THE STIGMATIZING AND DESTIGMATIZING
POWER OF PROSTITUTION POLICY
ENFORCERS
A study on the role of stigma in sex workers’ experience of the implementation
of the prostitution policy in The Hague
Esmee Buitenhuis (10455736)
MSc Sociology: Social Problems and Social Policy Thesis supervisor: Dr. Marie-Louise Janssen
Second reader: Dr. David Bos Amsterdam, 10 July 2017
3
Summary
Recently the municipality of The Hague updated their local prostitution policy and implemented additional regulations and measures to expand control and prevent human trafficking. At first sight, this seems to be in contrast with the broader national goals of the normalization and destigmatization of sex work. In addition, the voices of sex workers are generally underrepresented in the creation, implementation, and evaluation of policies on sex work, although research shows that they are of great value. Therefore, this thesis examines sex workers’ experiences of the implementation of the enforcement policy in The Hague. Furthermore, it looks at the role that stigma plays in this experience, since sex work is still stigmatized in the Netherlands. By means of semi-structured interviews with six sex workers, and four ‘social workers’ who work with sex workers in the course of their job and tried to represent the voices of sex workers, the experiences of sex workers are acquired. In addition, with Link & Phelan’s (2001) conceptualization of the stigmatization process the role of stigmatization in this experience is investigated.
What becomes clear is that although the experiences of sex workers represented in this research differ, there are some striking aspects that are widely agreed upon. Despite that the intentions of the municipality of The Hague are believed to be positive, different negative unintended consequences of the enforcement policy are experienced. For example a shift of sex work from the legal towards the illegal sector. Moreover, although safety is demanded, most sex workers represented in this research do not believe that the current enforcement implementation does positively affect this. In contrast, for most of them the implementation of the enforcement in practice leads to stigmatization in different ways. Thus, although research already shows that sex workers generally experience stigma, this research provides the new theoretical insight that suggest that rule enforcers in many cases seem to contribute to this stigmatization. Nevertheless, since rule enforcers have certain discretion in the implementation of their work, they not only can have the power to stigmatize, but also to destigmatize.
However, to be able to increase the destigmatization through rule enforcement, rule enforcers need to become aware of the stigmatizing and destigmatizing power they have on sex workers. Therefore, more education is needed about the impact that certain implementations of the enforcement policy can have. Although reconsideration of particular aspects of the enforcement policy in The Hague needs to be taken into account by the municipality as well, in order to achieve normalization and destigmatization of sex work, this research shows that the importance of the implementation of the enforcement policy in the achieving of these goals is currently underestimated.
4
Preface
Writing this thesis has been an intensely educational process. The conversations I had broadened my view on sex work and its related policies as a sociologist, but also enriched me as a citizen of Dutch society. Furthermore, I built up a network of individuals who are related to the sector, of which some have inspired me to deepen my knowledge of this topic more in the future.
Since this thesis would not exist without support, I would like to thank the people that contributed to it. First of all, the sex workers who wanted to share their experiences with me and whose voices I hope to have represented well. In addition, I would like to thank SHOP The Hague, Spot46 and Liberty for opening their doors for me, for interviews with sex workers and ‘social workers’. Furthermore, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Marie-Louise Janssen for the support she gave me during the process of this master thesis. Her knowledge and familiarity of my topic and her positive and encouraging energy gave me the courage and confidence to write this thesis in the right way. In addition, I like to thank Dr. David Bos, the second reader of this research, for his view on my research proposal, which definitely brought me further. Moreover, I want to thank Jan Visser, Thais, and Basia for reflecting on my work.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents for the love and support they always give me, and Maurice for all our study sessions together and for always being there for me.
I wish you an enjoyable reading. Esmee Buitenhuis
5
Abbreviations
APV Algemene Plaatselijke Verordening
EU European Union
GGD The Municipal Health Service / Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdienst HEIT-team Haags Economisch Interventie Team
NRM National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual
Violence against Children/ Nationaal Rapporteur Mensenhandel en Seksueel
Geweld tegen Kinderen
SHOP The Hague Stichting Hulpverlening Opvang Prostituees Den Haag
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Wrp Law regulating prostitution and suppressing abuse in the sex industry / Wet
7
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Summary……….. 3 Preface ………... 4 Abbreviations………. 5 1. INTRODUCTION……….. 9-131. Normalization of sex work in the Netherlands? 9
2. Personal interest 9
3. Research goals 10
4. The enforcement policy of the municipality of The Hague 11
5. Relevance 12 6. Research questions 13 7. Structure 13 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……… 14-23 1. Introduction 14 2. Stigmatization 14
3. Enforcing the deviant 17
4. Morality politics 19
5. Unintended consequences of policies 19
6. Citizenship 21 7. Summary 23 3. METHODOLOGY………. 24-29 1. Introduction 24 2. Research methods 24 3. Research population 25 4. Data analysis 27 5. Ethical dilemmas 28
6 Strengths and limitations 29
4. SEX WORK IN THE HAGUE………... 30-35
1. Introduction 30
2. Sex work in the Netherlands 30
3. Prostitution policy of The Hague 32
4. Different forms of sex work 34
8
5. EXPERIENCES……….. 36-50
1. Introduction 36
2. Experienced unintended consequences 36
3. Focus on human trafficking in the legal sector 37
4. Safety as a demand 38
5. Intake-conversations 40
6. Controls 42
7. Street level bureaucrats 44
8. Demands of the sector 46
9. Complexity 49 10. Conclusion 50 6. STIGMA……….. 51-60 1. Introduction 51 2. Levels of stigmatization 51 3. Stereotyping 52 4. Separation 54
5. Discrimination and status loss 55
6. Destigmatization 57
7. Differences in stigmatization and destigmatization 58
8. Conclusion 59
7. CONCLUSION………... 61-64
1. Conclusion 61
2. Discussion and further research 62
Literature ……….. 65-71 Appendix: participation form………. 72
9
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Normalization of sex work in the Netherlands?
On 18 October 2016, the European Anti-Trafficking Day, the police of Amsterdam placed a message on their Facebook-page about sex work. The message that was spread through this post was remarkable. First of all, since human trafficking is not only taking place in the prostitution sector, but most of all, since the discourse used in this message was clearly stigmatizing for sex workers. They stated:
Although a certain few victims maintain that they voluntarily have sex for money, the colleagues of the Human Trafficking Team know better. Poverty, abuse, loverboys; there is always a root cause. Really, ‘voluntary’ it never is […]. ‘There is no 12-year-old girl that if you ask what she wants to become later, says: I will become a prostitute’ (Politie Amsterdam
2016).1
According to the claims made in this Facebook-post, sex workers never voluntarily choose to do sex work, but are always victims of human trafficking. Therefore, enforcement of the sector is needed; to tackle human traffickers and liberate the victims. However, how is this in line with the fact that sex work is a legal profession in the Netherlands, and the normalization and destigmatization of sex work are political goals?
1.2. Personal interest
Due to my former internship at the National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children (NRM), in combination with a strong interest for the process of policy creation and implementation, I became interested in the Dutch prostitution policy. After my internship, I specifically engaged myself in the question why the prostitution sector is not yet normalized in the Netherlands, despite the legalization of the sector since 2000. By deepening myself in the prostitution policy, I became aware of the complexity that this policy entails, especially due to its moral burden. Since sex work differs from the dominant western norm regarding sexuality, in which sex is part of a serial monogamous relationship, it is generally seen as a deviant profession and is therefore stigmatized in different ways (Boutellier 1991; Nationaal Rapporteur 2016; Roes 2008). In addition, the female sex worker exceeds standards of femininity and the associated sexual modesty, which makes female sex workers stigmatized even more (Vanwesenbeeck 2013). Examples are the ‘whore’ and the ‘victimhood’ stigma (Cojocaru 2016; Pheterson 1996). As a consequence, different moral visions on sex work interchanged each other throughout history, which resulted into shifts in
10
policies on sex work (Boutellier 1991; Wagenaar & Altink 2012). Therefore, I ended up with the questions how ‘street level bureaucrats’2 deal with the moral burden of prostitution policies, and what
the impact of this moral burden is on the way that the implementation of the Dutch prostitution policy is experienced by sex workers. However, due to practical reasons3, it was only possible to focus on
this last question.
1.3. Research goals
Since sex workers are underrepresented in the creation, implementation and evaluation of prostitution policies, this research first of all aims to let the voices of sex workers, regarding their experience of the implementation of the prostitution policy, be heard (Gemeente Den Haag 2016; GroenLinks 2015; Heemskerk 2016). Within this aim, a focus on specifically the experience of the implementation of the prostitution policy is chosen, since the implementation of policies seems to cause the main discrepancies between the intentions of policies and their actual effects. As a sociologist, specialized in policy sociology, I see it as my duty to gain a nuanced understanding of these possible discrepancies (Engbersen 2009).
Secondly, this research aims to give insight into the influence of the moral attitude of policy implementers on sex workers. Since “stigma, deliberately and surreptitiously, shapes laws, regulations, practices, institutions and policies”, it is likely that the implementation of policies on sex work contributes to stigmatization of sex workers (Kleinman & Hall-Clifford 2009; Wagenaar, Amesberger & Altink 2017: 29). However, since sex work is a morally loaded subject, and street level bureaucrats have a certain freedom in the implementation of policies, they have much influence in the actual effects of the policies they implement, and therefore can probably influence processes of stigmatization and destigmatization (Lipsky 2010; Wagenaar et al. 2017).
The final and political aim of this research is not only to make policy implementers aware of their influence on citizenship experience of sex workers in society, but also to inspire policy creators and implementers to give sex workers a larger voice in the creation, implementation and evaluation of prostitution policies. This political goal reveals my personal moral position towards sex work, namely that I regard sex work as a normal profession, like any other job an individual can choose to practice. As a participant of the tattooed version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)4, I
therefore support the normalization and destigmatization of sex work. On the one hand, normalization aims to make sex work equal to other professions, regarding its related formal legal and social rights, and implies the right to self-determination of those practicing this profession. On the other hand,
2 Further explained in §2.3.2.
3 The HEIT-team, the main actor in the enforcement of the prostitution sector in The Hague, could not take part
in this research since they were too busy with the guidance and training of several police officers internally as supervisors in “prostitution”.
4 An idea that originates from Sander van Brussel, a visual artist, with the goal to create awareness and
emphasize the importance of human rights, by means of tattooing every single letter of the UDHR on 6773 human bodies around the world (Human Rights Tattoo 2017).
11
destigmatization aims to also achieve recognition of the identity of persons who practice this profession, which is necessary to be able to experience full citizenship5.
Moreover, because the term ‘prostitute’ is generally associated with stigma, in this research the term ‘sex worker’ is used to refer to people that work in the prostitution sector. This term was introduced by the American sex worker and sex workers’ rights activist Carol Leigh in 1973, and is, from then on, used by many organizations and scholars around the world. It is a term that is used to encourage the normalization and destigmatization of sex work (Leigh 1997). Only when a text is cited in which the term ‘prostitute’ is used, I use this term. When referring to the phenomenon itself, I use the concept of ‘sex work’, and when referring to the sector in which sex workers practice their profession, I use the concept ‘prostitution sector’. Finally, the term ‘prostitution policy’ is used when referred to policies in relation to the sector. Furthermore, in this research sex work is understood as work in which an individual makes him or herself available to perform sexual acts, with or without physical contact with customers, in exchange for payment. Payment can take place in the form of money, but other ways are also possible (Nationaal Rapporteur 2016). When a sex worker is making themselves available for sex work, they are seen as a voluntary sex worker in this research, also when forced by their economic circumstances. However, when a sex worker is, against personal will, made available for sex work by someone else, this means that a sex worker is forced and human trafficking is the case. Since the research group of this thesis is limited to female sex workers, I always refer to female sex workers when the concept ‘sex worker’ is used. In addition, both sex workers and former sex workers are interviewed in this research, but because of practical reasons they are all referred to as ‘sex workers’6.
1.4. The enforcement policy of the municipality of The Hague
Given the limited amount of time available, this research project is focused on just one municipality, since policies on sex work in the Netherlands differ by municipality (Nationaal Rapporteur 2016). A focus on the municipality of The Hague is chosen, because this municipality is responding to the growing tendency in the Netherlands to approach sex work mainly from the focus of human trafficking. They recently implemented additional regulations and measures to expand control and prevent human trafficking in the legalized sex industry, although criticism claims that stricter control of the sector “is not always in favor of the people in concern” (Gemeente Den Haag 2016; Verhoeven 2017: 140). Since it can lead to stigmatization, it appears to be in conflict with the national goals of the normalization and destigmatization of sex work (Gemeente Den Haag 2016; Heumann, Coumans, Shiboleth & Ridder-Wiskerke 2017; Vanwesenbeeck 2017; Verhoeven 2017; Wagenaar, Altink & Amesberger 2013). Therefore, this research is specifically focused on the enforcement policy of the prostitution sector.
5 The concept of citizenship is further explained in §2.6.
12
1.5. Relevance
Since the sociologist Erving Goffman (1963) wrote his famous Stigma: Notes on the Management of
Spoiled Identity, much research has been conducted on stigma and its nature, sources, and
consequences. It has focused on many different forms, from stigma on “abominations of the body”, like physical illnesses, to stigma of “blemishes of individual character”, like stigma on debtors (Angermeyer & Matschinger 1994; Bleeker, Heuts, Timmermans & Homburg 2014; Buitenhuis 2017a; Corrigan & Penn 1999; Davis 1998; Goffman 1963: 4; Phelan, Link, Stueve & Pescosolido 2000). Since the behavior and activities of sex workers are still generally conceived as deviant much research on stigma is also devoted to sex work (Buitenhuis 2017a; Daalder 2015; Link & Phelan 2001; Lucas 2012; Pheterson 1996; Sanders 2008; Vanwesenbeeck 2001; Weitzer 2017). Research offers rich evidence of the harmful effects of stigmatization on the well-being of individuals, and therefore the experience of stigma by sex workers is a topic that is examined widely by scholars (Bowen & Bungay 2016; Buitenhuis 2017a; Tomura 2009). Numerous scholars have focused on sex workers’ experiences of stigma and its effects on their physical and mental wellbeing, but few of them have examined the processes that generate this particular form of stigma. Specifically, the possible role of the government in the stigmatization of sex work has not been critically investigated yet. However, this can be explained by the fact that there are many different actors7 involved in the
formation of the prostitution policy. Since those actors have different interests, and different people with different visions are in these positions over time, it is a complex subject of investigation. In addition, since policy implementation is always interpreted and approached subjectively by street level bureaucrats, it is hard to examine the influence of the abstract policy on the experience of stigmatization of sex workers (Lipsky 2010). This is therefore another reason why this research is specifically focused on policy implementation instead of policy creation. And although policy implementation is also characterized by complexity, it is important to investigate the role of prostitution policy enforcers in the stigmatization of sex work, since the discretion they have in the implementation of the enforcement policy possibly gives them power to influence processes of stigmatization.
Furthermore, especially the experiences by sex workers are relevant, because the voices of sex workers are currently also underrepresented in the creation, implementation and evaluation of the prostitution policy of The Hague. Whereas research shows that it is important to involve sex workers themselves in these processes of prostitution policies. In addition, policy creation and implementation are always complex processes and always lead to unintended consequences. To be able to make this process easier and decrease the quantity and quality of negative unintended consequences, sex
13
workers need to get involved (Engbersen 2009; Het CCV 2017; Verhoeven 2017; Wagenaar, et al. 2017)8.
1.6. Research questions Main question:
What is the role of stigma in the experience of the implementation of the enforcement policy of the prostitution sector in The Hague, by female sex workers?
Sub questions:
1. What is the context of sex work in the municipality of The Hague?
2. How do female sex workers experience the implementation of the enforcement policy of the prostitution sector in The Hague?
3. In which ways do stigmatization and destigmatization of female sex workers take place in the enforcement process of the prostitution sector in The Hague?
1.7. Structure
In order to answer the main question of this research, I first present my theoretical framework, which revolves around Bruce Link and Jo Phelan (2001) and their interpretation of the concept ‘stigma’. In chapter three, I set out my methodology, followed by an explanation of the context of sex work in the municipality of The Hague in chapter four. Subsequently, the experience of the implementation of the enforcement of the prostitution sector in The Hague by sex workers is examined on different levels in chapter five. In chapter six the ways in which stigmatization and destigmatization take place in the enforcement process are investigated. Finally, a conclusion and discussion of the research process and results are given.
14
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Introduction
To be able to answer the research question of this master thesis, different theories and concepts are used. First of all, the concept of ‘stigmatization’ as interpreted by Link and Phelan (2001) is introduced. Then, the labeling theory of Howard Becker (1973) is exposed. Thirdly, the concept of ‘morality politics’ is used to explain the complexity of prostitution policies. Subsequently, theory on unintended consequences of policies is incorporated. Finally, the concept of ‘citizenship’ is deepened, since stigmatization mostly leads to an incomplete experience of citizenship.
2.2. Stigmatization 2.2.1. Erving Goffman
Erving Goffman’s (1963) work on stigma is the foundation for the understanding of the concept ‘stigmatization process’, which is one of the principle concepts in this research. Goffman was a Canadian-American sociologist who coined the term ‘stigma’ and its associated theory into the main social theoretical field. He defined stigma as a situation in which an individual is not completely accepted by society, as a result of undesirable characteristics that differ significantly from the norm that society has created about how someone should be. Thereby, according to Goffman, stigma is not inherent to any type of behavior or physical condition, but is created in a relationship between at least two actors (Buitenhuis 2017a; Goffman 1963). Female sex workers are an example of individuals who are stigmatized in western societies, since their work is labeled as incompatible with dominant western norms around sexuality, femininity, and female sexual modesty (Boutellier 1991; Buitenhuis 2017a; Roes 2008; Vanwesenbeeck 2013).
2.2.2. Bruce Link & Jo Phelan
Despite Goffman’s work on stigma being of great influence, an important critique is that his concept of stigma is promoting a theory of stigma that is too individual focused, since it is drawing too little attention to the more structural and broader aspects that cause stigmatization (Buitenhuis 2017a; Link & Phelan 2001; Link, Yang, Phelan & Collins 2004; Parker & Aggleton 2003). Therefore, Link & Phelan (2001) developed a new model on stigma, drawing on the work of Goffman (1963). Their model will be used in this research and is explained below.
Link and Phelan (2001) expand Goffman’s conception of stigma as a relationship between an “attribute and a stereotype” (Goffman 1963: 3-4). They define stigma as the co-occurrence of the components “labeling, stereotyping, separation, and status loss and discrimination” (Link & Phelan 2001: 363). They clarify how society creates stigma, and that stigma thus is a dynamic and a social relationship (Link & Phelan 2001; Sallman 2010). Besides that, they expand Goffman’s work with the
15
notion that the distinction and labeling of human differences reflects especially dominant cultural beliefs. This addition is important, since although this role of power in stigmatization in some cases is explicit, it is mostly overlooked by society (Buitenhuis 2017a; Link & Phelan 2001). Link and Phelan (2001) argue that power is always essential to the social production and distribution of stigma, since not every individual has the power to negatively label and stereotype someone with discriminatory consequences. Therefore, stigma only exist when the different components of the stigmatization process occur “in a power situation that allows” them (Link & Phelan 2001: 367).
The model of Link & Phelan (2001) shows that deeply integrated cultural attitudes and perceptions towards the place and role of sex in a society influences if sex workers are labeled as ‘others’ or not (Hammond & Kingston 2014). The model also clarifies that power shapes the distribution of stigma on sex workers, and therefore brings up the question if enforcement implementers are powerful actors in this distribution (Kleinman & Hall-Clifford 2009). To be able to answer this question, and to be able to unpack the various possible forms of stigmatization of sex workers by these implementers, it is important to get more insight into the four different components of the stigmatization process that Link & Phelan (2001) distinguish.
The first component is ‘labeling’, which refers to the identification of human differences that matter socially. Although mostly taken-for-granted, the salience of certain differences, like skin color or sexual preference, are socially constructed. It is therefore interesting to question why certain labeled differences are more salient then others. In order to make social differences salient, substantial oversimplification is required. Moreover, the characteristics that are deemed salient differ among time and place (Link & Phelan 2001). As stated before, sex workers are nowadays for example (still) a salient social category in the Netherlands, since their work is generally labeled as incompatible with dominant western-cultural beliefs (Boutellier 1991; Nationaal Rapporteur 2016; Roes 2008; Vanwesenbeeck 2013). The second component of the stigmatization process is when a labeled difference is linked to a stereotype, which is formed by a set of undesirable characteristics. Research shows that the link to a stereotype mostly occurs automatically and because of cognitive efficiency. Therefore, it is interesting to investigate if enforcers project stereotypes on sex workers in the implementation of their job, and if they do so, which stereotypes they project. The third component is when a separation between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is made, as a consequence of an internalization of the labeling of social differences and their related stereotypes. In that sense, people that are negatively labeled are believed to be fundamentally different from the people that do not share that label. In addition, they generally are viewed to be ‘less’, which on its own can strengthen stereotyping. In relation to the enforcement of the prostitution sector it is interesting to investigate if enforcers do separate themselves from sex workers or not. And if so, if that separation is more than only a consequence of the hierarchical structure between an enforcer and an enforced citizen. Finally, as a consequence of the first three components of the stigmatization process, a labeled individual experiences discrimination and status loss (Link & Phelan 2001). Discrimination can occur twofold,
16
namely individual, when person A discriminates against person B, and structural, when “accumulated institutional practices” work against or to the detriment of negative labeled groups (Link & Phelan 2001: 372). In addition, status loss refers to the downward placement of a labeled individual in a status hierarchy. This downward placement on its turn mostly causes inequality, to the detriment of the labeled individual. Only when the component of status loss and discrimination are experienced, the concept of stigma is applicable according to Link & Phelan (2001). Therefore, it is interesting to investigate if sex workers actually do experience discrimination, and status loss through, the implementation of the enforcement of the prostitution sector (Link & Phelan 2001).
2.2.3. Destigmatization of sex work
Although stigma is a subject that is often mentioned to in research on sex work, it is rarely investigated if, and if so how, destigmatization can be achieved. Goffman (1963) for example did write about how stigmatized individuals can manage their experienced stigma, but not about how actors that are responsible for this stigmatization can contribute to destigmatization.
However, since stigmatization of sex work causes discrimination and status loss of sex workers, destigmatization will help to overcome this. Therefore, the components of the stigmatization process that Link & Phelan (2001) distinguish can also be used to investigate how enforcement implementers can contribute to the destigmatization of sex work. When reducing or breaking with the components of labeling, stereotyping and separation of sex workers, discrimination and status loss of sex workers in relation to the rule enforcement will be reduced or eliminated, and destigmatization can be achieved. Furthermore, since power distributes stigmatization, according to Link & Phelan (2001), it also distributes destigmatization (Link & Phelan 2001; Weitzer 2017). Therefore, it is interesting to question whether and how stigma can be reduced or eliminated in relation to sex work, and how enforcement implementers may be able to contribute to this.
Furthermore, according to the sociologist Ronald Weitzer (2017) reducing stigma on sex work requires, first of all, that the attitude towards sex work, at the societal level, needs to improve. Therefore, it is important that enforcement implementers are aware of their attitude towards sex work, and eliminate their possible emotional prejudices. Nevertheless, since this is not sufficient, Weitzer (2017) gives some preconditions for destigmatization as well. Since these preconditions are related to destigmatization in general, only the preconditions to which enforcement implementers can contribute are exposed here (Weitzer 2017). First of all, they should use neutral language in relation to sex workers, since “power relations are embedded in language” (Weitzer 2017: 4). Secondly, they should be aware of the negative bias that mass media produces in their representation of sex workers. In addition, when providing information about sex workers themselves, enforcement implementers need to produce a balanced image (Weitzer 2017).
17
2.3. Enforcing the deviant 2.3.1. Labeling theory
All social groups in society make rules and attempt to enforce them. Those social rules can be of any kind. They can be formally enacted into laws and policies, enforced by the police, but they can also be the result of informal agreements, enforced by different informal sanctions. By maintaining ‘social rules’, situations are defined, as well as the behavior that is appropriate to them. Consequently, certain actions are labeled as right and others as wrong. A person that infringes the rules with ‘wrong’ actions performs deviant behavior and is therefore seen as an outsider (Becker 1973). According to the American sociologist Howard Becker, deviance should, however, not be seen as a homogeneous condition of individuals, because “it is created by society” (Becker 1973: 8). This implies that “deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label” (Becker 1973: 9). Thus, by making rules about what is normal and what is not, deviance is created by social groups, and therefore people who perform deviant behavior are labeled by them as outsiders (Becker 1973).
Since people who have been labeled as deviant cannot be seen as a homogeneous category, the only thing that individuals in the labeled category of sex workers truly have in common is that they do sex work, share the same label, and share the experience of being labeled as outsiders (Becker 1973). “Common factors of personality or life situation” cannot be reasonably found in such a category (Becker 1973: 9). In the Netherlands, the behavior and activities of sex workers are still labeled as deviant, despite the legalization of the exploitation of sex work in 2000 that aimed to improve their position and normalize the sector. Sex work for instance is still not generally seen as a normal profession (Buitenhuis 2017a; Majoor 2015; Nationaal Rapporteur 2016; Outshoorn 2012; Van der Zee 2014; Van Orsouw 2015; Vanwesenbeeck 2013). An example of this is given in §1.1., where the local police argued that sex work never is really voluntary and thereby labeled sex workers as deviant since they would always be seen as victims.
2.3.2. Rule enforcement
Becker (1973) furthermore emphasizes the political dimensions of the labeling process, by arguing that deviance is not an objective condition, but results from the claims of dominant groups’ superior political and economic power. According to Becker ‘moral entrepreneurs’ are an example of forces that are responsible for the creation of problems. It is a term that refers to an individual, group, or formal organization that impose their moral definition about what is ‘normal’ to others, by means of persuading society to develop and to enforce rules in light of their moral definition. Thereby, it is important to make clear the difference between ‘rule creators’ and ‘rule enforcers’ (Becker 1973).
First of all, the rule creator is characterized by the interest in the content of rules. Since the existing rules do not satisfy the rule creator, and are seen as intrinsically evil, new rules, arising from
18
an absolute ethic, need to bring change (Becker 1973). The prototype of a rule creator is a “crusading reformer” since they usually believe that their mission is holy (Becker 1973: 147). However, moral crusaders are not only interested in forcing their own morals on others, since they are also very humanitarian in that they believe that what they see as right is not only good for themselves, but for everyone. To be able to bring change, moral crusaders, moreover generally believe that the ends justify the means (Becker 1973).
On the contrary, rule enforcers do not create but institutionalize the crusade (Becker 1973). Rule enforcers are a specific example of ‘street level bureaucrats’, which are public service employees who stand in direct contact with citizens and have influence in the way policies are put into practice, since they have significant discretion in the implementation of their job. Examples of typical street level bureaucrats are judges, teachers and police officers. Street level bureaucrats hold much power over people’s lives and opportunities through the way in which they provide benefits and sanctions. They mediate between citizens and the state and thereby have influence on the citizenship experience of the people they do provide service for. However, the task of street level bureaucrats is complex and consists of a paradox. On the one hand, they need to follow scripts and help achieve policy objectives. On the other hand, they need to be responsive to individual cases when appropriate (Lipsky 2010). Whereas street level bureaucrats implement rules, which sometimes consist of enforcement, rule enforcers are a specific group of street level bureaucrats who always deal with the aspect of enforcement (Becker 1973). According to Becker (1973) the rule enforcer is mostly interested in the existence of the rule that provides this person with a job. As a consequence, a rule enforcer has two interests: first, justifying the existence of the position, and, second, winning respect of the people that are dealt with. In the first interest the rule enforcer faces two contradicting tasks, since the enforcer needs to demonstrate that the problem still exists, but show that his or her work is effective and worthy as well. Furthermore, rule enforcers are characterized by their skeptical position towards the reformation-capacity of rule breakers. Finally, it is important to mention that rule enforcers have a lot of discretion, at least since there are not enough resources to control the volume of rule-breaking. Subsequently, enforcers will set priorities, and are selective in the way they enforce rules and therefore in the creation of outsiders. Many aspects play a role in whether a person is labeled as deviant by a rule enforcer, from moral standpoints of the enforcer, to a possible pressure of job targets (Becker 1973).
Since rule enforcers are responsible for the execution of the enforcement policy of the prostitution sector, it is interesting to investigate how the approach of rule enforcers is experienced by the sex workers they encounter (Becker 1973). How are sex workers approached? And are there differences between the approaches of different rule enforcers? Furthermore, it is interesting to examine if sex workers feel stigmatized and/or destigmatized by rule enforcers, and what aspects of rule enforcers specific implementation leads to this possible experienced stigmatization and/or destigmatization.
19
2.4. Morality politics
Policy in general reflects struggles over values and categories, but this is particularly true for prostitution policies, which exemplify morality politics (Wagenaar & Altink 2012). Morality politics refer to “policies in which first principles are at stake”, involving key aspects of the personal life, and subjects over which there is deep conflict in society due to opposite values (Wagenaar & Altink 2012: 281). Morality politics is “ruled by an explicit ideology”, “highly emotionally charged”, “resistant to facts”, and “subjected to abrupt changes” (Wagenaar & Altink 2012: 279). Besides that, “experts have limited authority” in morality politics, and the “symbolism of policy formulation is seen as more important than policy implementation” (Wagenaar & Altink 2012: 279). Prostitution policies exemplify all the aforementioned aspects, and through this remark many peculiar aspects of prostitution policies can be explained. For example, the prominence of ideology in prostitution policies, explains the prominent shifts in the approach of the prostitution sector in the Netherlands as a consequence of changes of the political parties in the national government (Wagenaar & Altink 2012). While examining experiences of the implementation of the enforcement policy of the prostitution sector, it is important to be aware of the different moral standpoints that exist towards sex work by society in general, by prostitution policy creators, and also by its implementers. Since prostitution policies are an example of morality politics and street level bureaucrats, like rule enforcers, have certain discretion in the implementation of their job, it is reasonable that rule enforcers’ moral vision on sex work influences the way they implement the enforcement of the prostitution sector (Becker 1973; Lipsky 2010; Wagenaar & Altink 2012).
2.5. Unintended consequences of policies 2.5.1. Clarifying unintended consequences
Daily and social life are full of unintended consequences, so social policies are too (Daase & Friesendorf 2010). The phenomenon of the unintended consequences of intentional, social action has traditionally been one of the central themes in the social sciences. And although many social scientists have been examining this phenomenon already, it has yet not resulted in a systematic analysis. The first problem with research on unintended consequences is that it is difficult to determine what the intentions of policy are. For example, over time, adjustments can be made to the original policy objectives, which should be taken into account when evaluating and reporting unintended consequences. Besides that, since the level of abstraction of many discussions about unintended effects of policy is high, the direct cause-effect relationship is difficult to identify. Finally, many unintended effects of human interaction reveal themselves in the medium- or long-term, which makes it hard to identify and clarify them. Nevertheless, according to Godfried Engbersen, a Dutch professor of Sociology, it is important to examine unintended consequences of policy in order to achieve a more conclusive policy (Engbersen 2009).
20
According to Engbersen (2009) there are many ways in which policies can lead to unintended consequences. A first step towards a better understanding of the effective and ineffectiveness of policies is an analysis of the mechanisms that create negative unintended consequences of policies. However, although these different mechanisms can be separated analytically, in practice multiple mechanisms often play a role (Daase & Friesendorf 2010; Engbersen 2009). Moreover, despite policies can have hidden agendas, in this research only the policy goals that are public are interpreted as the intentions of policies.
2.5.2. Unintended consequences of prostitution policies
Research points out that anti-trafficking measures in prostitution policies, which are also applied in the Netherlands, may be beneficial for certain groups, but can have the negative unintended consequences of stigmatization and restriction of other groups. Therefore, different scholars are concerned that regulation of the prostitution sector, through anti-trafficking policies like exit programs and prevention campaigns, may be counter-productive (Vanwesenbeeck 2017; Verhoeven 2017). In addition, the strengthened administrative approach of the prostitution sector in the Netherlands since the legalization of the sector, seems to have the negative unintended consequence that the legal protection of citizens is insufficiently warranted (Holvast & Van der Meij 2011; Verhoeven 2017).
Furthermore, according to other researchers, the prostitution policy in the Netherlands has negative unintended consequences regarding the privacy and social rights of sex workers (Oude Breuil & Siegel 2012; Outshoorn 2012; Pitcher & Wijers 2014). The criminologists Oude Breuil and Siegel (2012), for example, show that the then current policy-approach of controlling and protecting did not lead to the support of the autonomy of sex workers and the guarantee of their rights, since they were increasingly checked and condescended. As a consequence, sex workers are deprived of self-determination and independence, also named by Oude Breuil and Siegel (2012) as a trend of non-accountability of sex workers. According to the authors, we should wonder if this stricter regulation and control in the prostitution sector is not a case of discrimination against a profession, as it is not applied to other professions. Such discrimination is undesirable, since it prevents sex work from being seen as a legal profession and sex workers as full members of society, and therefore goes against the purpose of the legalization of the prostitution sector (Oude Breuil & Siegel 2012; Outshoorn 2012; Verhoeven 2017).
Finally, research shows that the legalization of sex work in the Netherlands in some cases has the unintended consequence of shifting sex work to the illegal sector (Janssen 2007; Oude Breuil & Siegel 2012). This mostly happens since immigrants from outside the European Union (EU) are not allowed to work in the Netherlands without a work permit, which they are generally denied (Janssen 2007). However, lack of privacy and social rights in the legal sector as a consequence of many regulations can for example also cause that sex workers move to the illegal sector (Oude Breuil & Siegel 2012). Moreover, it is important to clarify the meaning of the ‘illegal sector’, since the
21
Netherlands applies a licensed system that differs per municipality. As a consequence, sex work is illegal in the case that a license is required in a municipality, but not gained. However, when a license is gained in such a municipality, sex work is legal, unless other regulations concerning sex work are violated. Nevertheless, when a municipality does not require a license for sex work, not gaining a license does not make sex work illegal. In such a municipality sex work can be legally practiced without a license at all. However, sex work in that case still must be in accordance with the national law, for instance the minimum age to do sex work. Finally, if human trafficking or abuse9 is the case
in one of the above mentioned situations, this is always illegal (Nationaal Rapporteur 2016).
2.5.3. Unintended consequences through policy implementation
Although social policy has both positive and negative unintended consequences, it is particularly crucial that negative unintended consequences are taken into account in the planning and designing of policies, in order to eradicate or minimize them. In that way, it is possible to achieve a more realistic social policy after adjustment, abolition or renewal of social policy where necessary. However, as is already stated in the introduction of this research, since it usually is the implementation of regulations and policies that provides deviations between the original policy intentions and the impact in policy practice, it is interesting to examine the experience of policy practice instead of examining the experience of policy existence itself. Therefore, it is specifically interesting to investigate which negative unintended consequences are experienced as a result of the implementation of the enforcement of the prostitution sector (Engbersen 2009).
2.6. Citizenship
2.6.1. Citizenship and sex work
Stigmatization mostly leads to an incomplete experience of participation in society for stigmatized individuals, due to discrimination and status loss, which can also be seen as an incomplete experience of citizenship. To be able to experience full citizenship, citizens must be able to fully participate in all aspects of society, in spite of for example their social economic status, religion and job (Link & Phelan 2001; Lister 2007). Sex workers have long lacked this full citizenship in the Netherlands, although sex work was tolerated before 2000 and sex workers were not criminalized under Dutch law. They did not lose their citizenship and therefore still had the right to vote and were not excluded from basic state benefits. However, there were many formal legal and social rights, mainly regarding their work, which they did not receive in contrast to people in other professions, like the right to social insurance. However, after 2000 this would change, since from then on sex workers were recognized as regular workers and would gain all formal legal and social rights, due to the lifting of the general ban on brothels (Buitenhuis 2017b; Lister 2007; Outshoorn 2012; Outshoorn 2014).
9 From now on ‘human trafficking and abuse’ are referred to as ‘human trafficking’ in the rest of this research,
22
2.6.2. Restrictions on sex workers’ citizenship experience
However, since in some cases sex workers in the Netherlands still do not have some of the formal legal and social rights, the idea that sex workers’ full citizenship in the Netherlands is guaranteed with the legalization of sex work needs to be criticized. In practice sex work is still not totally normalized. First of all, only EU citizens can be a legal sex worker in the Netherlands, unless in possession of a Dutch passport (Buitenhuis 2017b; Outshoorn 2014). Furthermore, even then there is an exception; Croatian citizens can only be self-employed sex workers, not employees (Nationaal Rapporteur 2016). In addition, as a consequence of a discourse that made a division between rich and poor countries, in which victims of sex work are driven by poverty, sex workers from ‘poor countries’ are refused in the Netherlands. Therefore, the rights of sex workers from ‘poor countries’ outside the EU, but also from the Eastern Member States, are limited, because they are believed to be mainly victims of human trafficking. As a result, it is almost impossible for those migrant sex workers to work legally in the Netherlands, because the authorities tend to deny them the required work permit. Migrant sex workers from ‘poor countries’ outside the EU, when staying in the Netherlands, therefore mostly become undocumented workers without any related formal legal and social rights after their temporary visa expires (Buitenhuis 2017b; Outshoorn 2014). Secondly, since the legalization of sex work in the Netherlands, many sex workers have not gained formal social rights that other workers do have, such as access to business services, and the accumulation of vacation days (Buitenhuis 2017b; Dekker, Tap & Homburg 2006; Nationaal Rapporteur 2016; NOS 2015; Outshoorn 2014). Thirdly, due to the goal of addressing human trafficking, organized crime, exploitation and violence in the prostitution sector, policies on sex work in the Netherlands possibly do not only create formal legal and social rights for sex workers, but also challenge them. The strict regulation of the sector namely goes against the normalization of the sector, creates new obligations, and causes a different treatment of sex work in comparison with other professions (Buitenhuis 2017b; Outshoorn 2014).
2.6.3. Lack of cultural citizenship
Contemporary literature on citizenship argues that full citizenship is moreover not merely a matter of formal legal and social rights, but also implies recognition and identity, also referred to as cultural citizenship (Lister 2007). This is a part of citizenship that is about being recognized in society with one’s true identity, which means that a citizen’s voice is heard and one’s place in society is accepted by other citizens (Rosaldo 1997). This is a form of citizenship that many sex workers in the Netherlands do not experience since destigmatization of sex work is not yet achieved (Buitenhuis 2017b; Lister 2007). First of all, sex workers are still being stigmatized, since the work they do is widely perceived as immoral and deviant (Buitenhuis 2017a; Buitenhuis 2017b; Daalder 2015; Majoor 2015; Nationaal Rapporteur 2016; Outshoorn 2012; Sanders 2008; Van der Zee 2014; Van Orsouw 2015; Vanwesenbeeck 2013; Weitzer 2017). In addition, sex workers on the one hand are generally conceived to pose risk to society, since they are labeled as dirty and drug addicts, and on the
23
other hand perceived to be at-risk, since they are perceived to be vulnerable to become victims of human trafficking (Bruckert & Hannem 2013; Buitenhuis 2017a; Buitenhuis 2017b; Sanders 2008). Moreover, the stigma that exist on sex work has the consequence that most sex workers prefer to stay anonymous and therefore are not even able to claim their rights at all (Outshoorn 2014). Secondly, sex workers in the Netherlands are generally marginalized and experience a lack of symbolic presence and visibility, mainly because they are widely perceived to be at risk (Bruckert & Hannem 2013; Buitenhuis 2017a; Buitenhuis 2017b; Pakulski 1997). As a consequence, a discourse of victimization of sex work is also present in the Dutch discourse on sex work (Nationaal Rapporteur 2016; Van Heuzen 2016). Finally, due to the idea that sex workers pose a risk to society, many of them do not experience cultural citizenship, because they are generally denied the right to propagation of their identity and maintenance of lifestyle. Although the identity and lifestyles of sex workers in reality differ and do not always meet stereotypes of sex work, especially stigmatizing labels as ‘drug addicts’ and ‘whores’ are denied recognition, but also the use of sex for money in general. Therefore, assimilation of their true identity, lifestyle, norms and meanings is generally desired (Bruckert & Hannem 2013; Buitenhuis 2017a; Buitenhuis 2017b; Isin & Turner 2002; Pakulski 1997).
2.7. Summary
Altogether, since sex work is still stigmatized in the Netherlands, and Link & Phelan (2001) argue that stigmatization and destigmatization are distributed by power, it is interesting to question if implementers of prostitution policies contribute to these processes. Since especially rule enforcers have the responsibility to enforce the prostitution sector, but also have certain discretion in the implementation of their work, they possibly have power to stigmatize and destigmatize. In addition, since prostitution policies exemplify morality politics, and are therefore morally loaded, there is a chance that the personal vision of rule enforcers on sex work has influence on the way the enforcement of the prostitution sector is implemented. Specifically implementations of policies can lead to discrepancies between the intentions of policies and its actual effects and therefore lead to possible negative unintended consequences. Because negative unintended consequences can be undesirable for the achievement of certain policy goals, it is important to get insight into these possible consequences. In addition, since stigmatization and destigmatization can influence experiences of citizenship, it is also important to investigate how citizenship experience is possibly affected and how it can be optimized when necessary.
24
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
Since experiences of the approach by rule enforcers can differ a lot, and experiences of stigmatization and destigmatization can be manifold and are difficult to categorize, qualitative methods are most effective in understanding the role that stigma plays in the experience of the implementation of the enforcement of the prostitution sector. This chapter is devoted to the research methods of this research, the methodological choices that are made, and to the ethical dilemmas encountered.
3.2. Research methods
To find answers to the questions posed earlier, I have conducted qualitative interviews with six sex workers and with four ‘social workers’ who work with sex workers in the course of their job10.
Qualitative interviews are characterized by their strong focus on the perception of the interviewee, so they can give insight into the perceptions and understandings of interviewees. Furthermore, it is a flexible way to come to rich and detailed information, since the interviewee can, in some ways, direct the interview. Therefore, the interviews in this research were semi-structured, which means that they were not completely fixed in advance. As a consequence, it was possible to go deeper into interesting answers or remarks of the interviewees. For the interviews, two different interview guides were used: one for the interviews with sex workers, and one for the interviews with social workers. Since the order of the interview guide was not fixed, the subjects and questions were asked in different order in the different interviews. Furthermore, additional questions were asked in every interview, depending on the answers of the interviewees (Bryman 2012). All interviews took place individually and face-to-face. The interviews lasted from 40 to 110 minutes. One interview was conducted in English, the other interviews in Dutch. With permission of the respondents I was able to record all interviews.
I contacted the respondents of this research through the sample technique of snowball sampling. This means that first a small group of people is sampled for the research, after which the network of those interviewees is used to find other participants (Bryman 2012). Due to the contacts in the prostitution sector that I had obtained through my former internship at the NRM, I was able to get access to sex workers. Several people who work for Stichting Hulpverlening Opvang Prostituees Den
Haag (SHOP The Hague)11, Spot4612 and Liberty13, of whom I interviewed a few, have helped me to
10 Although the individuals I refer to as ‘social workers’ in reality have different functions, which are explicated
in §3.3., they are taken together sometimes because of practical reasons.
11 SHOP The Hague is the expertise center in the field of care and provision of services for sex workers and
victims of human trafficking. SHOP improves the position of (former) sex workers and victims of human trafficking by providing information, advice, and practical and psychosocial assistance (SHOP Den Haag 2017).
12 Spot46 is part of SHOP The Hague, and is the place in the region of The Hague where people can go for free
information and advice on (healthy) work in the sexual services. The goal of Spot46 is to improve the position of sex workers (Spot46 2017).
25
get in contact with sex workers in different ways. I was able to hang flyers about my research at SHOP The Hague and Spot46. Besides that, I was allowed to be present at different consulting hours at Spot46, where I could ask different sex workers to participate in my research. Furthermore, different people from SHOP The Hague, Spot46 and Liberty, but also sex workers who participated in my research, did their best to make sex workers they know enthusiastic to participate in my research. They helped me, because, due to the stigma on sex work, sex workers do not easily participate in research. Mediation by individuals with whom sex workers have a trust relationship, therefore helped to make sex workers more willing to participate.
Although I had different accesses to sex workers, in practice, it still seemed very difficult to encourage them participate in my research. Therefore, the non-response rate of sex workers in this research was high. Reasons to not participate differed, whereas most sex workers lacked the time or desire to participate. I also believe that the stigma on sex work influenced the willingness of some sex workers to participate, although this is speculation. I tried to increase the anonymity and safety of the sex workers I interviewed by notifying their rights and my obligations as a researcher, and by letting them sign a participation form that represented this14. Moreover, a few sex workers did not show up
for the appointment they had with me. I experienced that since sex work mostly is characterized by irregularities, my own flexibility as a researcher was necessary. Because it was hard to interview many sex workers in the limited time available for this research, I also interviewed social workers . Those individuals specifically tried to represent the voice of the sex workers they encountered with in their work. I am aware that although their knowledge is very enriching, it needs to be distinguished from the voices of sex workers themselves15. In chapter five and six I therefore always make clear if
an argument is made by a sex worker or a social worker. Finally, it is important to note that I also tried to interview people from the Stichting De Haven16 and tried to get access to sex workers through
this organization as well. However, they explained to me that the questions of my research could not be answered by the social workers of this organization, because they would not have enough knowledge about the opinion and experiences of the sex workers they encounter, and therefore could not represent their voices.
3.3. Research population
Overall, I conducted ten interviews. The social workers I interviewed specifically are two social service providers of Spot46, the director of SHOP The Hague and the policy advisor of SHOP The Hague, who is also the initiator of Liberty and a former sex worker herself. The two social service
14 See ‘participation form’ in the attachment. Because of privacy reasons the signed forms are not added in the
attachment of this thesis.
15 Except for one of the social workers, who is a former sex worker herself.
16 Another organization in The Hague comparable to SHOP The Hague. Stichting De Haven is a Christian
organization dedicated to people working in the prostitution sector in The Hague or connected to sex work in another way (Stichting De Haven 2017).
26
providers of Spot46, are specified in working with sex workers of a specific country of origin, due to their own nationality. Besides providing services for all sex workers they encounter, one of them maintains close contact with Hungarian and the other with Romanian sex workers. In addition, I interviewed six sex workers. Since the situations of the sex workers that are interviewed in this research differ a lot, important details about them are added in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Details sex workers
Carla Esmeralda Lucy Jessica Dora Lena
Age 45 27 23 51 22 22
Nationality Dutch Dutch Dutch Italian Dutch Dutch
Former/curr ent sex worker
Former Former Former Current Current Former
Cities worked/wor king Amsterdam, Antwerp & The Hague
The Hague The Hague The Hague Rotterdam & The Hague The Hague Form(s) of sex work Window sex work & SM-mistress Escort Club/private house Window sex work Club/private house & escort
Window sex work
Additional information Worked about 20 years in the sex industry Was forced to work as a sex worker, quitted some years ago
Recently quitted Recently started as a sex worker Started sex work when she was 18 Was forced to work as a sex worker 4 years and recently quitted Contextual aspects Did want to do sex work herself, and argued to have had a great youth. She has always been open about her profession towards her family and friends. However, she did experienced a lot of stigma because of her profession. Had been in prison when she was a teenager. Had almost no one to fall back on when she came out of prison, she got in wrong hands and was forced to do sex work. In addition, she had the feeling that the enforcement had no sight on her when she worked as an illegal escort.
Lucy did not plan to stop doing sex work, but after certain circumstances she ended up in shelter and decided to stop. She practiced sex work besides a job outside the sex industry. She wasn’t proud to do sex work herself, but it was a solution for her economic situation. Is used to a very corrupt enforcement back in Italy, where sex work only happens in bad circumstances. Came to the Netherlands because it is legal her. She started with sex work due to economic reasons and recently broke up with her partner, who did not treat her well. Dora has a quite insecure history. She was placed out of her parents’ home when she was younger, and has been homeless for a while. Although Dora is not forced by someone else, she does feel forced by her economic situation. She works as a sex worker besides another job. Lena’s grandmother and aunt also used to work as a sex worker. She was raised up close to a sex work area in the Netherlands. She was forced to do sex work and had a
‘relationship’ with her pimp, with who she also lived together. Her pimp seemed to force more girls to work as a sex worker. The lawsuit against her pimp was not rounded when I spoke to Lena.
27
Besides the ten interviews that were conducted, I spoke to many other sex workers in informal conversations. I had these informal talks during my presence at SHOP The Hague, Spot46 and Liberty, but also at the book presentation of the book Designing prostitution policy of Henk Wagenaar, Helga Amesberger and Sietske Altink. There were also moments where I spoke to different other individuals who stand in close contact with sex workers in their profession, or are connected with the sector in other ways.
Since I only interviewed female sex workers, and the discourse around sex work through the conversations I had with people in the field were mainly focused on female sex work, I decided to narrow my research down to the experience of female sex workers in The Hague, although male and transgender sex work definitely exist in this municipality. Although still not generalizable because the context of a sex worker is of great influence on the experience of the enforcement and great diversity between the experiences of sex workers exists, this narrowing of the research population makes sure that the results of this research are less diverse and therefore more externally valid (Bryman 2012).
3.4. Data analysis
After the conducting of the interviews, all interviews were transcribed in such a way that anonymity of the sex workers represented in this research was guaranteed, therefore the names of all sex workers are fictional. In the case that one of the respondents referred to a specific person I deleted the name out of the conversation, for the privacy of the person spoken about. After transcribing, the interview recordings were deleted.
For the analysis of the data I used a grounded theory approach, which is characterized by constant comparison between data, data analysis and results (Bryman 2012). I made use of three rounds of coding, which I performed in ATLAS.ti. For the first round I made used of open-coding, which is “the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data” (Bryman 2012: 569). Examples of such codes are ‘empathy’, ‘intake-conversation’, and ‘prejudices’. Subsequently, I developed codes from the literature and theory and applied those to each individual case. Examples of such codes are ‘stigmatization’, ‘street level bureaucrat’ and ‘cultural citizenship’. Finally, I made use of axial coding, in which “connections between categories” have been made to get insight into the patterns in the data which are described in chapter five and six (Bryman 2012: 569). Examples are ‘victimization’, ‘internalization of stigmatization’, and ‘demands of the sector’. When no new patterns emerged anymore the coding process was stopped. In addition, since most interviews were conducted in Dutch, I had to translate them to English myself. I only translated the quotes that are used in this research report, because since I speak Dutch and English the translation was not a requirement for the analysis of my data.
Moreover, in order to assure that the quality of this research is high, I made use of Lucy Yardley’s quality criteria for qualitative research throughout the research process. Therefore, I first of all took into account the “sensitivity to context”, by not only being aware of the context of the social
