where governments are becoming devoted to the neo-liberal project (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013). In this view, the participatory society is a way to decrease “citizen dependence on social services and other welfare arrangements” (Idem: 415).

Besides this discussion there is another debate going on in the Netherlands about the failure or success of the multicultural society, and subsequently a debate about who is Dutch and who isn’t. Popular discourse describes multiculturalism as an ideal of the welfare state that was in line with the Dutch self-identification of being tolerant, although some researchers question if Dutch policy ever truly was multiculturalist (Duyvendak & Scholten, 2011). Recently the term multiculturalism has acquired the stigma of being utopian and not a realistic representation of reality (Sleegers, 2007; Van Reekum & Duyvendak, 2012). From pro-multiculturalism the Dutch popular discourse moved towards neo-realism, where people are cheered on to ‘speak their mind’, even (or mostly) when this opinion is not considered politically correct (Prins, 2002; 2004). This neo-realism is often accompanied with racism, especially directed at the Dutch Islamic community and paved the way for populism, further polarising the debate in the Netherlands about who is Dutch and who is not.

Alongside these debates there is widespread concern in the social sciences and urban policy debates about a possible degeneration in traditional community ties and social systems in the past half century due to urbanisation, globalisation, individualism and an increase in wealth disparities (Castells, 1997; Fukuyama, 1999; Putnam, 2000; Forrest & Kearns, 2001). Some researchers are less pessimistic than others and explain this concern about declining morals and values to be something of all times, and feel that a changing society doesn’t necessarily mean a deteriorating society (Pahl, 1991; Green & Janmaat, 2011).

Overall we can see how the call for a participatory society comes with increased pressure on civil society, where citizens are expected to pull their weight and participate. From a neighbourhood perspective this means that residents are expected to take initiative to maintain and improve the quality of the neighbourhood. There has been an upsurge in interest about the influence of locally based networks and neighbourhood initiatives to positively influence the, what some call, ‘crisis of social cohesion’ (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). For example, Putnam (1996) argued that civic engagement leads to active citizens participating in a cohesive society. Also Dutch policy makers have emphasized the potential of neighbourhood initiatives to stimulate social cohesion, suggesting that they make people more active and increase social control (WRR, 2005). This perceived correlation between neighbourhood initiatives and social cohesion relates to the Dutch government’s wish that citizens become more active. Apparently, neighbourhood matters in evoking citizen’s responsibilities. Uitermark (2015) sees the increased pressure on civil society as the state transferring their responsibility for welfare and happiness to the citizens. He is critical of this policy shift because it works in favour of segregation and inequality (Uitermark, 2012; 2015). This observation is endorsed by Putnam (1993), who has shown how the poorer and more diverse areas generally have the weakest social organisations. But even though ethnic diverse and economically deprived areas score lower on the capacity to organize themselves, these residential background characteristics cannot fully explain the variations in collective civic actions (Putnam, 1993; Sampson, 2012). Sampson et al. (2005) say it’s not only the social ties or individual membership that determines whether or not collective civic action occurs, but it is also “the organizational infrastructure of the neighbourhood [that] matters a great deal” (709). Uitermark (2015) translates this into the ‘institutional tissue’ of a neighbourhood, which is made up by the “associations and foundations that enable people to connect” (2304). When there is a strong developed institutional tissue there is a fertile basis for self-organization, due to a long tradition of urban infrastructure for community development (Ibidem). Uitermark (2015), in his research on the geographies of the self-organisational capacities of different areas in Rotterdam, explains how, when looking at Rotterdam’s Social Index survey, the results seem to be in line with Putnam’s (1993) ideas that deprived and poorer neighbourhoods score low on the capacity to self-organize. But when he shifts his gaze from the individual motivations to the general

distribution of neighbourhood initiatives, he finds that these are actually quite evenly spread over the city. Uitermark (2015) explains how “a plausible explanation for this pattern is that Rotterdam has a highly developed city-wide infrastructure for community development” (2305), i.e. a well-developed institutional tissue.

1.2 The Kinderfaculteit

Against the backdrop of these developments and processes I want to look at one specific initiative that developed in Rotterdam in 2014, the Kinderfaculteit. This initiative aims to increase chances for the children and residents from Pendrecht, a neighbourhood in Rotterdam South. Pendrecht has quite a turbulent history. Violent incidents have led the neighbourhood to be frequently reported on in a negative tone. Causing Pendrecht in 2007 to be nominated the second worst neighbourhood in the

Netherlands by the former minister of Housing, Ella Vogelaar (NRC, February 9th,

2009). Pendrecht has consistently scored low during the first decade of the new

century on safety, income, health, school results and social networks (Paulle et al., 2015). The bad reputation of Pendrecht in combination with some violent incidents drove a number of residents from Vitaal Pendrecht1 to take measures into their own hands and develop an initiative to increase the opportunities growing up in Pendrecht offered to their children. They wanted to create a place where children can increase their cognitive and socio-emotional skills. In enabling this, they also want to make a contribution to the social cohesion of Pendrecht.

Looking at the Kinderfaculteit in Rotterdam we see a neighbourhood initiative of active and concerned citizens, this is potentially an expression of what the government wants neighbourhoods to undertake when they speak of a participation society. The Kinderfaculteit originated as a civilian initiative by members of the neighbourhood association, Vitaal Pendrecht. The development of the Kinderfaculteit happened bottom-up, without any enforcement from municipal or governmental levels. Over time this bottom-up character seemed to have changed with more and more professionals coming into the organization. But it were the residents calling to do more for ‘their children’ that created the Kinderfaculteit. The Kinderfaculteit is set up with limited help from governmental or municipal funds, but with the financial help of a philanthropic organization in Rotterdam, Stichting de Verre Bergen (SDVB). They have committed themselves to the project for five years, allowing the Kinderfaculteit to develop and evolve from start-up problems into a hopefully well-functioning neighbourhood initiative, before drawing hard conclusions about the continuation of the project. A condition for this funding is a continuous evaluation by the University of Amsterdam to see whether the intervention achieves the desired results and offers a potential solution for the deprived chances of children from disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This evaluation could put pressure on the management of the

1 _{Vitaal Pendrecht is a neighbourhood association founded in 2005 and consists of residents from}

Kinderfaculteit. Beside the goal of the research to contribute to a successful neighbourhood project, the constant surveillance of the Kinderfaculteit by a research team will most likely create great pressure on the management of the Kinderfaculteit to deliver good results. It will be important to keep a sensitivity to this possible tension in mind when conducting my research. The idea of the Kinderfaculteit was based on an earlier project in Pendrecht called the Kindercampus, but was revitalized with new energy, considerable money and numerous professionals and enthusiasts. The Kinderfaculteit enables free after school courses to all approximately 1100 primary school students in Pendrecht. The nearly 50 courses offered can be divided in educational, cultural and sportive courses. Twice a year the children from Pendrecht can participate in as many courses as they want for a duration of 15 weeks. The goals of the Kinderfaculteit are threefold, firstly they aspire to increase children’s cognitive capacities, secondly they want to boost children's socio-emotional skills and finally they want to increase social cohesion and a better collaboration between residents and local organizations.

When we look closely at the third and last goal, which is also the central object of this research, it stands out for its lack of specificity. When looking at the initial documents of the Kinderfaculteit written by the SDVB and the first evaluation of the UvA research team it is somewhat unclear how the Kinderfaculteit is supposed to contribute to social cohesion and the general liveability of the neighbourhood. In the initial document of the SDVB it is said that they want the Kinderfaculteit to bring social cohesion about by creating stronger relationships between children and residents and by contributing to create more positive role models besides enabling a better collaboration between residents and organizations in the neighbourhood, like the housing association, Centre for youth and family, police, shopkeepers, healthcare facilities and schools (Startnotitie SDVB, 2013, my translation). It remains, however, unclear how exactly they might create stronger relationships, who the role models are, and how they will collaborate with the different organizations. Also it is noteworthy that this policy is written up by SDVB and not Vitaal Pendrecht or the Kinderfaculteit, possibly implying that this goal is not broadly supported by all contributors of the Kinderfaculteit.

An initial working goal aimed at creating more social cohesion was to work with at least 200 volunteers, but this goal will most likely not be achieved. In 2015 the Kinderfaculteit worked with 41 volunteers (Paulle et al., 2016). This however does not have to stand in the way of the possible neighbourhood function these volunteers could still fulfil. Also, a recommendation has been made by the first evaluation rapport to implement a two generations approach, which means targeting the parents as well more directly (Paulle et al., 2015). This approach could definitely benefit the strengthening of social cohesion in Pendrecht and the implementation of this approach will therefore be included in this research.

In the most recent evaluation of the Kinderfaculteit (Paulle et al., 2016) the issue of professionalism possibly standing in the way of the autonomy of residents in their neighbourhood initiative was raised. According to the evaluation all the stakeholders were, from the outset, on the same page concerning the character of the organization. The Kinderfaculteit would start out as a professionally led initiative and gradually move towards an organization characterised by ‘shared responsibility’ (Van Bochove, Tonkens & Verplanke, 2014) with a fewer percentage of professionals and a higher percentage of volunteers (Paulle et al., 2019: 94). The authors of the evaluation link the number of volunteers to the possibility of successfully making this move. They feel that since the goal of 200 volunteers has scarcely been met, the move towards shared responsibility, however possible, is not yet in sight. I will reflect on this possibility of transferring towards more shared responsibility in the concluding chapter of this research.

It needs to be said that the unspecified nature of a clear policy aimed at increasing social cohesion, does not mean there couldn't be an informal approach among the staff members of the Kinderfaculteit to strengthen social cohesion in the neighbourhood. This project is noteworthy, and research worthy, for a number of reasons. To start with the Kinderfaculteit has an interesting organizational structure, where the project was set up from the local residents association, Vitaal Pendrecht. Usually these kinds of projects reside in the municipal realm in the Netherlands, so this bottom-up approach of resident trying to construct a solution for a social problem is striking. This aspect places the Kinderfaculteit right in the middle of the contemporary debate of the government calling for a participatory society. However one could also argue that this project is actually not as bottom-up as it appears on first sight. The appointed management of the Kinderfaculteit consists only of professionals from outside Pendrecht, just as the majority of the teachers. This places a lot of the day-to-day responsibilities and policy decisions in the hands of hired professionals. Then we have the advisory board which advises the Kinderfaculteit in important decisions. Vitaal Pendrecht, the

neighbourhood association, formally directs this board. Besides Vitaal Pendrecht the board consists of professionals from the municipality, school directors, SDVB and the research team from the UvA, besides the neighbourhood association Vitaal Pendrecht. So many divers stakeholders connected to the Kinderfaculteit could lead to a flexible organization by enabling new ways of authority distribution that changes depending on the context as proposed by Paul Verhaeghe (2015). However, the multitude of stakeholders could also lead to inefficient collaborations and divergent agendas.

Another noteworthy feature of this project, as mentioned before, is the funding by SDVB, a philanthropic organization, instead of municipal funds, which is quite uncommon in the Netherlands. SDVB is an idealistic organization that finances projects with a social value through private money aiming to create a stronger and better Rotterdam. One of their conditions when financing a project is conducting a long-term concurrent evaluation research to the effects of the project. This brings us to a final remarkable aspect of the Kinderfaculteit, which is the on-going evaluation research of the University of Amsterdam. The evaluation research is aimed to investigate what works and what doesn't, to advise on how to redirect the project if necessary, and to capture potential failures and successes for projects to come. This thesis before you today is part of this larger on-going evaluation research about the Kinderfaculteit. The focus will be on the final goal of the Kinderfaculteit that aspires to increase social cohesion and networks between residents and local organizations. During the research it is important to keep in mind that this evaluation research itself also contributes to the project. Of course this could be positive, when proper steering of the organization is done, but can also be negative when considering the pressure it puts the executors of the project under and the possibility of socially desirable answers from respondents. It is therefore important to keep a critical look at oneself as a researcher and on the relationships between researcher and respondents.

Furthermore, the aim of the Kinderfaculteit to contribute to social cohesion in the neighbourhood is interesting since it reflects a widespread concern in contemporary society of a decline in traditional community bonds and a desire to recreate these. In this context it is interesting to look closely at a neighbourhood initiative and see where theory and practise meet. Because what does it mean when governments no longer assure a cohesive society and residents are responsible to do it themselves. What dynamics could be working when doing social cohesion at a neighbourhood level?

1.3 Relevant empirical findings

This research distinguishes itself by the unique character of the case study it is investigating. The Kinderfaculteit has a unique quality in the Netherlands because of it private funding combined with a bottom-up organizational structure in line with community organization, an uncommon structure in the Netherlands. Moreover, many studies into disadvantaged neighbourhoods emphasis the difficulties for these neighbourhoods to succeed in self-organization and self-reliance. The Kinderfaculteit

and Vitaal Pendrecht are interesting examples to the contrary, they have been renowned for being self-organizations (Van den Brink et al., 2007; Van Stokkom & Toenders, 2010; Boomgaars, 2016). It is therefore interesting to have a look into this organization and see what dynamics are at play when considering different aspects of social cohesion, since it could offer us some new perspectives on self-organization and the dynamics of a neighbourhood initiative and social cohesion.

2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter I will start by examining an approach to do social interventions, namely community organization. I will go into why I believe community organization to be an interesting and useful venture point of looking at the Kinderfaculteit. Following, I will discuss the theory concerning social cohesion and its various relevant domains. Each paragraph will be concluded with an operationalization of these domains in the context of a community organization. In the end, I will discuss the context of the Kinderfaculteit as situated in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. I will consider contemporary theory on disadvantaged neighbourhoods and how this context could influences local interventions.

2.1 Community Organization2

There is a huge variety of ways to do social work. One of interest to us in relation to Kinderfaculteit is community organization. In the broadest sense community organizations can be defined as a process in society that creates integration and collaboration. Community organizations take place in communities, which can be groupings of people connected with each other based on geographical characteristics, like villages or neighbourhoods, or on certain functional aspects, like religion, political convictions or ethnical affinity. Community organizations are activities that aim to improve some self-identified problematic socio-cultural aspect of a community. The activities originate from the community, but are largely guided by professionals (Boer, 1968). So a community organization is essentially bottom-up, but does rely largely on the management of professionals.

This type of organizing aims to mobilize citizens to solve their structural daily problems and make them aware of inequalities that underlie these. This method is generally applied in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, where professional assistance can pose a solution to the deficiency in various forms of capital. Residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods are considered to be more willing to participate in community organizations then “in the larger social fabric”, because community organizations are assumed to offer concrete answers to visible concerns (Wandersman, 1981:37).

Community organizers are the professionals who work together with citizens, ideally to support and stimulate their civilian power. They are expected to help citizens develop their capacities to tackle issues that are of interest to them and stand up for themselves (Staples & Gardener, 2012). We need to be sensitive, however, to the undermining potential of leading a local initiative by professionals from outside the local area. It could communicate a message that disadvantaged residents can’t do it on their own. If this is the case, the empowering ability of a community organization becomes pressured.

The organizational structure of a community organization offers a double opportunity. Firstly, it aims to solve a problem experienced by a community. In the process of pursuing this, the community is assumed to strengthen and become more skilled as a result of stimulating awareness and actively engaging and empowering community members in the process (Ross, 1956). We can see here how this approach to social work, community organisation, is the means as well as the end. It tackles first and foremost a problem in a community, while throughout the process serves another objective, namely creating a strong and cohesive community. Within the Kinderfaculteit this would mean that the process of stimulating cognitive and socio-emotional skills for the children of Pendrecht could influence social cohesion in the neighbourhood. If and how this double objective is expressed within the Kinderfaculteit will be discussed in the concluding chapter of this research.

The Kinderfaculteit can be regarded as a community organization for a number of features reflected in the initiative. Firstly, the Kinderfaculteit is a community-based initiative that developed from the commonly identified wish to do something for ‘our children’. This indicates the initiative to be originated from the bottom up. Also, the initiative is guided by professionals, like managers and teachers. And finally, community organization is characterized by an on-going evaluation of the organization and its aims. This is also the case at the Kinderfaculteit, which is evaluated continuously by the University of Amsterdam.

2.2 Social Cohesion

Social cohesion has been used as somewhat of an ‘umbrella term’ for various processes. It has become a popular term over the past few decades and is therefore somewhat problematic to define in just one-way. It is used in social science as and analytic concept and in politics as a more normative construct, as something to be desired and strived for by governments. In social science, politics, as well as in the public debate social cohesion is a popular term, but it often remains vague what exactly it is understood to be. It is one of those things you recognize when you see, but can’t really explain how or why. The problem with these kinds of concepts that people are just supposed to ‘know’ is that their understanding of it is often formed by unconscious assumptions. With social cohesion the most important assumption is that it is something good, something all societies need to strive for (van Stokkom & Toenders, 2010). So lets start by being explicit and recognize that the Kinderfaculteit is pursuing social cohesion as something desired, something that is supposed to benefit everyone in the neighbourhood. This however doesn’t mean of course, that this is also the way social cohesion comes about in the organization. There is a possibility of too much social cohesion, to the extent that it becomes exclusive and encourages intolerance. This possibility will be addressed in the concluding chapter of this research.

I will use the texts of Forrest and Kearns (2000, 2001) as basis for the understanding of social cohesion. Their literary review is a good starting point to venture from into the

broader literature concerning social cohesion and social capital. They say that a socially cohesive society is essentially one that:

“Hangs together; All the component parts somehow fit in and contribute to society’s collective project and well-being; and conflict between societal goals and groups, and disruptive behaviours, are largely absent or minimal.” (Kearns & Forrest, 2000: 996)

While this understanding is useful, it remains quite vague and superficial as to how this could be achieved, leaving out the various factors and components that come into play when considering social cohesion. These components can contradict each other, they can work in favour of one group’s particular cohesion, but exclude others.

Therefore another definition of social cohesion emphasises the importance of willingness. A socially cohesive society, then, is a society where people are willing to participate and live together in harmony. It supposes that social cohesion can be measured by the sum of population’s individuals willing to cooperate, beyond the divisions of diversity. Social cohesion is not dependent on “social sameness, homogeneity of values or opinions, everyone conforming to the same values, beliefs or lifestyle” (Stanley, 2003: 9) and therefore can never occur in societies dominated by authoritarian government where sameness and homogeneity is coerced. In this respect social cohesion can never impose shared values. Kearns and Forrest argue however that social cohesion and shared values are mutually dependant (Kearns & Forrest, 2000).

Kearns and Forrest (2000) have gone on to identify five different dimensions or elements of social cohesion: (1) common values and a civic culture; (2) social order and social control; (3) social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities; (4) social networks and social capital; and (5) place attachment and identity. These elements all interlink with each other, “but are not interchangeable: each dimension represents a different aspect of social cohesion” (Dekker & van Kempen, 2009:112). For the analysis of this research I will emphasise the three dimensions that are most relevant to the neighbourhood level, namely; common values and civic culture, social networks and social capital and place attachment and identity. Social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities is more relevant on a national level, as opposed to a neighbourhood initiative (Idem). Where social solidarity does play a role, I will accommodate it under common values and civic culture. The same goes for social order and social control, these aspects of social cohesion are more relevant to national policies then to community organizations. However, social order and control do come to the fore in the Kinderfaculteit, but their marginal role enables them to be placed and discussed within the context of other domains. 2.2.1 Common Values and Civic Culture In this domain a society is considered to be socially cohesive when the members share common values. To share values with others is considered to lead to a sharing of moral

principals and codes of conduct, together with facilitating the identification of common goals and aspirations. Having a common goal or aspiration is seen to be essential in creating a successful intervention (Putnam, 1993). Moreover, sharing values makes it easier to identify with others, making people more inclined to cooperate (Stanley, 2003). Furthermore, it is said that a socially cohesive society consists of members who support and engage with the political system, rather than being indifferent towards it, meaning a strong civic culture (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). Civic culture is a term created by Almond and Verba in 1963 as part of the political culture. Civic culture represents people’s attitudes towards the political system, the government and general authority and the role of oneself in this political system. Citizens who are engaged in the political system, who maintain a culture of consensus as well as diversity, and who share a sense of duty to fulfil one’s own civic responsibility, characterize a strong civic culture. Volunteering is often seen as one of the most common expressions of civic culture, seeing as it encompasses individual or collective actions aimed at society’s well-being (Almond & Verba, 1963; Putnam, 1993; Kampen, 2014). Stimulating the sharing of values and a strong civic culture is supposed to happen through education and programs aimed at ‘citizenship’ (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). For centuries people have claimed the deteriorations of common values, civic culture, morality, trust in the government and a growing voter apathy, otherwise put as the deterioration of social cohesion (amongst others see Putnam, 2000; 2015). The last few decades these anxieties about a decline in social cohesion have been ascribed to the technical evolution and subsequent individualism and globalisations processes (Bellah, 1985; Wilson, 1985; Putnam, 2000). On a neighbourhood level this so-called ‘crisis of social cohesion’ (Dekker & Van Kempen, 2009:110; Forrest & Kearns, 2001) is moreover concerned with the weakening of strong neighbourhood networks, emancipation, rising levels of ethnic and cultural diversity in societies and lastly the economic crisis of 2008 (Green & Janmaat, 2011). Putnam (1996) emphasises the role of the neighbourhood in regenerating trust in the government and stimulating civic engagement.

I have operationalized ‘Common Values and Civic Culture’ by dividing this theme up into five recognizable aspects. Firstly, we will look at the volunteers present at the Kinderfaculteit, since volunteering is an expression of civic engagement (Almond & Verba, 1963; Putnam, 1993; Kampen, 2014). It has the potential to empower residents when they feel able to influence and contribute to the distribution of local resources (Schultz et al., 1995; Ahmad & Talib, 2015). Moreover, volunteers can be empowered when they are stimulated to develop their skills and capacities (Idem). Secondly, we will look at common goals and aspirations, since sharing a goal is assumed to lead to trust and be the basis for support networks, participation and a feeling of reciprocity (Putnam, 1993; Burns et al., 2000). Following we will take a look at codes of conduct and moral principles present at the Kinderfaculteit. If an organization has a shared

method of working with coherent rules and codes of conduct and this method is recognizable and accepted by residents, this is presumed to contribute to residents sharing norms and values (Burns et al, 2000). Finally we will look at the Parent Council and the Children’s Council as expressions of civic engagement. Moreover, these councils can potentially empower residents by offering them a platform to voice their opinions, if they feel their voices are heard (Idem).

2.2.2 Social Networks and Social Capital

For a society to be socially cohesive it is believed that it needs high levels of social relations and interactions between community members and kin. Social capital appears in different forms, dependant on the social network it is part of. Social capital can be grounded in family networks, community or neighbourhood networks or institutional networks. Social networks are seen to be important for emotional, practical and social support, mental health (reducing isolation, depression, stress and discouragement), and to avoid marginalisation (Kearns & Forrest, 2000:999). Social capital consists of, according to Bourdieu (1985), social connections and membership in a group. The value of one’s social capital depends on the number of social connections they are able to mobilize and the volume of capital (economic, cultural and symbolic) possessed by each of these connections (89). Explaining inequalities in the context of social capital means that people’s success is dependent of the position they hold in relations to other people, “people who do better are somehow better connected” (Burt, 2000: 347). This is an addition to the notion of human capital and inequality, where more successful people are the one’s who are individually more able, meaning more skilled, intelligent, attractive and articulate (Ibidem; Coleman, 1990b). Over the years many scholars have interpreted social capital in various ways, but according to Portes (1998) “the consensus is growing in the literature that social capital stands for the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures” (6).

With the growing popularity of the term social capital over the last few decades, the definition has also proliferated from its original explanation. Various processes, some contradicting, were connected to social capital, explaining its sources and effects. The growing popularity of social capital not only in social science but also in policy and economics can be explained by the considerable implications credited to the effects of social capital (Portes, 1998).

This is best illustrated when considering Putnam’s famous study to American society (2003). According to him American society was deteriorating because of decreasing social capital and a growth of individualism, he illustrates this with the famous example of Americans nowadays “bowling alone”. In this context of a ‘deteriorating society’, social capital has become increasingly popular in contemporary policy debates, because it is believed to pose a solution in its ability to motivate people (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). A group characteristic of social capital is that it enables

voluntary co-operation and collective action (Coleman, 1990b; Putnam, 1993). Moreover, social relations, according to Putnam (1993), are essential for the formulation and defending of shared goals or aspirations. These then are essential to a successful intervention. Going further, Putnam (1993, 1996) argues that social capital facilitates the conditions on which collective action takes place.

“A cohesive society is one in which dilemmas and problems can be easily solved by

collective action – and this is more so in the case of where existing relationships and networks sustain expectations, norms and trust which facilitate such solutions.”

(Kearns & Forrest, 2000:1000)

Also, from a policy perspective social capital is interesting because of its low costs, it poses a non-economical answer to social issues (Portes, 1998). Moreover social capital is considered valuable to the beholder in its ability to generate access to information about opportunities. This information is especially valuable in case of information about employment opportunities (Coleman, 1990b; Portes, 1998). On a neighbourhood level, knowledge on neighbourhood initiatives is also dependant on this information access, i.e. on social capital (Uitermark & Duyvendak, 2007).

In the light of these effects of social capital it is interesting to question under which conditions social capital develops. What motivations do people have to exchange resources facilitated by social capital? Especially in the case of the donor it is not readily understandable why they would make resources available, without an immediate benefit for themselves. Firstly, we can identify one condition for exchange through social capital to be shared or internalized norms (Coleman, 1990a, 1990b; Putnam, 1993; Portes, 1998; Field, 2000). This condition assumes that people feel compelled to act in a certain manner because of shared and/or internalized norms. The holders of social capital are in this case the other members of the community, who can depend on shared norms and so for example do not need to fear for their safety when walking alone in the streets (Portes, 1998).

Another condition for social capital is the norm of reciprocity (Coleman, 1990a; Putnam, 1993; Portes, 1998). People engage in exchanging resources because they expect to be reimbursed for this in the unspecified future. In contrast to economical exchange this reimbursement is not defined prior to its payment and can therefore be of a different and even intangible form (Portes, 1988). This condition of social capital depends heavily on trust that people feel towards others (Coleman, 1990a; Putnam, 1993; Portes, 1998).

The final conditions to social capital, connected to the previous two, are social networks and networks of civic engagement (Coleman, 1990a; Putnam, 1993; Kearns & Forrest, 2000). This is because of the sustaining capacity of these networks in relation to expectations, trust and norms.

Consequences or effects of social capital can be divided into individual effects and more group or society based effects. On an individual level social capital influences someone’s school performance, their intellectual development, employment, adolescent delinquency and its impediment and family support (Portes, 1998). The

most important effect in this respect is the power social connections can have to stimulate someone’s individual mobility (Loury, 1977; Portes, 1998). In this context Granovetter (1973) spoke of “the strength of weak ties”. With this he referred to the power of indirect connections, contrary to the previously singular importance attributed to strong ties like family and close friends, to establish an informal system of occupational recommendations. The empirical research is still divided about which is more important, strong or weak ties. Putnam (2000) elaborated on Granovetter’s idea by explaining the bonding and bridging function of social capital. Bonding happens within the context of strongly connected homogeneous groups, functioning as a support network for collective needs. Bridging connects different socially heterogeneous groups through weak ties by exchanging ideas and information, hereby stimulating an inclusive environment, which is beneficial to a democratic society. Also interesting in the context of this research are the effects felt on a societal or group level. A society or group can also have social capital. As mentioned before, social capital can facilitate a group to act together in a collective action (Coleman, 1990b; Putnam, 1993).

Moreover, social capital is said to influence social control through tightly knit community networks. Strongly connected communities stimulate the maintenance of control and regulation and promote compliance with authorities. This social control stems from bounded solidarity, solidarity restricted to the group or communities one identifies themselves with, and enforceable trust, which is the result of the power of a community to ostracize or sanction rule abiders (Portes, 1998). This effect of social capital is especially important to governments since it renders formal state organize control unnecessary (Portes, 1998; Kearns & Forrest, 2000).

Another effect of social capital is trust. According to Putnam (1993, 1996, 2000) face-to-face contact, a characteristic of social capital, produces trust. When people interact with people who have different backgrounds, they learn to trust them.

Putnam warns us also for the ‘Dark Side of Social Capital’ (2000, Ch. 22), where he says that social capital is easily interpreted as a very positive phenomenon, but that this shouldn’t be taken for granted. Portes (1998) identifies four potential negative consequences, namely “exclusion of outsiders, excess claims on group members, restrictions on individual freedoms, and downward levelling norms” (15). Social capital can thus be used for antisocial purposes. It is important to mentions this in order to be sensitive to the negative consequences of social capital developing in a neighbourhood initiative as well. When we think of the earlier mentioned participatory society we can see how it builds on the positive idea of social capital. A participatory society benefits from high levels of social capital in various ways, firstly it indicates high levels of shared norms and values, making citizens more law abiding, i.e. furthering social control. Secondly, remaining problems will be easier to tackle collectively, because it is possible to rely on social networks that enable cooperation and trust, and generate reciprocity (Lelieveldt,

2004). In conclusion social capital forms the networks and relationships that social cohesion builds on (Coleman, 1990a).

I have operationalized ‘Social Networks and Social Capital’ in the context of a community organization by dividing this theme up into seven recognizable aspects. I will start my analysis of this theme by exposing the various networks present in the Kinderfaculteit, under the title ‘Building and shaping social networks’. I will move on to explore the Kinderfaculteit as community. A sense of community is essential to a successful community organization. Going further it is important to discuss the power dynamics at the Kinderfaculteit. Within a community organization it is not uncommon to have tension between the local character of the organization and the professional guidance. Keeping a balance between the two is one of the major challenges of a community organization. Following, I will discuss some aspects of social networks and social capital, which are connected to participation. Participation in community organizations is stated to positively influence a sense of community and the development of social networks (Wandersman, 1981). Participation can be stimulated by a local initiative by organizing local activities and supporting local organizations (Burns et al., 2000) Firstly, I will discuss the collaborations of the Kinderfaculteit with other organizations in Pendrecht. The neighbourhood is said to benefit when local initiatives work together and thereby increase community support for shared values and aims (Idem). Secondly, I will discuss parent involvement in the Kinderfaculteit, since this is one of the main residential groups the intervention is aimed at. Their involvement is fundamental to the success of the intervention. Going further, I will discuss the establishment of new clubs in Pendrecht, which is said to happen due to the Kinderfaculteit. This could potentially influence the social cohesion in Pendrecht, since clubs are considered to be sources of social networks, social capital and moreover, stimulate participation in the neighbourhood (Putnam, 2000; Boonstra & Hermens, 2012). Finally, I will discuss the gap with high school students, pointing at the aim of the intervention, primary school children. This aim means leaving behind a big group of children that go to high school, who could potentially also benefit hugely form the intervention. This gap in target group could weaken the anchoring of the initiative in the area

2.2.3 Place Attachment and Identity

A strong feeling of place attachment, belonging, and an identification of people to certain places benefits social cohesion because it stimulates people to adhere to the shared norms and values of a place and motivates people to participate in collective actions and social networks, together with creating social capital (Massey, 1995; Kearns & Forrest, 2000). Place attachment creates a feeling of security, links people to one another, bonds people symbolically by means of culture and past experiences, maintains a sense of group and self-identity and cultivates self-esteem (Altman & Low, 1992; Kearns & Forrest, 2000). In this respect it needs to be noted however, that place

attachment and place identity and its effect on social cohesion have different outcomes on different levels, there is a difference in a socially cohesive society and a socially cohesive place. Kearns and Forrest (2000) say about this, “One place’s cohesion may be society’s deconstruction” (1001). With this they mean that an overdeveloped place attachment can lead people to close off from general society, solely identifying with a neighbourhood, village, ect. This potentially leads to isolated communities that do not share values and understandings with the general society of which they are essentially part.

I have operationalized place attachment and identity for local initiatives by dividing this theme in three aspects. Firstly I will look at the Kinderfaculteit’s involvement and position in the neighbourhood. I will mostly approach this by exploring the involvement of active residents in the Kinderfaculteit as well as the neighbourhood, and zoom in on their interpretations of the neighbourhood and the Kinderfaculteit. Moving on, I will discuss the feeling of being at home at the Kinderfaculteit by active and non-active residents. A feeling of being at home is connected to a feeling of ownership, which influences residents feeling of empowerment (Schultz et al., 1995). Lastly, I will discuss the presence or non-presence of role models in the initiative, seeing as this was an initial working goal to stimulate social cohesion (Startnotitie SDVB, 2013). Role models are connected with the identity of Pendrecht and could potentially influence it. Non-active residents are said to be reached best through their own networks (Granovetter, 1973; Putnam, 1993; 2000). Therefor role models can play a considerable role in reaching and engaging non-active residents in their respective networks.

2.3 Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods

For this research it is important to look at the context the initiative is situated in, namely a disadvantaged neighbourhood3_{. This situation of the initiative influences} several dynamics connected to social cohesion. In the literature researchers agree that residents from disadvantaged neighbourhoods struggle with the ideal of self-organisation as discussed in the introduction. This is because they possess fewer resources needed to organize themselves, which withholds them from participating (see amongst others: Uitermark 2012 & 2015; Uitermark & Duyvendak, 2007; Putnam, 1993; Sampson et al., 2005). Uitermark and Duyvendak (2007) pose that a lack in social and cultural capital reinforces the vulnerability of residents from disadvantaged neighbourhoods and that the emphasis of the government on participation and self-organisation will only reinforce and increase the vulnerable position of these neighbourhoods. Social4 _{and cultural capital are concepts from Bourdieu (1985; 1987).} Cultural capital is explained as informational capital, indicating what constitutes as cultural resources; knowledge, cognitive skills and education. The various capitals,

3 _{For elaboration on why I consider Pendrecht to be a disadvantaged neighbourhood, see introduction.} 4 _{For further explanation of this term see previous paragraph.}

economic; cultural; social; and symbolic, are all interconnected and the volume and composition determine one’s position in society (Bourdieu, 1987). Disadvantaged neighbourhoods are characterized by a lack of capital. Uitermark and Duyvendak (2007) attribute the lack in assertiveness of residents from disadvantaged neighbourhoods to a lack in cultural, economical and social capital. Secondly, they notice an informational gap in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, due to deficient social and cultural capital. This obstructs participation, since residents are not informed of local initiatives. In neighbourhoods with high levels of ethnic diversity, this process becomes even more prominent since it fragmentizes social networks along the lines of ethnic self-identification (Ibidem) and hereby obstructs the process of bridging (Granovetter, 1973) to overcome these differences. This is a serious threat to community organizations, since engagement with the organization has to be established independently for every social network, as this engagement will not spread organically from network to network through a process of bridging.

Moreover, disadvantaged neighbourhoods have usually a lower homeowners rate and more residents who rent. This situation of an increased feeling of temporality can potentially contribute to an unstable and temporary character of an area and hinders the formation and duration of resident involvement (Lelieveldt, 2004; van Stokkom & Toenders 2010).

Also, in the context of place attachment, a strong sense of belonging and identification with a disadvantaged neighbourhood can further an isolated position of the residents, restricting them to places without opportunities or support mechanisms. This is of course not necessarily the result of one’s individual choice, but can also be the result of external forces, such as public housing (Massey, 1995). On the other hand, residents can feel the need to dissociate from their neighbourhood because of the bad reputation and possible stigma it has. This then leads to a decline in solidarity, undermining the mobilisation force of the area (van Stokkom & Toenders, 2010). At the same time being labelled a resident from a problematic neighbourhood can decrease trust in creating a better quality of life for oneself, by an overemphasizing of the bad characteristics of the area.

3. Research question and aim of the research

3.1 Research question

With the literature of the previous chapter and the introduction in mind, let us synthesize the central question concerning social cohesion and the Kinderfaculteit. We have seen how there is a debate going on about whether we are in a crisis of social cohesion due to globalization, migration, new technologies and individualism. In the Netherlands this debate on social cohesion comes to the fore in a debate concerning Dutch identity and the role of the state. The discussion about the ‘failed’ multicultural society and the Dutch identity is accompanied by the invoking of ‘freedom of speech’, often a guise for the discrimination of minorities (Prins, 2002; 2004). As we have seen in the introduction this climate of neo-realism leads to the discrimination of minority groups. When minorities are discriminated society’s social cohesion becomes under pressure, since in a cohesive society everyone works together towards a collective well-being. Another aspect of social cohesion that is under pressure in the Netherlands is a waning trust in the state from citizens. This lack of trust in the government is reflected in a perceived gap between the state and its citizens. With the transition of a welfare state to a neo-liberal one and the invoking of active citizenship by the state, some argue that this gap is being reinforced, since the state is neglecting its role and using citizens to execute their agenda (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013; Uitermark, 2015).

Neighbourhood initiatives form an interesting opportunity for social cohesion to develop. Putnam (1993, 2000), amongst others, credits voluntary organizations with the ability to encourage the creation of social networks, social capital and trust. But when looking at disadvantaged neighbourhoods some worry that their vulnerable position will be reinforced and emphasized in the case of a retreating government, since they are not sufficiently equipped to organize themselves (Uitermark 2012 & 2015; Uitermark & Duyvendak, 2007; Sampson et al., 2005; Putnam, 1993).

If we consider the Kinderfaculteit as a community organization, which I do, some possibilities of influencing social cohesion, positively or perhaps negatively, arise. Seen in the context of the debate on the role of the state and social cohesion, examining these possibilities is interesting and could offer some new insights on social cohesion dynamics within community organizations. Therefore this research will examine the question: ‘Does the Kinderfaculteit influence social cohesion in Pendrecht, and if so, how?’

In order to answer this question, I will approach social cohesion divided in three domains and examine their roles in the Kinderfaculteit. Each domain is a chapter and forms a sub-question, namely: Ø How are common values and civic culture expressed within the Kinderfaculteit? Ø How are social networks and social capital expressed within the Kinderfaculteit? Ø How are place attachment and identity expressed within the Kinderfaculteit? 3.2 Aim of the research First of all this research aims to provide a contribution to the Kinderfaculteit and the research team of the University of Amsterdam by researching an aspect of the Kinderfaculteit that was considered to be under researched hitherto. Furthermore, this research is a case study in the context of larger debates concerning social cohesion and modern society. In light of the rise of populism in Europe and the United States it remains evermore relevant to look for ways to unite communities. As in the Dutch case described previously, we can see how the polarizing public debate is causing the marginalization of minorities. At the same time, and for better or for worse, the state is retreating more and more to make way for what they call a participation society. This research aims to assess the opportunities and challenges on a local level when aiming to stimulate social cohesion.

4. Methodology

4.1 Research methods

This research aims to make a naturalistic inquiry into the dimensions of social cohesion present at the Kinderfaculteit. It is a qualitative sociological research by inductive as well as deductive measures, focussing on semi-structured interviews, complemented by observations from the researcher. In first instance I intended to do my research according to the Grounded Theory Approach, but along the way I felt too constrained by the condition of GTA to go into the field without knowledge of the literature. I felt uncomfortable with the idea of going into the field as if I were a blank slate, since I hád prior knowledge of various sociological theories and also had the need to read up on theories concerning social cohesion before going into the interviewing stage of my fieldwork in order to ask more pointed questions. Naturalistic research offers the opportunity of using some of the grounded theory aspects, like theoretical sampling, while not subscribing to the strict rule of grounded theory on, for example, the moment of the literary review.

“Naturalistic research is qualitative research by ordinary means into everyday situations, aiming to disturb these situations as little as possible. It strives to blend in, respecting people in their everyday lives, taking their actions and experiences seriously, and building on these carefully.” (Beuving & De Vries, 2015: 19)

I was regularly present at the Kinderfaculteit to observe. Sometimes these visits where complemented by interviews, but always without interfering in the daily routine. Eight times I sat in the classrooms, listening in on the activities and the dynamics of the children and filling in observation schemes for the research team. More often I would sit in the central hall of the Kinderfaculteit and observe. The building of the Kinderfaculteit is very suitable for this purpose, since all classrooms are arranged around the central hall and have large windows in the walls connecting classroom and hall. These observations led to memos, to add to my data-collection.

This research examines social cohesion within the context of a community organization. Therefore the research took place in community organization the Kinderfaculteit, interviewing and observing the people directly involved. I started by interviewing the project management of the Kinderfaculteit. They gave me insightful information on policy within the Kinderfaculteit, besides also sharing about their own aspirations and actions aimed at stimulating social cohesion. Based on these interviews and the observations I had from visiting the Kinderfaculteit regularly, I decided that I wanted to talk to residents involved at the Kinderfaculteit and hear about their experiences with the organisation. I spoke to volunteers and employees alike, all of whom, except one, live in Pendrecht. The one respondent not living Pendrecht was interviewed because of their interesting views and contributions to stimulating awareness amongst the children of Pendrecht about active citizenship. I spoke with

four random parents, who were picking up their children at the Kinderfaculteit, about their opinions and levels of engagement in the Kinderfaculteit and the neighbourhood in general. Lastly, I interviewed a key respondent from Vitaal Pendrecht about their vision on the position of the Kinderfaculteit in the neighbourhood. This respondent offered me some good insights into the neighbourhood, the background and the future ambitions of the Kinderfaculteit. I decided to interview this founder last, because I felt it to be necessary to feel out the situation myself, before speaking to this passionate person and be potentially influenced. I am glad that I did, since I feel it gave me the opportunity to test some seemingly important hypothesis at that stage of the data-collection process, which proved very valuable. During the data-data-collection I simultaneously transcribed the interviews, allowing these transcripts to inform my view towards relevant themes and new respondents.

Besides doing continuous observations when visiting the Kinderfaculteit, there were three occasions on which I observed extra closely, namely the meeting with the steering committee of the Kinderfaculteit, the meeting between the Children’s Council and the Parent Council and the brainstorm session with various parties involved in the Kinderfaculteit about the future of the initiative, memos were made of these observations. Besides this data I received a document from the project management in which the contact between teachers and parents was recorded along with their opinions on it.

All respondents were prepared to talk to me. I suppose this was because all respondents work in some capacity or another, at the Kinderfaculteit, and are by now adjusted to the research component of the intervention. Who How many Project management 3 Employees 4 Volunteers 3 Residents 4 School director 1 Vitaal Pendrecht 1 Total number of interviews 16 Total number of visits to the Kinderfaculteit 17 Figure 2: respondents During the analysis I used Atlas.ti to code my interview and memo data. The program helped me a great deal in structurally dissecting the large chunks of text I had to work with. At first I was coding without restrains, creating new codes whenever I wanted. Quite soon I felt the need to organize these codes in a more structured manner, by placing them under wider categories. At first these where my own categories that centred around social networks and relations, the neighbourhood, and the organizational structure. Soon after my initial categorization I rediscovered the article of Kearns and Forrest (2000) that divides social cohesion into different dimensions. I

felt that my themes would correspond with these perfectly, thereby giving my data an initial theoretical framework.

The privacy of my respondents was always my priority in dealing with my data. For this reason I have decided to share as little as possible information on the respondents when I discuss their actions or expressions in the analysis part of this research. Since the Kinderfaculteit has rather few employees, people are quite easily identifiable. I therefore choose to describe everyone with the gender-neutral terms of they and them. I feel that specifying someone’s gender will make them to easily identifiable.

Furthermore the data is stored in an online database provided by the University of Amsterdam for the research team of the Kinderfaculteit. This way the data is stored completely safe, with there still being the opportunity for the members of the research team to view each other’s data and build on it as well.

In the discussion of the empirical data I use quotes from interviews, which I have translated from Dutch to English. Because of possible nuancing getting lost in translation I have included the original Dutch quotes in the footnotes. Doing this will attribute to the completeness of the research and the transparency of conclusions drawn from the empirical data. 4.2 The research(er) and the challenges Since as a naturalistic inquirer I have a central role in explaining society, I feel it to be necessary to give some background information about the way I got into contact with the research field of the Kinderfaculteit. Firstly, let me explain how this research is part of a larger body of theses and evaluations done on the Kinderfaculteit. Three years ago the UvA was employed by the philanthropic foundation ‘De Verre Bergen’ (SDVB), who funds the project, to do a continuous research evaluation on the success and progress of the Kinderfaculteit. Every year master students of the faculty of Sociology are able to write their thesis on the Kinderfaculteit, thereby contributing to the data used by the research team members when writing the annual evaluation report. The evaluation has now moved into second-to-last stage and there were some important stones left unturned. I was asked to research the component of social cohesion, since the SDVB and the University of Amsterdam felt this topic had received too little attention in the past. Luckily, this coincided with my interest in active citizenship and the neighbourhood.

Previously to writing this thesis, I did an internship within the research team. For this internship I transcribed interviews with parents of the year before, I did literary reviews and wrote memos on previous theses, evaluations and literature on social cohesion and capital, I researched missing cohort data on children’s test scores and designed and conducted a survey for 438 primary school students in Pendrecht. This internship enabled me to get a profound insight into the organisation and the neighbourhood, before going into the field to do my data collection. Furthermore, it gave me an advantage by permitting me to start relations with potential respondents

prior to being ‘the researcher’. My frequent presence and casual contact with people in the Kinderfaculteit led to more open contact and interviews, I believe.

This research will look at social cohesion dynamics within the Kinderfaculteit. The neighbourhood is disregarded, since it is beyond the possibilities of this research(er). Moreover, the neighbourhood is context, not focus of this research. The focus being the organization, its structure and dynamics. Also, I have no baseline to start this research form, so progress won’t be measured. However, based on my interpretations of social cohesion, I am confident that I can draw valuable conclusions on whether and in what way social cohesion is influenced by the Kinderfaculteit.

Furthermore I want to comment on the nature of this research. Because even though it is part of a larger evaluation research, my research is not an evaluation. I do not wish to research whether or not this intervention is successful. I want to discover the dynamics of social cohesion working in and around the Kinderfaculteit. I am aware that I approach social cohesion as something desired, thereby emphasising the term’s normative character. I justify this normative use of social cohesion because of its profound use as such in popular discourse, political sciences and most importantly, social sciences. Still, I am sensitive to the possible downside of social cohesion and try to remind myself of this during the process of writing this research. With regards to the initiative I will be on the lookout for assuming socially desirable behaviours and results. I will ensure a critical look on the different dynamics and argue, based on reviewed literature, why I interpret some behaviours or processes as positively or negatively contributing to social cohesion. I want to expose the mechanisms of social cohesion working in the Kinderfaculteit and place them in the larger context of the contemporary debate concerning social cohesion and the Dutch society. The evaluations aspect is however strongly felt throughout the research team and the Kinderfaculteit alike. It could therefore be difficult from time to time to keep my focus on exposing the ‘how’ and not on the ‘what’ works.

Also viewed from the Kinderfaculteit it could be a hindrance, since it presents me with the risk of getting socially desirable answers. People who contribute to the project are aware of the evaluating component to the research done by the UvA. They are all very hopeful that the project will continue to exist, and are aware of the importance of getting positively evaluated. This could influence their answers during an interview. I hopefully avoided this by asking similar questions multiple times, but in different wording. Also, I believe that the relationships I build with many of my respondents, prior to interviewing them, gave them the feeling they could speak freely with me. This seemed to me confirmed when I spoke, for example, with one respondent who openly told me of problems and tensions she had experienced in the Kinderfaculteit, as well as others who shared personal details. Being part of a research team also means that my research to some degree is building on previous research. For my research I was informed most importantly by the previous evaluations by Paulle et al. (2015, 2016) and two MA theses of the previous

years by Boomgaars (2016) and Dronkert (2015). Whenever I used their texts I have referred to them as to any other text.