Bringing different worlds together : discourses on integration among students from the VoorUit Project

(1)

“Bringing different worlds together”

Discourses on integration among students from the VoorUit Project

Master thesis Urban Sociology Graduate School of Social Sciences Charlotte van der Klauw (6059325) Dr. L Veldboer (first supervisor) Dr. S. Metaal (second supervisor) 3rd of July, 2014

(2)

1

Abstract

Uitermark (2012) distinguishes 5 different discourses on integration that exist in the public debate in the Netherlands, of which pragmatism is the dominant discours (Ibid: 130). The dominant discours in a society influences the personal discours of people. This research has studied whether pragmatism resonates in the discours of the students working for the integration-project VoorUit in Amsterdam Nieuw-West. The interviews with the students have been analysed by the resonance model. The result of this analysis is, that pragmatism resonates in the discours of 9 out of the 12

students. Besides, there are two students whose discours is in dissonance, and one student whose discours shows autonomy to pragmatism. These results meet the expectations: pragmatism does indeed have a large influence on the discours of the students. However, other discourses distinguished by Uitermark have, to a lesser degree, influence as well. It is therefore important to not over-estimate the influence of pragmatism. Perhaps even more interesting is the finding of other expressions in the students’ discours that do not fit in the repertoires of Uitermark’s discourses. These “new” expressions are paternalism, the socioeconomic integration through middle class standards and participation. These expressions have been analysed extensively and have been linked to various related theories. Finding these

expressions have made it possible to go deeper into the discours of the students, and has added additional value to this research.

(5)

4

1. Preface

In the last five months of 2013, I worked as a project-worker for the integration-project VoorUit. I was member of the neighbourhood-team in Geuzenveld, a

neighborhood in Amsterdam Nieuw-West. Before I was hired to work for this project, I had an interview with the project-management. During this interview, they asked me several questions about my opinion on integration of ethnic minority groups. This gave me the impression that the topic of integration is very important for the project. Surprisingly, once I started working as project-worker, the topic of integration has never been brought up during any of the occasions that I have attended. This has aroused my interest in how students working for the VoorUit Project think of the integration of ethnic minority groups, and moreover, how their ideas about integration of ethnic minority groups are shaped by external influences, such as discours. This interest in the ideas on integration of ethnic minority groups has been the starting-point of my research. At the start of February 2014, the only knowledge I had of doing research was theoretical: in several methods courses during my bachelors program Cultural Anthropology I have learned how social research should be conducted. This means that this research has been the first research that I have conducted in my student-career so far, and it has enabled me to finally put all my theoretical knowledge into practice. It has been a very educational experience to go through the whole process of the master research step by step from starting with a thesis topic, and 4 months later, ending up with a finished thesis. I have gained lots of knowledge and experience that I will be able to use in possible future researches, and it has also strengthened my ideas on what I can offer the labor-market in the future as newly graduated social scientist.

I would like to thank some people for their support during the time that I have been doing fieldwork and writing this thesis. At first I would like to thank my first supervisor, Dr. L. Veldboer, for his support throughout the research process. The feedback I received from Dr. L. Veldboer during the group-seminars and by e-mail has helped me a lot during fieldwork- and writing process, in particular during the last month of my research. Second, I would like to thank the students working for the

(6)

5

VoorUit Project and the members of the project-management for their efforts to meet with me to do an interview, regardless their own busy schedules. Without their

willingness to be interviewed by me, it would have been difficult to conduct this research. Third, I would like to thank my fellow-students for sharing their research-experiences and giving feedback to my work during the thesis seminars. Then, I would like to thank Dr. S. Metaal for being the second supervisor for this thesis. And at last but not least, I would like to thank my dad Frank for always being supportive – not just during the time I have worked on this master thesis, but also during the past 4 years of studying at the University of Amsterdam.

Charlotte van der Klauw Halfweg, 1st of July, 2014

(7)

6

2. Introduction

2.1 Introduction of the case

In contemporary Dutch society, it is impossible to imagine the public debate without the discussion on the integration of ethnic minority groups. In the public debate about integration, there exist multiple discourses that compete against each other to

become the dominant discours (Uitermark 2012: 37). These different discourses on integration, and in particular the dominant discours, shape the perceptions of people on ethnic minority groups and their integration in the Dutch society. This process happens in various ways through the social environment a person lives in, the media, the educational institutions, the politics, and other societal channels. When an

individual is influenced with certain ideas about integration from external sources, these ideas become internalized and are, at some point, assumed as the truth, or as “common sense” (Ibid). This research has studied whether the dominant discours on integration in the Netherlands has influenced the personal discours of a very

particular group of people: university students working for the VoorUit Project, an integration-project in Amsterdam Nieuw-West.

The VoorUit Project is since 2007 actively involved in Amsterdam Nieuw-West to stimulate the integration of ethnic minority groups in disadvantaged

neighbourhoods. Over the years the project has grown rapidly, and at this moment there are 7 neighbourhoods that the project is involved in: Geuzenveld, Bos en Lommer (De Kolenkit & Laan van Spartaan), Osdorp (Reimerswaalbuurt & De Punt), Slotermeer and Slotervaart. In 2007, these neighbourhoods have been labelled by Ella Vogelaar, former Minister of Housing, Neighbourhoods and Integration, as “attention-neighbourhoods” (“aandachtswijken”) because of the social problems that exist in these neighbourhoods1. Examples of these social problems are a high level of unemployment, welfare dependency, criminality, early school-leavers, bad housing conditions and a high amount of non-western residents. Nieuw-West is not

exceptional for Amsterdam as a whole: compared to other parts of Amsterdam like

1_{Aanpak Vogelaarwijken van start, June 20th, 2008:}

(8)

7

West, North or South(-East), the numbers of unemployment, criminal offences, early school-leavers, and welfare dependency of Nieuw-West are similar, or even lower2. Besides, despite the high amount of non-western residents from Moroccan and Turkish backgrounds, the largest population-group is Dutch.3 These facts put the image of Nieuw-West a bit more in a perspective.

In each of these neighbourhoods that the project is involved in works a team of university students from the UvA (University of Amsterdam) and the VU (Vrije

Universiteit). The students organize all sorts of activities for kids and their parents to participate in, which varies from educational activities to more recreational activities . Those activities take place in the neighbourhood-center or at other locations within the neighbourhood such as elementary- or high schools. Besides organizing the activities, each student also chooses his or her “contact family”. This is a family in the neighbourhood of their own choice, which they visit on a weekly basis. In exchange for doing this work for 10 hours a week, the students live for free in an apartment in the same neighbourhood as they work in. These apartments are provided by the local social housing corporations that the project collaborates with. This means that the students work and live in the same neighbourhood for a longer period of time, and therefore become an “insider” instead of a regular social worker who leaves the neighbourhood after work-time is over. This role as an insider is seen as the success-formula of the project: the students are the experts in ascertaining what the needs are of the neighbourhood-residents, and they can act upon this.

This position of expert in their own neighbourhood makes the students an interesting object of research. It is plausible that the students have formed their own opinion on integration and integration-policy over time due to their work-experience. Yet, at the same time they are also still subject to the influence of the dominant discours in society. The question is if the dominant discours on integration in the Netherlands still has an influence on their discours. According to Uitermark (2012), the dominant discours on integration is pragmatism (Ibid: 130). This research therefore studies to what extent pragmatism resonates in the discours of the students. Moreover, Uitermark has distinguished four other discourses that are subordinate to pragmatism in the public debate. These are culturalism, civil Islam,

2

Onderzoek & Statistiek Amsterdam. Uitkeringen naar stadsdelen en soort regeling, 1 januari 2014; Voortijdig schoolverlaters (18-22 jaar) per stadsdeel, 31 juli 2008-2012; De beroepsbevolking in Amsterdam (15-64 jaar), 2013; Misdrijven landelijke definitie in Regio Amsterdam-Amstelland per stadsdeel, 2013.

3

(9)

8

anti-racism and the diversity discours. This research also aims to study whether the discours of the students exist of a dominant discours that is surrounded by other subordinate discours(es).

2.2 Research questions

The main research question of this research is formulated as follows:

To what extent does the dominant discours on integration resonate among students working for the VoorUit Project?

Three questions contribute to answer the main research question. The first sub-question is: To what extent does the dominant discours on integration resonate in the

discours of the project-management? This sub-question is of importance, because it

is plausible that the project-management has an influence on the students’ discours on integration. If the project-management’s discours resonates a particular discours, it increases the chance that this discours is also part of the students’ discours. Then, the influence of the project-management is studied in the second sub-question: To

what extent does the project-management instruct the students in organizing their activities? The decision to only focus on the influence of the project-management on

the activities that are organized is because the general influence is too difficult to measure in this research. Finding out about the influence of the project-management on a delimited part of the students’ discours, the choice of activities, can say

something about the general influence of the project-management on the students’ discours. Then, the third sub-question is: What discours do students use while

discussing the VoorUit Project and its activities? This question examines whether the

students’ discourse is in consonance or dissonance with, or whether it shows

autonomy to the dominant discourse on integration in society. The results of the sub-questions will be discussed in the chapter “Results”. The main research question will be answered in the chapter “Conclusion”.

(10)

9

3. Theoretical framework

3.1 Discours

3.1.1 Definitions of discours

In this section, the various theories of different academics on discours will be discussed. Hajer (2005) defines discours as an “ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices” (Ibid: 300). Discours has three distinct features: metaphors, narrative and story lines (Ibid: 301). A metaphor stands for something else; a narrative consists of facts that are moulded by people into a story-form; and a story line is a “condensed form of narrative in which metaphors are used” (Ibid).

Rochefort & Donnely (2013) see a “frame” as an important part of discours, because “a frame sets the larger tableau within which political language is used” (Ibid: 193). The so-called “framing perspective” refers to a “natural cognitive process to narrow the field of perception to make reality more manageable for interpretation and for use as a guide to action” (Ibid: 192). So, a frame enables people to make sense of the world. This framing that takes place within every person, leads to the creation of multiple social realities. In the policy process, these multiple social realities battle against each other. The outcome of this can be very diverse: similar policy actions may be based on different frames, or one frame can be the basis of different policy solutions at the same time. They also discuss the “narrative

perspective” regarding policy-making. They see narratives as “means to represent the reality, and to bring order and meaning to a situation” (Ibid: 194).

According to Uitermark (2012), a discours is “a coherent ensemble of framing and feeling rules through which meaning and emotion are ascribed to material and social realities” (2012: 29). With this definition of discours, he builds on the concepts of “feeling rules” and “framing rules”, introduced by Hochschild (1979). Framing rules are defined as “the rules according to which we ascribe definitions or meanings to situations” (Hochschild 1979: 566) and feeling rules as “guidelines for the

(11)

10

assessment of fits and misfits between feeling and situation” (1979: 566). Framing- and feeling rules explain that “depending on the frame through which they ascribe meaning to reality, actors not only see but also feel different things” (Uitermark 2012: 30). Gee (1999) adds to this theory by stating that there is, besides language, non-language “stuff” embedded in discours. Discours is the “different ways in which we humans integrate language with non-language “stuff,” such as different ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, believing, and using symbols, tools, and objects in the right places and at the right times…” (Ibid: 12).

Then, Bröer & Duyvendak (2009) see discours as “the difference between what can potentially be expressed and experienced and what actually is expressed and experienced in a given situation” (2009: 339). They use the concept of framing- and feeling rules from Hochschild as well. They argue that people’s personal discours, or people’s subjectivity towards a certain topic, is based on the internalized feeling rules and framing rules. If a political discours changes, it could lead to new framing rules or feeling rules, and as result it can have influence on the personal discours of people.

3.1.2 Dominant discours

A discours has become the dominant discours in a society when it meets two conditions. The first is that the “central actors should be forced to accept the

rhetorical power of a new discours”, this is called discours structuration (Hajer 2005: 305). And second, the new discours needs to be institutionalized (Ibid). Uitermark (2012) argues that discourses are attached to a “milieu”, and all these milieus are part of an “arena”. In the arena, the discourses belonging to the different milieus collide with each other and struggle to make their discourse dominant (Ibid: 31-32, 37). This shows that there might be a dominant discours in a society, however, that dominant discours is not stable. It is continuously contested by other discourses within the arena (which is in the case of this research, the public debate) and therefore the dominant discourse and also the position of the other discourses in relation to this dominant discours changes over time. Another perspective on the way a discours becomes dominant is offered by Bröer (2006). He describes discours as “language in action” or “language in use” (Ibid: 52), but also as a way to order discussions. Through this ordering, certain perspectives are made possible and

(12)

11

certain perspectives are made impossible. By making certain perspectives impossible and thereby excluding them from the discussion, other discourses are maintained; these discourses are likely to become the dominant discours. Bröer & Heerings (2009) build on the discours theory by Hajer, and argue that a discours becomes dominant when “it assumes centrality: all utterances refer to it, while other kinds of knowledge are only referred to occasionally (Ibid), and also when a discours is institutionalised through law, practice, policy or organisation (Ibid). Most important in their article is the resonance model, which is the method used for this research. This resonance model systemizes the different possible relations between the dominant public discours and personal discours. There are three possible

relationships between the dominant public discourse and the personal discourse: consonance, dissonance, and autonomy. Consonance is the case when people adopt the dominant public discourse. Dissonance is the case when people adopt parts of the dominant public discourse and challenge its other parts. When people use a discours that does not consist of the dominant discours, or when they reject the dominant discours, it is autonomy. Bröer (2006) adds an important element to

resonance model. He defines dissonance as “when people partially adopt the dominant discours, partially diverging from it, and this divergence causes a conflict (Ibid: 70). Conflicts are the results of the coercive power of a discours against which people struggle (Broër & Duyvendak 2009). People try to justify the parts of the discours in which they diverge from the dominant discours. This justification takes place in different ways: by exaggerating the positive or negative parts of the discours, by making fun of the dominant discours, by being cynical towards the dominant discours, by distancing oneself from political actors that are part of the dominant discours, by denying parts of the dominant discours, or my adding arguments that go against the dominant discours (Bröer 2006: 61). Also, he introduces the concept of “repertoire”. A repertoire is an operationalization of discourses and consists of a set of words, phrases or argumentations that are characteristic for a particular discours. Based on a repertoire, there can be analysed whether a discours is in consonance, dissonance, or shows autonomy to the dominant discours (Ibid: 68). Also this concept will be used in the methods of this research.

(13)

12 3.2 Integration

3.2.1 Dominant policy on integration

A reoccurring topic in the literature about integration in the Netherlands is the change in the integration policy that has taken place over time. While the Netherlands was known for its multiculturalist integration policies regarding ethnic minority groups, it has shifted to an integration policy based on assimilationism. The assimilationist policy is considered to be a response to the failure of the former multiculturalist policy, which has not been able to integrate ethnic minorities sufficiently (Koopmans 2008, Jacobs & Rea 2007, Entzinger 2006, Vasta 2007). Yurdakul & Bodemann (2006) discuss the rise of “new assimilationism” in the Netherlands. While the “old” assimilationism is mostly about expecting immigrants to adapt to the cultural patterns of the host country, new assimilationism is different in the sense that “the new

assimilationism is open for difference, but not open to ghettoization, segregation and marginalization” (Ibid: 4). This new assimilationism is, according to Yurdakul &

Bodemann, related to the high unemployment rate and economic instability in the countries in which the new policy is implemented. At last, Entzinger (2006) discusses that Brubaker makes a distinction between “transitive assimilationism” and

“intransitive assimilationism”. Transitive assimilationism means making people similar to each other, while intransitive assimilationism is about becoming similar to each other. Brubaker would define the current assimilationist policy as transitive

assimilationism, while he is personally more in favour of a intransitive assimilationist approach (Ibid: 141).

Another perspective on the current dominant policy on integration is offered by Joppke (2007). He discusses the same change in Dutch society, however, he sees it as a shift from multiculturalism towards civic integration, instead of assimilation. Similar to the theory above on assimilationism, this shift took place as result of the “Dutch integration failure” (Ibid: 6, Goodman 2010: 754): the fact that a high amount of problems (unemployment, criminality, dependence on welfare, high amount of high school drop-outs etc.) occurred among ethnic minorities. This was seen as a sign that the integration of these groups, and therefore also the integration policies, had failed. In civic integration in the Netherlands there are several goals: the participation in the mainstream institutions, autonomy (as result of Dutch language acquisition) and labour-market integration (Ibid). One way to achieve this goals is through an

(14)

13

obligatory integration course and –exams that immigrants (in particular non-western immigrants) have to do before obtaining a residence permit or Dutch citizenship (Joppke 2007, Jacobs & Rea 2007). After the Netherlands started with this, the civic integration policy was taken over by other European countries. Despite the fact that different nation-states used their own interpretation on civic integration while

constructing their policies, the Dutch model has become the “model for Europe” (Joppke 2007: 9, Jacobs & Rea 2007).

3.2.2 Dominant discours on integration

Uitermark (2012) describes in detail the transformations in the integration debate in the Netherlands during the second half of the twentieth century. Uitermark

distinguishes five different discourses on integration that that exist in the integration debate during the period of investigation. These discourses are culturalism,

pragmatism, anti-racism, the diversity discourse, and civil Islam. Uitermark argues that between 1990 and 2005, culturalism has become increasingly present in the integration debate. In the culturalist discourse, ethnic minorities, in particular with middle-eastern cultures and an Islamic background, are perceived as problematic: they are associated with language problems, unemployment, criminality,

radicalization, the suppression of women, domestic violence, and they form a large burden on the welfare state. Besides, ethnic minorities are perceived as a threat to the Netherlands and its culture. To solve these problems, ethnic minorities should be obligated to assimilate in the Dutch culture, while at the same time, new immigration (in particular originating from Islamic countries) should be discouraged. Culturalism has an interesting relationship with pragmatism. Pragmatism is a discours that emphasizes “that integration problems are not just cultural but also socioeconomic and institutional. They argue that a range of measures are needed to prevent integration problems from spiralling out of control.” (Ibid: 267). Also, “it’s a discours that emphasizes that there are cultural differences, but these can be overcome through reasonability and dialogue.” (Uitermark 2010: 278). Pragmatism is the discours that he has found to be most presented during his investigation: Uitermark has found more than twice as much references to pragmatism than to culturalism. Therefore, pragmatism is classified as the dominant discours in the Netherlands (Ibid: 130). This is interesting, considering the presence of a more culturalist policy (see

(15)

14 paragraph 3.2.1).

The other discourses are relatively smaller than culturalism and pragmatism. Anti-racism is a rather marginal discours which encounters opposition when it moves closer to the core of the civil sphere (Ibid: 126). This discours emphasizes that ethnic minorities in the Netherlands suffer systematically from unequal rights, discrimination, racism, prejudice, stigmatization and exclusion from the public debate. It calls for a multiculturalist integration policy, in which the identity and culture of ethnic minorities is fully recognized, and for equal rights for all citizens. The civil Islam believes that civil commitment and the Islam can go hand in hand, as opposed to what culturalists argue (Ibid: 131). The reason for this, is that “the Islam demands full participation and commitment to the Dutch norms and values enshrined in the constitution” (Ibid: 138). Therefore, Muslims who do not participate or are willing to integrate in society, are criticized. The civil Islam calls for more participation of Muslims in the public debate, but also in the society as a whole. Then, the diversity discours argues that the ethnic diversity is essentially a good thing, and it offers many chances and possibilities for society. It calls for a less negative perception on ethnic diversity, and emphasize more its positive aspects.

Because the descriptions of Uitermark from the discourses were not sufficient to apply in the resonance model, repertoires have been formulated. These

repertoires are based on the expressions on integration of what Uitermark considers to be spokesmen of the discourses. These repertoires are presented in the chapter “Results”.

3.3 Students

3.3.1 Students and civic engagement

In this research, the object of analysis are civically engaged university students who work for the VoorUit Project. Various researches have been conducted on the civic engagement of students. According to Newell (2014), previous research has mostly focused on the civic engagement of students who obtained their diploma during 4-year bachelor’s programs in university, while the civic engagement of students who obtained their associates degree in community college is neglected. Therefore, he has compared the difference between the civic engagement of students with only a high school diploma with students with an associate’s degree, and compared the

(16)

15

students with who obtained an associate’s degree from community college with the students who obtained their bachelor’s degree at university. The outcome of this research is, that community college students are more civically engaged than students who only have a high school diploma, and less civically engaged than the students who obtained their diploma in university (Ibid: 77). An explanation for this, is that in community colleges the students often have jobs outside of campus, which makes them less likely to participate in civic engagement programs on campus. Moreover, community college students are often from lower-class or ethnic minority backgrounds, and these groups are in general less civically engaged than white students are (Newell 2014: 70). This outcome is in line with the results of the research conducted by Egerton (2003), who compared the civic engagement of students who entered higher education with their peers who did not enter higher education after high school. Also in this research, the outcome is that students in higher education are more civically engaged than their peers who did not go into higher education. An explanation for the difference in civic engagement among students is given by Torney-Purta (2010), who argues that the civic engagement among students differs per school, depending on the efforts the school puts into the stimulation of civic engagement among the students.

3.3.2 Students and integration

Students have been the object of research in various researches about integration. These researches have studied the effects of inter-group contact on students on high schools and universities. An example is the study of Reich & Purbhoo (1975), who studied the effects of intergroup contact by comparing students from a school with a high amount of New Canadians with students from a school with a relatively low amount of New Canadians. Another example is the research of Minatoya & Sedlacek (2006), who have studied the attitudes and experiences toward interracial contact among freshmen students at a large university. And last, Wells et al. (2005) have studied the effects of the desegregation of public schools on the students in the late 1970’s. In this research, there will be studied what the discourses on integration are of students who participate in a project that stimulates integration.

(17)

16

4. Methods

4.1 Object of analysis

The object of analysis are the students who are working for the VoorUit Project, which are the project-workers and the neighbourhood-coordinators. These students are all students from the University of Amsterdam or the Vrije Universiteit (VU), and they have different study-backgrounds. Project-workers are part of a neighbourhood-team and they organize the activities for the kids and their parents. Neighbourhood-coordinators are students who have worked as project-workers for one or two years, after which they have gotten into a higher leadership position within the project. They still do the same work as the project-workers do, but they have the additional task of being responsible for their team of students, the activities that are organized in the neighbourhood and the communication with organizations that the neighbourhood-team works together with to organize their activities (elementary- and high schools, neighbourhood centers, etc.). Besides the students, also the project-management is - to a smaller degree - object of research. The project-management consists of a project-manager and two project-coordinators, of whom only the project-manager and one of the project-coordinators have been part of the research.

4.2 Operationalization

The first main concept of this research is “discours”. I use the definition of discours as it is defined by Uitermark: “a coherent ensemble of framing and feeling rules through which meaning and emotion are ascribed to material and social realities” (2012: 29). In this research, the discours expressed by the students is analysed based on the resonance model (Broër & Heerings 2006) with help from repertoires (Bröer 2012). With this model, there has been analysed whether the discours of the students resonates the dominant discourse on integration, pragmatism.

The second main concept of this research is “integration”. A pre-defined definition of integration is not used for this research. Integration can be defined in many different ways, and which definition is used depends on the discours that a

(18)

17

person embodies. Since the purpose of this research is to find out about the discours that the students are using, this concept is left open for the interviewees’ own

interpretation.

4.3 Methodology

4.3.1 Interviews

The main method for collecting the data in this research has been through

conducting interviews. There have been conducted 14 interviews in total: 2 interviews with members of the management (the coordinator and the project-manager) and 12 interviews with students working for the project. The students are selected based on both probability sampling and non-probability sampling (Bryman 2004: 171 & 183). The 7 neighbourhood-coordinators and the two members of the project-management have been selected by non-probability sampling. They have been approached by e-mail. In this e-mail, I have given a general description of my research topic, which is called “partial truths”. This is the case “when the research topic is described in general terms, not indicating the specific area of interest” (Hammersley 2013: 3). The risk of telling the interviewees beforehand what exactly the purpose of the research is, is that it could make them biased in their answering. They might answer in a way that they think is more socially desirable (“sociaal wenselijk”) or politically correct, or they could watch their language carefully if they know this is what the researcher is focusing on in a discours-analysis (Ibid: 4). The 5 project-workers have been selected by probability sampling through a simple random sample. A list has been made per neighbourhood-team of all the project-workers working for it, and based on this list the interviewees have been randomly selected. They have been approached by e-mail, and also in this case I have given a general description of my research topic. When project-workers did not reply to the e-mails, or suddenly stopped communicating by e-mail while we were discussing days, times or places to meet, new students have been selected, until there were 5 interviews with workers conducted. The students and the members of the project-management have been labelled as follows in this thesis:

(19)

18

Student (ST) Position Sex

1 Project-worker Male 2 Neighbourhood-coordinator Male 3 Project-worker Female 4 Neighbourhood-coordinator Female 5 Project-worker Male 6 Project-worker Female 7 Neighbourhood-coordinator Male 8 Neighbourhood-coordinator Female 9 Neighbourhood-coordinator Female 10 Neighbourhood-coordinator Female 11 Neighbourhood-coordinator Male 12 Project-worker Female

Table 1. Naming of the students interviewed

Project-management (PM)

Position Sex

1 Project-coordinator Female

2 Project-manager Female

Table 2. Naming of the members of the project-management interviewed

The students had freedom in choosing the place where the interview would be

(20)

19

in the office of the VoorUit Project. From the 12 interviews with the students, 1 interview took place in the cafeteria of the University of Amsterdam, 1 interview took place in a local restaurant in the neighbourhood Geuzenveld, 2 interviews took place in the neighbourhood-center of the neighbourhood the students belong to, and 8 interviews took place at the homes of the students. Since they chose the place themselves, I assume that these places were comfortable places for them, where they would feel free to talk. Before the interviews started, I let them know that this interview was anonymous: I would not use their names in the thesis. Also, I let the students know that I was recording the interview on both my recording device and my phone. The use of a recording device was very useful, since I could focus on the interview itself instead of having to write down notes all the time. The interviews were semi-structured (Bryman 2004: 436). Beforehand, an interview-guide (Ibid: 321) has been set up with questions that needed to be asked during the interview in order to be able to answer the sub-questions (see 8. Annexes). I have tried to leave the questions as open as possible, to make sure that the interviewees wouldn’t be

influenced in their answers. The interview-guide has been used in a flexible way. The order of the questions differed per interview, depending on what the interviewee talked about or other interesting topics that were brought up during the interview. In the case that other topics were brought up, I would go more into detail about it, and go back to my interview guide later on in the interview. Despite the large amount of advantages semi-structured interviewing has, this does make it rather difficult to replicate the research (Ibid: 284). During the interview I tried not to look down to my question-list too often, to make the interview feel more like a conversation. I expected this would create an atmosphere in which my interviewees would feel most

comfortable talking to me. All of the interviews were conducted in Dutch. After the interview, each interview has been transcribed. Transcripts are, according to Gee (1999) theoretical entities that are part of the analysis, because a transcript is written based on what the researcher judged to be important for the research (Ibid: 83). To decrease the level of subjectivity, I have written out the transcripts as detailed as possible – even the parts that I considered not to be of importance for my analysis. The interviews have been transcribed in Dutch. In my thesis, all the quotations from the students have been translated to English.

(21)

20 4.3.2 Desk-research

A desk-research has been carried out to answer sub-question 1. The desk-research has focused on the website of the project, which includes a short video about the project. The website is used because I assume it is created by the

project-management, and therefore it reflects the project-management’s discours on integration.

4.3.3 Analysis of the data

The transcripts and the website used for the desk-research have been analysed by the resonance model (Broër and Heerings 2012, Bröer 2006) with help from

“repertoires” (Bröer 2006). The dominant discourse is characterized by a set of

words, phrases or argumentations that form altogether a so-called “repertoire” (Bröer 2006: 68). The discourses that Uitermark (2012) has described, were not usable as repertoires for the analysis based on the resonance model. Therefore, they have been operationalized into repertoires based on interviews (on video or on paper) with, or articles written by, spokesmen that Uitermark has ascribed to each discours. Out of these interviews and articles, there have been selected words, phrases or arguments that are characteristic of the discours that the spokesman expresses regarding the integration of ethnic minorities. Then, this selection of words, phrases and arguments has been moulded into repertoires. The transcripts of the interviews and the resources of the desk-research have been analysed based on these

repertoires. There is consonance to the dominant discourse when students or members of the project-management used the same repertoire as the dominant discourse does. There is dissonance, when students of the members of the project-management partially used the repertoire of the dominant discourse and partially differed from it , and this comes together with a conflict: they try to justify why they diverge from the dominant discours. There is autonomy to the dominant discourse, when the students or members of the project-management did not use the repertoire of the dominant discourse at all (Ibid: 68-69). There has also been studied whether the discourse is in consonance, dissonance or shows autonomy to one of the

discourses that Uitermark discusses, or if the interviewees showed other expressions that could not be linked to any of these discourses.

(22)

21 4.4 Limitations

One of the critiques on qualitative research is that it would be too subjective (Bryman 2004: 284). There have been stages in the research process during which I have been obliged to use my own interpretation, for example while writing the repertoires or applying the resonance model. This subjectivity could harm the replicability and the reliability (Bryman 2008: 28) of my research. The fact that I have been involved in the project in the past could have had an effect on this research, in particular on the data-collection through the conduction of interviews. In the first place, I assume that arranging the interviews with the students working for the project has been much easier for me than it would have been for an “outsider”. I’m not certain whether the students would have been so corporative if I were a stranger to them. Also, since I have worked together with some of the students that I have interviewed, the context in which the interviews have been conducted is different from the interviews with project-workers who I did not know before. This friendship-like relationship could have caused the student to give more information than they would have given to any other interviewee because the student felt at ease, or trusted me with the information they gave me. On the other hand, the student could also have given less information, exactly because I’m not a stranger to them. It’s also possible that the students in general did not give me some information because they assumed that I would know about that, as ex-project-worker. Despite my efforts to be as objective as possible during the interviews, the influence that my position could have had on the interviews could harm the reliability and replicability of my research (Bryman 2004: 28).

Another limitation is the representativeness of the students that have been interviewed. There are working in total 64 students for the project. Since there are 12 students out of the 64 students interviewed, only 19% of the total amount of students have been interviewed for this research. Validity “has to do with the question of whether a measure that is devised of a concept really does reflect the concept that it is supposed to be denoting” (Bryman 2008: 28). The 19% of the total amount of students, questions the external validity of this research. It is impossible to argue that this small group of interviewed students represent all students involved in the project. Therefore it is important to note that the conclusions derived from this group of

(23)

22

The last limitation has been the translation from the transcripts and the repertoires from Dutch to English. In the translation process, there is the risk that an expression gets translated in the wrong way, and the meaning of it could be interpreted

differently. To prevent this, I have translated the transcripts and repertoires as literal as possible. Another difficulty of translating is that it is sometimes difficult to find the accurate translation for certain words. In the few cases when it was too difficult to find the accurate translation, I have chosen to translate it as good as possible while

(24)

23

5. Results

5.1 Repertoires

Uitermark (2012) has ascribed to all of the 5 discourses a spokesman or multiple spokesmen. These are people who have been characteristic for that discours during a particular time that he has investigated for his research. Based on various sources in which the spokesmen express their ideas on integration of ethnic minorities, the following repertoires have been formulated.

Pragmatism

For the repertoire of pragmatism, the discours of politician and former mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, is studied. The resources that have been studied are three articles: “Let’s learn from what happened to the Turks and Moroccans” by A. van den Breemer (2014), “Mayor of Amsterdam Job Cohen about religion and integration:

“allochtonen” are in danger of turning their back to society” by unknown author on the

website of Welzijnswerk (2003), and “Integration is belonging and participating”, by E. van Dijkhuizen in Reformatorisch Dagblad (2006). Also a speech Job Cohen gave to the university students of the University of Leiden (2010) has been used. Based on these resources, I have formulated the following repertoire of pragmatism:

There are ethnic differences in our society that could possibly cause problems, but those can be overcome through reasonability and dialogue. This dialogue should be based on openness, trust and respect. Putting emphasis on these ethnic

differences will only lead to the opposite effect. Therefore, we should look for common norms and values to create more social cohesion. Integration can only happen through acceptation. Integration is belonging, and participating. Dutch

language is very important, because when you don’t understand each other it creates an enormous distance. It’s the task of the government to keep things together (“de boel bij elkaar houden”) and to make sure integration of ethnic minorities does not spiral out of control.

(25)

24

Culturalism

For the repertoire of culturalism, the discours of the following spokesmen have been studied: Paul Scheffer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders. The

resources that have been studied are three articles: “The Islam is a retarded culture” by P. Fortuyn (2002), “The multicultural disaster” by P. Scheffer (2002) and “Publicist

Paul Scheffer: No divided future, but a shared future” by J. Zutter (2009). Moreover,

there have been used the following videos: Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the tv show Pauw & Witteman (2010), Pim Fortuyn at the tv show Barend en Van Dorp (2010), Paul Scheffers at the tv show “Netwerk” (2007) and Geert Wilders at a news item of the tv channel Omroep West (2014). Based on these resources, I have formulated the following repertoire of culturalism. This repertoire starts with the general idea of assimilation that all spokesmen have in common. Then, the repertoire will continue with the ideas from the different spokesmen, starting with Scheffers, and ending with Wilders.

Ethnic minority groups have become an increasing burden to our welfare-state. Unemployment, poverty, welfare-dependency, high school drop-outs and criminality are piling up among these groups. The solution to these problems is the assimilation of ethnic minority groups in the Dutch culture. This means that they should learn the Dutch language and adopt the Dutch norms and values, such as progressive ideas on (homo)sexuality, equality between men and women and religion. Assimilation in the Dutch culture is for their own good, because it will improve the situation that they are in. If they do not assimilate, they will stay outside of the Dutch society. The Islam does not fit in our liberal, modern, western nation-state, and it’s a retarded,

backwards religion which oppresses women. It’s time that the politics stands up for the Dutch natives, who have seen their country change in a negative way because of the mass-immigration, in particular the immigration from Muslim countries. The Moroccan youth is a big problem is our society. This criminal scum (“tuig”) needs to be dealt with harshly (“keihard aanpakken”). If you are a criminal, then you have nothing to do here.

Anti-racism

For the repertoire of anti-racism, the discours of the political activist Abu Jahjah is studied. The resources that have been studied are the article “Abu Jahjah: the

(26)

25

fragments from the tv show Pauw & Witteman (2007) and the TV show Nederland Kiest (2010). Based on these resources, I have formulated the following repertoire of anti-racism:

Ethnic minorities in western nations are systemically stigmatized, discriminated and victims of racism. They are not only excluded from the public debate on

integration, but also excluded from the society as a whole. They are not seen as full citizens, and they are treated unequal compared to native citizens. The government plays a role in this by neglecting ethnic minorities. There is a paternalistic integration-policy which forces ethnic minorities to integrate. Instead, there should be

multiculturalism I which everybody has the right to have their own cultural identity, and in which every citizen is equal.

Civil Islam

For the repertoire of civil Islam, the discours of academic and writer Tariq Ramadan is studied. The resources that are used are interviews with Tariq Ramadan: “An

interview with… Tariq Ramadan on Islam in the West” by an unknown author (2012),

“Living together: an interview with Tariq Ramadan” by O. Reyes (2005) and two speeches by Tariq Ramadan: “Muslims in the West: Beyond Integration” (2010) and

“The Western Muslim” (2012). Based on these resources, I have formulated the

following repertoire:

The Islam goes well together with commitment to the Western society many Muslims are living in. Muslims should put more effort to integrate in the society. Muslims should not be ignorant of the potential from other cultures or religions. We can integrate from the Western culture everything that’s good. Integrating doesn’t mean giving up the Islamic principles. Key words are integration, participation, emancipation and performance. Refuse the victim mentality, and stand up for the responsibilities as citizens and Muslims. Muslims should become more part of the public debate.

Diversity discours

For the diversity discours, the discours of Ahmed Aboutaleb has been studied. The resource that is used for this, is the article by R. van Heesse, “Aboutaleb: immigrant

heeft hier niets te verliezen” (2005). Based on this resource, the following repertoire

(27)

26

Ethnic diversity is essentially a good thing in our society. We should look at the positive side of ethnic diversity and the potential it has for our society. Ethnic

diversity can create new possibilities and offers new chances.

5.2 To what extent does the dominant discours resonate in the discours of the project-management?

For this analysis, two resources have been used: the website of the VoorUit Project and the two interviews with the project-management. The website of the project4 consists of general information about the project and video “VoorUit met de wijk” (going forward with the neighbourhood). In this video, the founder of the project, some project-workers, a mother of a contact-family and two representatives from partner-organizations of the project tell what the project is about. The two interviews with the project-management are conducted with the project-manager and one of the project-coordinators.

5.2.1. Consonance to the dominant discours

There are three elements in the discours of the project-management that fit in the repertoire of pragmatism. These elements are meeting each other (and other variants), the importance of the Dutch language, and participating.

Meeting each other

Meeting each other and other variants (such as getting to know each other, getting in contact with each other, or getting into a conversation with each other), are frequently mentioned by the project-management. This phrase is similar to “getting into a

dialogue”, a phrase that is part of the repertoire of pragmatism. In the video on the website, the founder of the project argues:

“Participation seemed to us a very important theme in which different ethnic groups participate with each other, getting to know each other, and learning to deal with each other.” (video)

4

(28)

27

The male student who works for the project explains the importance of getting to know each other. According to him, there is a causal relationship between people getting to know each other and being able to live together:

“The meaning of this is that different groups get to know each other, and through this encounters, get to know each other better and be able to live together in a better way.”

(video)

Then, a female student who works for the project says in the video that the

neighbourhood-center plays an important role in getting people in contact with each other: this way the students don’t only get in contact with the kids, but also with their parents.

“Through the neighbourhood-center where lots of parents bring their kids, people get in contact with each other. More and more people talk about it. And through the kids, you also get in contact with their parents”. (video)

On the website itself, people getting together is part of the goals of the project5.

“The project creates an encounter between students and residents. The activities focus on building sustainable relationships between different ethnic groups” (website)

“Part of the project is stimulating the encounters between students from all over the country and residents from different ethnicities. This consist of different activities, daily encounters on the street, and the organization of events.” (website)

Also, the project’s goal is the “creation of meeting-grounds” where people can meet each other. One of these meeting grounds is for example the neighbourhood-center where people can meet each other or a playground in the center of the

neighbourhood. For the two members of the project-management, the first purpose of getting in contact with each other is that different ethnic groups won’t stay segregated from each other on their own islands, and get more respect for each other:

“And.. definitely meeting each other.. ehm.. living together.. ehm.. getting into a conversation with each other. That groups aren’t sitting on their own islands but that they mix with each other and respect each other.” (PM1)

Mixing people from different ethnic backgrounds will not only decrease loneliness among people, but also create a nicer atmosphere:

5

(29)

28

“There are so many people who live isolated, who are lonely.. ehm.. never get in contact with their neighbours or.. well.. Moroccan people with Moroccan people. (…) And yes.. I see at VoorUit how it can work when you can break through that a little bit.. that you make sure people will meet each other, that there can be such a nice atmosphere.” (PM1)

Also, getting in contact with each other is a means to prevent prejudices and stereotypes that exist among ethnic groups.

“And through the contact, you can understand each other better. Because if you don’t have any contact, then your ideas about others are based on nothing actually, haha.”

(PM2)

The idea of getting in contact with each other, is seen as something that starts small, and then expands itself.

“What I mean with integration and what I think is most important is that you just get in contact with each other. At the moment when you do that, and you spread it out to other people, then there starts a sort of oil-spill. Even though it starts in a street or a neighbourhood, there is the idea that eventually it becomes bigger and it becomes nicer for everybody.” (PM2)

The importance of the Dutch language

The second element that is common in the discours of the project-management, is the importance of a good Dutch language proficiency. The website describes in the section about the activities they organize6 that for women, there are organized different morning-activities such as “reading newspapers, and Dutch language- and

conversation classes”. Also for the men, Dutch language classes are organized.

Then, one of the results of the project is described as follows:

“As result of the activities with kids, women and men, the Dutch language is used increasingly.” (website)

For the members of the project-management, the Dutch language is considered important because it’s necessary to understand each other when you meet each other. Besides, it is seen as a way to increase the confidence of people, and they are able to go to places where they speak Dutch, instead of a language that they already know:

6

(30)

29

“To be able to find your way in society and to meet each other and to understand each other’s language, you need to speak each other’s language. So that’s why I think it’s very important. And you see.. I saw it myself when I did it. When you teach women Dutch, they become more confident. They go now to the Hema to buy something, while they first only went to the Turkish or Moroccan shop because they could speak their own language there.” (PM1)

Participating

The third element is participating and being involved in the neighbourhood, but also in society as a whole. In the video, the founder of the project argues:

“Participation seemed to us an important theme in which different ethnic groups participate with each other.” (video)

And on the website, one of the main goals of the project is: “an increase in mutual

involvement”. For the members of the project-management, the importance on participating is part of a larger goal that residents in the neighbourhood should strive for: being

independent, or self-sufficient, in society.

“I think it’s about being independent, that they can manage without having to betray their own culture or background, but that they can participate, following education, and give their kids the tools to function well.” (PM1)

5.2.2 Other expressions

There have been found three new expressions that are interesting to discuss more elaborately: paternalism, the socioeconomic improvement through middle class standards, and emphasizing an equal relationship that is not there in reality. At last, there will be shortly touched upon the importance to having similar ideas on

integration in order to be hired for the project.

Paternalism

There have been found various fragments on the website and in the interviews with the members of the management that consist of paternalism. The project-management is critical about the situation of the kids (and their parents), and they know what’s good, or what would be better, for them. In the video on the website, the male student argues:

“Here they don’t always have the money to send their kids to music class or to sports, and that is something that we’ve had, and that is good for the development of a child. We try to compensate this by organizing activities in the neighbourhood center and around it..” (video)

(31)

30

This statement implies a critical note on the upbringing of the kids that are living in the neighbourhoods that the project is involved in. According to the

project(-management), it is important for their development to do activities such as sports and music class, but their parents are not able to offer these activities to their kids

because they can’t afford it. Therefore, the project is seen as a way to compensate for these “needs” by providing these activities in the neighbourhood-center.

The female student argues:

“(the neighbourhood center) is a place where kids are away from their situation, and just be a kid, and getting that little bit of extra attention and fun. You see that these kids get less attention, and that’s why you notice that they like it to get some extra attention in the neighbourhood center or when we visit them at home” (video)

This quotation also implies critique on that the kids don’t get (enough) attention at home, and that their home situation apparently is in such a bad condition that they can’t “just be a kid”. Also this quotation presents the project as a compensation, in this case for the lack of attention that the kids get at home and by giving them an alternative place to go to apart from their own house.

On the rest of the website, there are some statements on how the project works, and what the effects of the project are on the residents in the neighbourhoods. For women, it “opens for them the eyes for the Dutch society, next to the use of

Dutch language”, whereas for men, it “brings fathers closer to the world of their children and it expands the own scope”. For the kids, their

“results in school improve, the youth is hanging less on the streets and their free time is used in a useful way. (…) The Dutch language is used increasingly.” (website)

These statements are critical about the way residents live in the neighbourhoods, and the project has their own idea about what would be better for them: they should

participate more in society, they should be more involved with their kids, they should have good school results and spend their free time in a useful, productive way. Then, the students are considered to be the “ambassadors of the outside world, and at the

same time residents of the neighbourhood”. It implies that the neighbourhoods are

areas closed off from “the outside world”, as if the neighbourhoods are isolated worlds on their own without being in contact with anything else outside of it.

(32)

31

in the “outside world”, a world they (apparently) don’t know of. This idea of the students “teaching” the residents is a clear example of paternalism.

Also in the interviews, there have been found various fragments that consist of paternalism. In the following quotations, the project-management argues that it’s the task of the parents to become more active in our society, in order for their kids to do so as well.

“If you want to achieve something you have to start with the parents. And ehm..

when.. kids just like their parents know the way better, know better what kind of facilities there are that kids can use, and know that it’s important that kids read books, you name it. Then.. then.. yes.. we try to break the circle” (PM1)

The project-management explains the lack of participation by that the parents have not been able yet to “take the step in society”, and that they are still at the beginning of an “emancipation process” to become more active in society.

“There are many.. who are self-sufficient, the parents, to take the step into society, to know the channels in society, to know at least how to go to the library. (…) Or the television, to watch the “Jeugdjournaal” or the “Klokhuis”, that is not so self-evident. And ehm.. reading books, yes, all of these things that are so important for the development. That’s what’s missing. And we can achieve something with that. (PM1)

“I think it’s a sort of.. emancipation process.. not everybody, because some people are.. it’s not for everybody.. but that a lot of people.. are still in the beginning of the process.. or don’t have enough confidence to.. to know what there is.” (PM1)

Socioeconomic improvement through middle class standards

The ideas that the project-management has about what is “good” and what is “bad”, which are present in the paternalistic statements described above, seem to be based on middle-class values to improve the socioeconomic situation of the kids and their parents. Examples of these ideals are spending free-time in a useful way that

contributes to the development of kids (music classes, sports), good results in school, a good Dutch language proficiency, and participating in society. These ideals are all contributing to create better chances for the future to be able to get out of the lower-class position in society. (In this paragraph, quotations have not been used because they are already presented in the former paragraphs.)

(33)

32

Emphasizing an equal relationship that is not there in reality

There are fragments in which the equality of the relationship between the students and the residents is emphasized, but at the same time it is also contradicted by, for example, the paternalistic statements that have been made. The

project-management portrays the students living in the neighbourhoods as “any other neighbour”.

“There is a lower threshold for residents to talk to students and also the other way around of course because ehm.. yes.. you can just say: “I’m the neighbour. You know. So there’s easier contact, you get in the houses of people easier, they trust you easier with things. And.. you can bring people together easier because you’re close to them” (PM1).

Also, the project-management emphasizes the equal, mutual process by stating that the students and residents learn a lot from each other.

“And they can learn a lot of things.. learning the family, they take the family for example to the library.. or ehm.. the parents come with questions like: oh I got a letter from school, what should I do with this? Give me advice, what means the CITO-exam? What happens with that? But also the other way around of course, there’s a lot of mutuality, that students also learn a lot from the family. And it’s not like: we come to your house to learn you something or help you, because you need help. It is really mutual, with mutual respect for each other. The student can learn a lot from the family, from the culture there..” (PM1).

Ideas on integration during the application-procedure

During one of the interviews, the topic of the application procedure of the students came up. PM2 explained to what extent the students need to have the same opinion on integration as the project-management in order to be hired as project-worker. It turns out, that the project-management does take into account the ideas on

integration of the students in the process of hiring them as project-workers:

“So even though they don’t have directly ehm.. don’t know much about it, or they have never experienced anything like that or they don’t follow the debate about it.. but that they do say: I’m very open to other people, I really want to help people, and that they also say I think that language is very important or contact with each other. Those values or the idea that I’m open about integration is more important than how well somebody can formulate it. (PM2)

(34)

33 Conclusion

The answer to this sub-question is that there is consonance to the dominant discours, pragmatism. This consonance could be found in the fragments of meeting each other, the important of the Dutch language and participation in society. Other than consonance to pragmatism, there could be found 3 other expressions that are of importance for the discours. These expressions are paternalism, describing an equal, mutual relationship between the students and the residents while at the same time making statements that contradict this, and a focus on middle class standards to improve the socioeconomic situation of the residents.

5.3 To what extent does the project-management instruct the students in organizing their activities?

As is the case in many organizations, the structure of the project could be seen as a pyramid. At the top is the project-manager, who manages the project-coordinators but indirectly also the neighbourhood-coordinators and the project-workers. Due to this direct and indirect power of the project-management on the students working for the project, one of the factors that could influence the discours of the students

working for the VoorUit Project is the project-management. During the interviews, the interviewees have been asked directly to what extent the project-workers and

neighbourhood-coordinators have freedom in choosing the activities they organize, or they brought it up themselves during the interview. The result is a quite unanimous: both the project-management and the project-workers argue they have a lot of freedom in choosing the activities. However, the project-management has control over, or needs to approve of, the choice of activities of each neighbourhood-team at two moments: before a new semester starts when each team decides about the activities they are going to organize, and during the semester while the activities are carried out.

5.3.1 Before the start of the semester

Before the new semester starts, each neighbourhood-coordinator makes a new schedule of the activities and the students who carry out these activities. Before the new schedule is made, the project-workers discuss together with the neighbourhood-coordinator which activities they would like to do in the new semester. Both the

Bringing different worlds together : discourses on integration among students from the VoorUit Project