"The least you can do is listen to them”
On street-level practitioners and their strategies to respond to conflicts
Floor Nanninga 10525394
Master thesis Conflict Resolution and Governance University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Dr. David Laws Second reader: Dr. Benno Netelenbos
Date of submission: 26 June 2020 Words: 31992
3
Abstract
This study tells a story about street-level practitioners and their responses to emerging conflicts in their practice. This research investigated the case of citizens resistance and conflict which unfolded in response to the implementation of 24-hour shelter locations for undocumented asylum seekers in Amsterdam. The emerging conflicts and responses of the practitioners were analysed through a conflict lens. The study demonstrated that the conflicts encountered by practitioners were related to several elements. First, the implementation aroused conflict because the pilot was considered a controversial policy and the experimental design led to unclarity about procedures. Second, residents feared the negative impact this shelter, and the undocumented inhabitants, would have on their neighbourhood. Third, the design of the citizens participation provided by the municipality fuelled frustration among residents. The practitioners, due to their position in the front-line, encountered these expressions of anger, frustration, resistance and fear of the residents. The involved practitioners responded mainly with constructive behaviour and actions, however their position in the front-line limited their options. Furthermore, the controversial and experimental design of the pilot complicated their choices for constructive action. This study showed that even though the front-line practitioners tried to constructively handle the conflicts; prevailing negative assumptions regarding undocumented asylum seekers, the implementation of an experimental policy, and their position of dependency between the municipality and citizens, complicated their work.
4
Acknowledgements
First of all I want to express my gratitude to my supervisor David Laws, who supported me from a safe distance through zoom meetings and emails. Thank you for your encouraging words and suggestions. Also, I would like to thank the CRG students and our thesis group in particular, who were all very supportive and who made this master study a great experience.
I also would like to express my appreciation to the practitioners and residents who I
interviewed for this thesis, who shared their personal experiences with me about sometimes difficult moments and internal struggles.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my mother, father and brother for their endless support, love and encouraging words. Furthermore, I am grateful to all my friends, and especially Valentijn, who supported me throughout this process.
5
Table of Contents
Abstract _________________________________________________________________________ 3 Acknowledgements ________________________________________________________________ 4 1.Introduction: Dealing with conflict in street-level practice ________________________________ 7 1.2 Research aim and research question _____________________________________________ 9 2. Theorizing the development of a policy dilemma to a conflict in frontline practice ___________ 10 2.1 Introduction and the use of a street-level approach ________________________________ 10 2.2 The asylum gap: The emergence of a policy dilemma _______________________________ 12 2.3 From policy dilemma to street-level conflict ______________________________________ 14 2.4. Looking at SLBs practice through the lens of conflict _______________________________ 15 2.4.1 SLBs: conflict within their practice ___________________________________________ 15 2.4.2 Transition to a conflict perspective __________________________________________ 16 3. Framework for analysing the work of SLBs through a conflict lens ________________________ 18 3.1 Differentiating types of conflict ________________________________________________ 18 3.2 Presenting the framework for analysing behaviour in conflict_________________________ 19 3.2.1 Framework for analysing constructive and destructive behaviour __________________ 20 4. Methodology __________________________________________________________________ 28 4.1 Qualitative approach and a case study design _____________________________________ 28 4.2 Research methods __________________________________________________________ 30 4.2.1 Research method 1: Discourse analysis _______________________________________ 30 4.2.2 Discourse analysis: data gathering ___________________________________________ 31 4.2.3. Research method 2: Semi-structured interviews _______________________________ 33 4.2.4 Semi-structured interviews: data gathering ___________________________________ 34 4.3 Limitations _________________________________________________________________ 36 4.4 Ethics _____________________________________________________________________ 37 5. Analysis and findings: Emerging conflicts & responses _________________________________ 38 5.1 Media discourse analysis: the story lines and key events ____________________________ 38 5.1.1 General reactions and story lines ___________________________________________ 38 5.1.2 Story lines Pieter Aertszstraat 5 _____________________________________________ 41 5.1.3 Story lines Van Leijenberghlaan 11 __________________________________________ 44 5.1.4 Comparison of the storylines ______________________________________________ 47 5.2 Conflicts experienced by the street-level practitioners ______________________________ 48 5.2.1 Realistic and unrealistic elements in the conflicts _______________________________ 49 5.2.2 Interpersonal, intrapersonal and system conflicts ______________________________ 51 5.2.3 Concluding: the conflicts encountered in practice ______________________________ 53 5.3 Conflict behaviours and strategies of the street-level practitioners ____________________ 54
6 5.3.1 Emotions: “They just open their heart about their fears” _________________________ 55 5.3.2 Interests and untangling people and problems: “I think we are taking some steps now” 59 5.3.3 Recognition: “The municipality does not listen to us” ___________________________ 61 5.3.4 Perception and participation: “There have been discussions with all neighbourhoods” _ 64 5.3.4 Communication: “The more information people get the more reasonable they become” 66 6. Conclusion and discussion _______________________________________________________ 71 6.1 Summary of the findings ______________________________________________________ 71 6.2 Which conflicts did emerge at the street-level? __________________________________ 71 6.3 How did the street-level practitioners experience the conflicts? _____________________ 73 6.4 How did the practitioners respond to the conflicts? ______________________________ 73 6.2 Answering the research question _______________________________________________ 77 6.3 Discussion _________________________________________________________________ 78 6.4 Limitations _________________________________________________________________ 79 Bibliography ____________________________________________________________________ 80 Appendix A: Original Dutch quotes media discourse analysis ______________________________ 86 Appendix B: Original Dutch quotes from the interviews __________________________________ 93 Appendix C: Table with references ___________________________________________________ 98
7
1.
Introduction: Dealing with conflict in street-level practice
Every day, conflicts happen and differences are negotiated. Whether it be trained professionals in war-zones, ordinary people in their daily lives, or employees working for the government, all need to negotiate differences and handle conflicts in their daily encounters. According to Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011), who researched negotiation processes, conflict situations arise when opinions or interests differ from each other. The chance on conflict increases when a large amount of opinions and interests are involved (Agger & Poulsen, 2017, p. 368). For instance in situations where a single decision affects many individuals at once, such as new policies implemented by a municipality. As Lipsky already wrote in 1980, are the practitioners who work at the front-line generally in charge of implementing these new policies into the real world. Consequently, they face the resistance and conflicts that emerge in response to these policy implementations. In their work they need to consider the interests of the municipality, the national government, the involved citizens and the general public. This work takes place on the ‘front-line’, or at the ‘street-level’ as it is called; in interaction with citizens (Lipsky, 1980). Therefore, their work includes handling and negotiation of conflict situations, to ensure that citizens and the municipality are able to collaborate in a constructive way.
Without being actual negotiators or mediators, these front-line practitioners need to handle conflict situations in their daily practice and they respond in an constructive way to emerging challenges in interaction with citizens. However, good negotiation strategies and handling of conflict situations are not always self-evident, and even with the best intentions certain actions could lead to escalation of a conflict. For instance, Deutsch (1973) wrote in his study on conflict escalation, how providing unclear information can lead to misunderstanding, which can in turn lead to escalation (p. 353-354). Nevertheless, these practitioners seem to find ways to constructively resolve tense situations. The question arises; how do these street-level practitioners handle, deal with, negotiate or mediate the conflicts that arise in their work? Therefore, it is interesting to investigate how these practitioners working at the front-line handle conflicts in their practice, especially when they are involved in controversial cases.
When the street-level practitioners need to implement controversial or experimental policies, their work grows even more challenging. With the implementation at the street-level these practitioners encounter the first responses from citizens and are sometimes confronted with community unrest or emotional outbursts. In the Netherlands, and specifically Amsterdam, the cases that often spark controversy concern undocumented migrants and refugees. Previous research on undocumented migrants, the policies regarding migration, and the implications of implementation
8 demonstrate that in the end the street-level practitioners need to deal with the complexity of these issues (Van der Leun, 2003; Kos, Maussen & Doomernik, 2016).
An example of a new migration policy that created heated debates, protests and unrest in reaction to the implementation the street-level was the LVV1 pilot. This pilot was designed to create
24-hour shelter for undocumented asylum seekers, through an agreement reached in 2018 between the Dutch national government and a few larger cities in the Netherlands (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). While the national government and the municipality finally reached an agreement, this was not the end of the controversy surrounding this group. The local resistance in Amsterdam unfolded after the municipality presented the plans to create shelter locations for 500 undocumented persons (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). The search for shelter locations caused very emotional community meetings and heated debates. After the announcement that an LVV shelter location would be placed in their area residents expressed their objections to the involved street-level practitioners, who in turn needed to negotiate these challenges (Couzy, 2019; Muller, 2019a).
To gain understanding in how practitioners who work at the front-line negotiate and handle conflicts, their personal experiences and strategies will be explored. This qualitative study will focus on the case of the new LVV shelter pilot for undocumented migrants in Amsterdam, to exemplify the conflicts that practitioners might get involved in. The aim of this research is to investigate how the practitioners experience the complexity and tensions within their work, and how they deal with- and negotiate these social conflict situations of community resistance in their daily practice.
9
1.2 Research aim and research question
Summarized, the aim in this research project is to understand how:
1) Involved street-level practitioners experience and handle conflict when they work on a contentious issue and;
2) The case of 24-hour shelters for undocumented migrants in Amsterdam will be explored, because it exemplifies working on a controversial case and so will provide insight into how street-level practitioners behave and develop strategies to cope with-, mediate, negotiate, and handle conflict situations.
Therefore, in this current study the following research question will be investigated: Do street-level practitioners working on LVV 24-hour shelters for undocumented migrants in Amsterdam experience conflicts that arise in their daily work and if so, how do they deal with these conflicts?
To answer the research question and reach the aim for this research project, the structure of the thesis is presented. First, academic literature is used to theorize the development of a policy dilemma and its transformation to a conflict in frontline practice. This section presents the developments of the concept of street-level bureaucrats, to the explanation of the asylum gap in the Netherlands, the LVV pilot and the community resistance that emerged in the work of the practitioners in Amsterdam. Second, the choice for a conflict lens to look at the practice of street-level practitioners in this case is elaborated on. In this chapter the framework is explained through which the experiences and behaviour of the practitioners can be analysed. Third, the methodology and research methods are described in which is reflected on research design and combination of two methods, discourse analysis and semi-structured interviews, and choices made regarding data gathering. Subsequently, the analysis chapter presents all the findings of both the discourse analysis and the interviews with street-level practitioners. Finally, the findings are summarized and the research question is answered in the conclusion.
10
2. Theorizing the development of a policy dilemma to a conflict in
frontline practice
2.1 Introduction and the use of a street-level approach
This following chapter describes how the development and implementation of a policy in the City of Amsterdam can become a conflict in the work of front-line practitioners. Here I will review how the problem that is presented to the involved front-line practitioners developed and how it is being addressed on the streets of Amsterdam. The framework that I will use to trace the development of the policy problem into a conflict at the street-level, is derived from Lipsky’s analysis of street-level bureaucrats (1980). The concept of street-level bureaucrats will also be used to clarify the eventual effort to address this ‘problem’, of citizens resistance towards the implementation of the LVV shelters.
At the time that Lipsky (1980) first wrote about street-level bureaucrats (also referred to with the abbreviation SLB), much of the analysis of policy implementation and work of the practitioners at the street-level was described in terms of a bureaucratic hierarchy. These practices were generally looked at from a top-down approach and therefore considered that policy goals were clear and therefore easily implemented by public service workers (Gilson, 2015, p. 1). The prevailing idea was that these practitioners translated the often-general directives into specific policy goals and procedures—often drawing on the discretion that they were granted to execute their work. This relationship of hierarchy and authority played the role of coordinating action and resolving conflicts until the policy was eventually implemented on the ground. However, Lipsky’s work contrasted with this top-down analysis that was used until then (Lipsky, 1980, p. 9-15, Gilson, 2015).
Lipsky changed this perspective by using a bottom-up approach, focusing on the practitioners that work at the street-level (Gilson, 2015). He pointed out that that the general accepted top-down policy approach with its bureaucratic hierarchy was incomplete. This was because in practice, the top-level policy makers were depended on the practitioners at the front-line of implementation. Managers and top-level policy makers relied on the work of these front-line or street-level practitioners to achieve their goals. Besides that, these managers had limited possibilities to monitor the work of the practitioners and to sanction their behaviour. This meant that rather than a relationship of hierarchy, the work in policy bureaucracies was characterized by interdependence between the upper levels of strategy and management and the practitioners on the front lines that Lipsky called street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980, p. 15-25). With this new approach Lipsky turned the world of the bureaucratic hierarchy on its head and argued that “The decisions of street-level bureaucrats, the
11 routines they establish, and the devices they invent to cope with uncertainties and work pressures, effectively become the public policies they carry out. […] Public policy is not best understood as made in legislatures or top-floor suites of high-ranking administrators, because in important ways it is actually made in the crowded offices and daily encounters of street-level workers.” (Lipsky 1980, xii). Lipsky also pointed out that the interaction between these street-level bureaucrats and the public was crucial. These street-level bureaucrats are all public employees, who can work in various agencies and organisations, however they have their job characteristics in common: ‘they interact with citizens directly and have discretion over significant aspects of citizens’ lives’ (Lipsky, 1980, p. 4). On one hand, in their work, SLBs mediate a relationship between the citizen and the state and “hold the keys to a dimension of citizenship.” (1980, p. 4). They hold the keys to resources that are important to the lives of the citizens, in the form of social welfare services. On the other hand, citizens understanding of their relationship to the state developed through these interactions between SLBs and them. He quoted Piven and Cloward:
“. . . people experience deprivation and oppression within concrete setting, not as the end product of large and abstract processes, and it is the concrete experience that molds their discontent into specific grievances against specific targets . . . People on relief [for example] experience the shabby waiting rooms, the overseer or the caseworker and the dole. They do not experience . . . social welfare policy. In other words, it is the daily experience of people that shapes their grievances, establishes the measure of their demands and points out the targets for their anger.” (Piven and Cloward, as cited in Lipsky, 1980, p. 10)
Lipsky explicitly points out here, that the way in which the public experiences social welfare policy is often through experiences with street-level practitioners. The relationship between SLBs and citizens is therefore also based on dependence, the citizens depend on the resources and discretionary decisions that the practitioners can make over their lives. This highlights that the treatment of the public by these practitioners matters a great deal to individuals, in how they feel treated by their government. Consequently, this also influences if these individuals will respond with anger, resistance, or protest (Lipsky, 1980, p. 9).
Overall, Lipsky paints a picture of a mix of dependence and interdependence that continues to provide a useful lens even as the particulars have changed. In the story that I will discuss in the next section, this mix of dependence and interdependence between levels of government and front-line practitioners will also appear. The idea that citizens draw meaning from what goes on in the interactions between front-line practitioners and the public, also remains relevant. In the next section
12 a particular policy problem will be demonstrated to highlight key features of Lipsky’s analysis of street-level bureaucrats and how this analysis demonstrates relevant points until this day.
2.2 The asylum gap: The emergence of a policy dilemma
In this section I will elaborate on the development of a policy problem which is referred to as “the asylum gap”, that illustrates the background story to this research. It also highlights key features of Lipsky’s analysis and shows how these features remain relevant even as the context has changed in significant ways.
This policy dilemma starts with the implementation of immigration policy in the Netherlands. Over the years, increasingly strict national immigration policies and discouragement policies towards illegal immigration are implemented by the national policy body IND2 (Rusinovic et al., 2002, p. 4). However,
due to implications with the implementation of these immigration policy this has created complications, referred to as the ‘deportation gap’ or ‘asylum gap’. This gap is identified as the mismatch between the ambitions of the immigration policy and control and the implementation of those policies by front-line practitioners (Kos, Maussen & Doomernik, 2016, p. 358). The result is that there are many rejected asylum seekers who should have been deported, but for various reasons are still living in the Netherlands and have never returned.
The implications of the implementation of this policy, through the discretionary decisions of some of street-level practitioners, created a dilemma. Some of the asylum seekers who were denied sanctuary could not be expelled from the Netherlands. As Mensink (2020) described: “This lacuna arises because asylum seekers cannot present ‘satisfactory’ evidence of their country of origin, but cannot be sent back because the Dutch government does not expel people to proven dangerous areas, or because countries refuse to take back residents who have fled” (p. 1228). Therefore, in the Netherlands there are an unknow number of rejected and non-removed asylum seekers still present and thus live here. However, they; “are basically denied an existence (and thus ‘disappear’) while staying on Dutch territory” (Mensink, 2020, p. 1228). These rejected asylum seekers are therefore becoming ‘illegal’, ‘irregular’ or ‘undocumented’ persons. Next to that, the national government excludes them from welfare services like shelter. When the strict immigration measures are not enough to stop unwanted migrants, then the “wall around the welfare state” will exclude them from access to the labour market and public services when they illegally try to build a live in the Netherlands (Engbersen, 2003, p. 22, Ataç, 2019). They are rejected from government support like shelter and are
13 often homeless (Mensink, 2020, p. 32). This created policy dilemma, had two effects at the local level of the City of Amsterdam.
The first effect was that the asylum seekers who were denied status did not take the decisions as compliant clients, they decided to make themselves visible and advocated for a solution to their ambiguous position. Since 2012 they started to organize themselves in Amsterdam and started the collective: “We Are Here”. The We Are Here movement has been squatting houses and public buildings, calling for political action for their situation. They cannot be deported, but also are not supported by the government. Their activism and actions have resulted in increased visibility and they became active at the city level. The movement developed alliances with other activists, NGOs and religious institutions, and advocated for themselves. They advocated that they were the victims of this policy gap and asked for a solution. They presented a policy dilemma, as they were not official residents, but also could not be removed (Mensink, 2020; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018).
The second effect was that for city officials these unofficial asylum seekers posed a dilemma. These rejected and non-removed asylum seekers should not be living in the Netherlands; however, they are still living in these Dutch cities. Their presence created local challenges, as the undocumented persons are often homeless and might cause problematic situations for the safety of other citizens. Some individuals in the city government and public have been sympathetic to these non-removed asylum seekers. Similar to the street-level bureaucrats in Lipsky’s theory, the city officials in the Netherlands pushed back on the hierarchy of national policy. These SLBs were actively exercising desertion: “Municipal authorities, street-level bureaucrats and public professionals are known to be active in trying to counter and cushion national policies, by bending the rules, setting up facilities to support failed asylum seekers, and by being actively involved in networks with NGOs and citizens that strive for more humane and inclusive approaches towards migrants” (Kos, Maussen & Doomernik, 2016, p. 356). The debate about the undocumented persons in Amsterdam resulted in various forms of municipal shelters: in 2013 the “Vluchthaven” and in 2014 the ‘Bed-Bad-Brood shelter”3. These
locations offered only night shelter, a shower and some food, and offered a temporary solution (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). In the academic literature on migration this phenomenon is described as “municipal activism” (Delvino & Spencer, 2019).
Furthermore, mainly larger Dutch cities; Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Eindhoven, Utrecht and Groningen, pushed back in a more organized way and negotiated a policy with each other and the VNG4. In May 2018 the new coalition agreement in Amsterdam stated that it was their ambition to
create 24-hour shelter for undocumented migrants in Amsterdam, to offer a more sustainable solution
3 Translated: “safe harbour” and “Bed-Bath-Bread shelter”
14 in which will be worked on their future perspective. This also led to a push in the negotiation with the national level. On the 28th of November 2018 the State Secretary Harbers and the VNG signed a cooperation agreement regarding the LVV5 pilot. After this agreement, Amsterdam became one of the
municipalities that would start an LVV pilot (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018, p. 8-10). With that agreement, the city government of Amsterdam committed to seek to address the needs of 500 rejected asylum seekers for housing and services, 24-hours per day.
Here I place a side note to the story, this current research refers to these non-removed rejected asylum seekers as “undocumented”, in line with the City of Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). This is of importance to this study, since in the academic literature there is no consensus on the terms used for the persons who are living in a certain country after they have been denied asylum. They are referred to with a variety of terms: illegal, irregular, unauthorized, undocumented, non-removed or rejected - migrants, asylum seekers, immigrants, refugees. The complexity of choosing the right words is related to the complexity of the persons who are deemed to be within this category: people who entered legally, but are staying illegally for instance (Kubal, 2013, p. 562). The various terms that are used to refer to this group also represents a variety of opinions. Calling, or framing, these persons as ‘irregular or illegal’, signals that they are also doing something illegal. Others rather call them rejected asylum seekers or undocumented persons, as a more neutral term to show that these people are stuck in an asylum system that fails to offer them a solution (Delvino & Spencer, 2019).
2.3 From policy dilemma to street-level conflict
The commitment of the city government of Amsterdam to the LVV pilot, that offers 24-hour shelter for undocumented persons, signals the start of a new problem. Where would these shelters and services be provided? This task became the domain and responsibility of a group of front-line practitioners who were employed by the municipality of Amsterdam. It also became important in the work of front-line practitioners who carry responsibility for citizens the neighbourhoods in which the shelters would be located, such as local police officers. With these concrete steps of implementation of the 24-hours shelter, the conflict erupted at the street-level practitioners’ level. Who found themselves between organized advocacy for the undocumented refugees and the City’s commitments, and local residents and groups who were impacted by decisions about where these shelter and services will be located, and the political opposition in the city government who were against support of this group.
15 Summarized, the story presented in the previous chapter is the move from a difficult problem in immigration policies called the “asylum gap”, which leads to the creation of a new collective of rejected and non-removed asylum seekers called “We Are Here”. These undocumented asylum seekers find support and this leads city level governments to disagree with national policy and eventually develop a new policy framework; the LVV pilot. This pilot commits the city of Amsterdam to finding locations to provide housing and services which puts responsibility for resolving the tensions that remain around this issue in the hands of front-line practitioners.
This current study focuses on the front-line practitioners who work on the emerged conflicts around the layouts of providing shelter and services to undocumented people in Amsterdam. The search for locations and the actual placement of the shelter in neighbourhoods resulted in tension and conflict between various actors, where resistance mainly unfolded from neighbouring residents. Here is shown that the development of this story, from policy to implementation at the street-level, are presented as local problems in the end, leaving the front-line practitioners involved with the responsibility to take action.
2.4. Looking at SLBs practice through the lens of conflict
The described developments in the previous chapter place the street-level bureaucrats who are involved in this LVV pilot at the centre of a budding conflict over where and how to provide service. Knowing the conflict nature of the practice, a conflict perspective analysis might offer a useful tool to analyse the work of the SLBs in detail. First of all, using relevant literature, the conflict strategies of SLBs in their specific position will be discussed. Secondly, to support the choice for a conflict perspective in this research, I will elaborate on how we can understand conflict and explain the important role of behaviour and actions in conflicts.
2.4.1 SLBs: conflict within their practice
According to Agger and Poulsen (2017) who researched conflict strategies applied by SLBs in their in Sweden and Denmark, the practitioners at the front-line often have to manage problems directly on the ground. On the one hand, they need to follow political strategies and act accordingly to the norms of the public bureaucracy, such as being impartial and securing the “public interest”. On the other hand, these practitioners are also expected to initiate collaboration, mobilize stakeholders and networks, be close to the public, align agenda’s, establish the goals and overcome resistance. Their roles are often divers and nowadays often increasingly related to interactive governance, citizen participation and other forms to make sure that all interests are included in implementation of the
16 policies (Escobar, as cited in Agger & Poulsen, 2017, p. 370). Therefore, the front-line practitioners are often in situations where conflicts, tense situations or problems need to be handled.
Lipsky (1980) also pointed out that front-line practitioners interact with the public around these controversial questions and cases, just like in the current case of the LVV pilot. When a policy changes, the SLBs are facing the reactions of the public. If a policy causes controversy, then the critical or angry responses are directed at the street-level practitioners responsible for carrying out this policy. Furthermore, while implementing policy, the practitioners make important discretionary decisions that cause a tension between acting for the public interest, acting in favour of the individual cases, and responding to the wishes of the institution (Lipsky, 1980, p. 8-10). Their interactions with the public are therefore an important influence on how the public views certain issues.
As shown in the first section, the way in which street-level bureaucrats approach these issues, influences how citizens and affected groups see and experience these issues. Besides, this influences how citizens perceive their relationships with these practitioners, the government or municipality. This highlights the importance of how front-line practitioners respond in conflict situations. Taking into account these multiple levels of interactions and responsibilities sheds light on the conflict potentials of the practitioners work in this specific field. Therefore, an analysis of the front-line practitioners work though the approach of conflict is demanded.
Using a conflict perspective to look at street-level bureaucrat behaviour is seldomly applied in the academic research. However, this method is already suggested in 1997 by Lan, a public administration scholar. He argued that: “The sensitivity of public administrators to the opportunities provided by conflict could make a difference in the outcome of the conflict” (p. 29). Two scholars that have used this approach on SLB experiences in conflict in citizens participation projects, are Agger and Poulsen (2017). They argue that there is not so much attention for the actual strategies that these SLBs use to interact with citizens, mediate between conflicting opinions, or negotiate between all the actors (Agger & Poulsen, 2017). Following from both researches on SLBs practices in conflict natured work, it is suggested that the conflictual nature of the work of these practitioners can gain from more studies with a conflict perspective (Lan, 1997; Agger & Poulsen, 2017, p. 369).
2.4.2 Transition to a conflict perspective
To understand the value of a conflict perspective, this chapter will demonstrate how conflict can be understood, and why behaviour and actions can be of importance to look at while studying conflict.
Social psychologist De Dreu (2010) states that conflicts have often been approached as negative and destructive: “However, the functions of social conflict are much broader, and its impact stretches beyond immediate gains and losses.” (De Dreu, 2010, p. 984). Also sociologist Coser (1956)
17 argued that conflict has social functions in a society. He argues that conflict can be seen as the force behind creative innovations and the mobilization of collective action, often to change unequal power-relations (Coser, 1956, p. 38-39, 56).
Social conflict is always related to social interaction as it is created by multiple individuals or parties. To use a definition based on this idea: "Social" conflict refers to conflict in which the parties are an aggregate of individuals, such as groups, organizations, communities, and crowds, rather than single individuals, which is the case for role conflicts” (Oberschall, 1978, p. 291). Therefore, Coser highlights that social conflict has to be studied by looking at the interaction of individuals and their interdependence, as it goes beyond individual psychological characteristics of for instance hostility (Coser, 1956, p. 38-39, 56).
Accordingly, De Dreu states that: “Conflict requires interdependence” (2010, 984). All parties, individuals and groups alike, are dependent on each other in order to achieve outcomes that are important to them. Following this, one party who feels deprived of certain outcomes, will, according to social psychology, “attribute this state of deprivation to the actions or inactions by the interdependent other or others” (2010, p. 984). Then a conflict can move from a latent or potential state to a manifested conflict, however this only happens when the deprivation is attributed to the other parties behaviour. Furthermore, when conflict has become manifest, parties will engage in strategic action. This can be; initiate negotiation or mediation, go to court, withdrawal from the problem, or engage in other actions. “The emerging action – reaction cycles may intensify and escalate the conflict or may take the form of more constructive negotiation and joint problem solving” (De Dreu, 2010, p. 984). These cycles can go from years to minutes and increasingly affect all who are involved, in a positive or negative way (2010, p. 938).
This understanding of social conflict and the action-reaction cycles that might lead to escalation or de-escalation of the situation also illustrates the weight that is put upon the practitioners representing governance to handle these conflicts in a good manner to prevent escalation. Conflict can be understood as an opportunity for the improvement of governance, if the involved practitioners know how to respond in a constructive way (Lan, 1997, p. 29; Verloo, 2015). Therefore, whether a conflict can work as an opportunity or a risk, depends on the behaviour and actions that involved individuals and groups employ. A framework to look at these actions and behaviours will be presented in the next chapter.
18
3. Framework for analysing the work of SLBs through a conflict lens
This chapter demonstrated the framework that will be used to look at the work of street-level practitioners from a conflict perspective. As previously described, the study of conflict has
emphasized that a key factor in whether conflicts escalate or transform to a constructive situation, is the behaviour of those involved. In this final section I will first demonstrate various types of conflicts, that can help differentiate the conflicts which can arise in the work of the involved practitioners. Furthermore, I develop a framework for analysing the behaviour and actions of front-line
practitioners that draws on the study of conflict, negotiation and mediation and provides insight in how to handle conflicts in a constructive manner.
3.1 Differentiating types of conflict
Within conflict there are distinctions that can help determine what kind of conflict has emerged and what the response should be the either improve or worsen this situation. To understand what kind of conflict arises, and even more importantly, how one should react to the type of conflict improve a constructive outcome, this section explains several types of conflict.
Coser (1956) introduced the following distinction to understand conflict: unrealistic and realistic conflict. The unrealistic version is a conflict that is used to release energy, anger and frustration. The realistic version is a conflict that will be solved if there is a solution found that will meet people's needs. Mayer (2010) explains the difference in handling between these types: “The unrealistic component will not be satisfied by a good solution, but instead requires listening, ventilation, acknowledgment, validation, a day in court, or some means of expressing or releasing the feelings and energy associated with a conflict. The realistic component requires a satisfactory solution, one that addresses people's essential interests.” (p. 22). This distinction can be confusing because both types of conflict are feel as real conflicts for the individuals who are experiencing it. However, handling these conflicts is different. In unrealistic version, one needs to deal with the anger, frustration, or fear that the individuals involved may experience. In the realistic version it is necessary to work towards a solution that incorporate all interests of the individuals involved. It demonstrates the importance in understanding what kind of conflict is happening first, before arriving at the best way to address the situation (Mayer, 2010).
Agger and Poulsen (2017) use a different classification to look at the micro level conflicts that the street-level practitioners are experiencing. They distinguish between system conflict, interpersonal conflicts and intrapersonal conflicts. System conflicts are emerging when there are
19 contradictions within the system itself, in the work of these street-level practitioners that could be different forms of types of governance or opposite policy goals within the same administration, which can affect the relationships among the administration. “[...] system conflicts in relation to the SLBs’ work with neighbourhood actors (externally) and other municipal actors (internally)” (p. 377). Interpersonal conflicts arise between two or more persons, often directed at a specific matter. Here, a system conflict can move into the private sphere. Intrapersonal conflicts are experienced within a person, these concern “for example, ethical dilemmas or professional values/ standards that conflict with political or administrative goals.” (p. 372). These distinctions can clarify where the problems originate from, which can help finding constructive ways to handle the conflict.
Through the distinctions between these types of conflict the conflict experiences in the current research will be analysed, to provide insight in the conflicts that emerge in the SLBs practice.
3.2 Presenting the framework for analysing behaviour in conflict
To understand the significance of the responses of the street-level practitioners when they encounter conflict situations, this section will look at the possible conflict behaviours and strategies. In this section, I developed a framework for analysing the behaviour of street-level practitioners that draws on the study of conflict and efforts to resolve or transform, conflicts in a constructive manner. I identify key issues from a behavioural perspective, for each I identify particular behaviours that could be observed and that can be seen as indicators of these behaviours.
In the framework micro conflict strategies and behaviours are illustrated, these actions are divided in constructive and destructive. The constructive behaviours or actions are leading to a positive process, towards conflict resolution or transformation. The destructive behaviours or actions are leading to negative processes, towards escalation and intensification of the conflict. The distinction between response or behaviour that can lead to a constructive or destructive turn in the conflict is important to remark. Deutsch (1973) described in his study how destructive conflict will expand and escalate and often become independent of original causes. On the contrary, constructive conflict is working towards problem solving, cooperation and an outcome for both parties (Deutsch, p. 351-352, 359). This is also mentioned by De Dreu (2010) in the last section, in relation to the cycles of action-reaction that could result in either escalation or de-escalation. The urgency to choose the right response is present in the practice of a street-level practitioner when doing their regular job, and even more so when a conflict emerges. Because constructive and destructive are often related, it is the same issue that is at hand, but depending on how you engage in it, and what you do, it makes things better or worse. Certain behaviour or actions can be well intended, however result in escalation due to how it is received by the other party. There are practices that contribute to recognition, for instance,
20 but also practices that result in a feeling of not being recognized, which can evolve in destructive turn in the conflict (De Dreu, 2010).
3.2.1 Framework for analysing constructive and destructive behaviour
In order to analyse behaviours and strategies the practitioners use to deal with conflicts that emerge in their practice, this table is created to provide some structure and a clear overview. The table follows the structure of themes of Fisher, Ury, and Button’s design of a “method of principled negotiation” (2011). It will be complemented with studies and theories from other scholars who researched mediation or negotiation, focused on micro-level conflict interaction. In the appendix the complete table with references is demonstrated in appendix C, for a clear overview the references are only displayed in the appendix and the explanation below the table.
The column on the left demonstrates the key theme’s that are important in conflict situations. The green columns in the middle display the constructive behaviours and the indicators of this constructive behaviour, indicators in italic. The red columns on the right, are the destructive or negative behaviours and their indicators in italic. Below the table the themes and behaviours will be elaborated on, which explains the behaviours and indicators.
Theme
Constructive
behaviour/action Indicators
Destructive
behaviour/ action Indicators
Recognition Listening
Taking the other serious, showing concern, showing
interest, attentive listening Not-listening
Preoccupation with own agenda or interest, politely hearing them out - but not listening
Respect (the persons and their ideas)
Acknowledge the persons ideas and interests
Do not show respect (the persons and their ideas)
Humiliate or neglect the other
Take care of basic human needs like: recognition
Acknowledge the person, treat them fair and equal
Ignore basic needs, like: recognition
Focusing only on needs like: money. And overlook the other human basic needs
Untangling people and problems
Deal with people problems directly; don't try to solve them with substantive
concessions
Separate the; issues, terms and conditions, from other topics like, emotions, communication and psychological problems
Treat people and problem as one: entangle relationship with substance
Express statements or problems as personal attacks, blaming the other
21
Face the problem, make it a shared problem
Side-by-side approach to solve the problem: "Let's look together at the problem of how to satisfy our collective interests."
(Fisher et al.,, p. 23)
See the other as the opponent
The other is the adversary, react defensive and the others’ interests are regarded not legitimate
Perception and participation
Understand the other sides thinking and perceptions
Trying to understand the others point of view, put yourself in their shoes and discuss the different perceptions
Each side may see only the merits of its case, and only the faults of the other side's
Attacking the other, making assumptions about their perception or even blaming the other for your problem
Give the other side a stake in the outcome, by making them participate in the process
Involve the other early in the process, ask their view and give them power to the process and the outcome
Don't let the other side participate in the process
Let the other participate, but don't give them the real power to change anything. Or not involve the other in the process at all
Understanding or learn about the other
Move beyond words; meet each other outside of the process, drink a cup of coffee together, really get to know each other, small talk.
Not learning about the other and no understanding of the other
Pick out the information that proves your point, assume how the other is based on your own perception
Emotions
Recognize and understand emotions (theirs and yours)
Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate, learn from emotions as facts Don't recognize, understand or acknowledge emotions as legitimate
Emotions are ‘misleading,’ or ‘distracting.’. Provide no place for emotions in the process
Allow the other side to let off steam
Allow the other to let off steam, listen, and do not respond to accusations
Don't allow the other to let off steam
Classify the emotions as non-rational and do not recognize these as important
Use symbolic gestures: apology, promise, sympathy
A note of sympathy, a statement of regret, shaking hands or embracing, eating together, apologize or make a promise
Never use symbolic gestures
Don't show sympathy, forgiveness or promises
Communication
Dialogue; negotiation is communication
Focus on the specific tone, style, and conditions of conversation and dialogue
Unreliable and impoverished communication
Unreliable and impoverished communication, focused on contractions
Speak to be understood
Talk to the other side. Find ways to improve the communication. Use positive
Not hearing what the other said
Blaming the other for problems, speak in difficult
22
storytelling to find a common interest
language, focus on the contradictions
Listening
Listen actively. Listening enables you to understand their perceptions, feel their emotions, and hear what they are trying to say.
Misunderstanding, not listening
Misunderstanding, not hearing the other. Forget to listen to what the other side is saying now
Interests
Look for underlying interests, focus on the interests, not on the position
Look for underlying interests: each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears. Listen to the reasons justifying proposed solutions
Only focusing on positions
It is a conflict of positions and the goal is to agree on a position, therefore the only discussion is about positions
Recognition
Recognition is the first theme. Fisher et al. (2011) state that it is necessary to take care of basic needs, like recognition, while negotiating differences. Recognition can in itself be an important interest that lies behind a certain position that people take in a negotiation, along with; security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging and control over one's life (Fisher et al., 2011, p. 27). These interests are sometimes overlooked, but very important to keep in mind, as “Negotiations are not likely to make much progress as long as one side believes that the fulfilment of their basic human needs is being threatened by the other” (Fisher et al., 2011, p. 28).
Listening will return in several places in this table, and it plays a role in recognition. It is a strategy or instrument that can be used to improve the constructive process on various levels. Forester (2019) shows with his experience why listening can make a difference, as he asked many people over the years the following question: “What difference has it made to you, when someone else has really been listening to you?” (p. 115). He related the answers to the practice of all who need to work together and draws the conclusion that not only the information that practitioners provide, but also the way they interact has a great influence on how collaboration with, for instance, citizens will turn out: “Depending upon the variably attentive work of listening […] deliberators—people working together—could actually produce more or less respect or disrespect, acknowledgment or humiliation, recognition or dismissal, inclusion or exclusion, sense of safety or danger.” (Forester, 2019, p. 116). This attentive listening, and therefore recognition can improve problem-solving or conflict situations. This also demonstrates the negative influences that can be the result of not listening, not showing signs of recognition, humiliate or neglect people, when they have the (basic) need to be recognized (Forester, 2019).
23 Particular behaviour that can indicate attentive listening, respect, and recognition, are for instance: “One part of listening to others and learning from others then […] involves expressing a real regard for the other, taking them seriously, showing a concern that fits the gravity of the situation at hand” (Forester, 2006b, p. 126). On the other hand, when someone seems only focused on their own agenda and interests, this can indicate that they are not listening and are not recognizing the other persons experiences or opinions (Forester, 2006b, p. 116).
Untangling people and problems
Fisher et al. (2011) have written on the importance of how relationships and ‘people problems’ can be entangled with the conversations about ‘substance problems’ in conflicts. When this distinction is not clear, then for instance the emotions directed at a problem, can be projected at a person, or the other way around. The best practice is to try to separate the substance matter from the other issues, to separate the; issues, terms and conditions, from other topics like, emotions, communication and psychological problems. The behaviour that can lead to escalation is for instance expressing statements in the conflict as a personal attack can lead to escalation of the conflict (p. 14-15).
Another action to separate the people from the problem, is to move from ‘the other is the opponent’ towards ‘we have a shared problem that we should solve’ (Fisher et al., 2011, p. 23). If the negotiating parties are viewing each other as “adversaries in a personal face-to-face confrontation”, then it might be difficult to discuss issues without taking it personal. Anything that is said will be heard as a personal attack and each side will become defensive. However, if the actors involved are able to understand each other “as partners in a hard headed, side-by-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to each”, than might the underlying interests be reconciled (2011, p. 23). Here the step is made towards solving the problem together, even though the parties are opposing each other in the beginning.
Perception and participation
The theme perception is about understanding and comprehending the other. As Fisher et al. argue: “Understanding the other side's thinking is not simply a useful activity that will help you solve your problem. Their thinking is the problem. Whether you are making a deal or settling a dispute, differences are defined by the difference between your thinking and theirs.” (2011, p. 15). To understand the people who think differently about something, as is often the case in a conflict situation or negotiation, you need to try to look at the situation from the other perspective (Fisher et al., 2011, p. 15). The actions one can take to really seek understanding of the other party are to try to look at the world from their perspective and feel how the situation would feel if you were in their position. The opposite; making assumptions about their perception or even blaming the other for your
24 problem, or only looking at the situation from your perspective, will probably result in a stalemate. One could discuss the perceptions of both sides and make all perceptions, understandings and expectations explicit (Fisher et al., 2011, p. 17).
Furthermore, these perceptions are related to understanding and learning about the other. Agger and Poulsen (2017) described the strategy that the front-line practitioners in their study employed, the: “coffee diplomacy strategy”. This strategy entails to engage in small talk, show appreciation to people when they participate in a meeting. These acts are part of relationship- and trust building (p. 381). These actions are used to learn about the other, that moves beyond just listening to the words people say within an argument, but really taking the time to gain understanding of each other. Also Forester (2006b) interviewed a respondent who told that residents want: “ […] the planner at least to ‘care about [their] point of view,’ thus to recognize it, to acknowledge its claims, to understand it (even if it is just one view of many), to consider it seriously, to respect it.” (Forester, 2006b, p. 127). This example shows how important it is for people to feel that someone, a practitioner, understands and cares about the point of view of others who are involved.
Participation is in included in this theme, because Fisher et al. (2011) recommend involving people in the process of negotiation in an early stage. “If they are not involved in the process, they are hardly likely to approve the product. It is that simple” (2011, p. 18). Also, Arnstein (1969) highlights in her “Ladder of citizens participation”, that when participation does not provide real power to citizens, this can work counterproductive. According to her, citizen participation is a word that includes many forms of “participation”, not all of which are empowering for the citizens. Participation can therefore lead to more unrest, dissatisfaction or a false sense of participation. Arnstein (1969) argues, that forms like informing and consultation are: “When they are proffered by powerholders as the total extent of participation, citizens may indeed hear and be heard. But under these conditions they lack the power to ensure that their views will be heeded by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow through, no “muscle,” hence no assurance of changing the status quo.” (p. 217).
As Fisher et al. (2011) mentioned, when people have no stake in the process or the outcome, they are less likely to agree with the term of an agreement for instance. Even though, Fisher et al., and Arnstein refer to different strategies and context of conflict resolution, negotiation of agreements for the first and citizens participation for the latter, it still shows that people need to have some say over the process in which they are participating. And that it if does not include some power, it can harm the process.
25 Emotions
“Feelings may be more important than talk”, state Fisher et al. (2011, p. 19). Therefore, emotion sensitivity is related to solving conflicts. Emotions are important to recognize, to understand and foremost it is very important to respond to emotions in the right way. Forester (2006b) describes how the chance on a good conversation, negotiation or problem-solving session decreases if practitioners do not respond in a good way to emotions and set these aside as ‘non-rational’ or ‘distracting’. Instead he recommends learning through emotions, because it is possible to learn from emotions as well as from facts, these will provide insight in the complexity of a situation (p. 138-141).
Forester (2006b) researched the importance of responding rightfully to emotions, as he noticed that when practitioners fail to be sensitive and responsive to the emotions of citizens, these same citizens will respond with increased anger. As he theorizes: “Sue teaches us, as Martha Nussbaum (1990) does, that a rationality that makes no place for such emotional responsiveness is an impoverished rationality, one not only partially blinded to what comes before it but one that’s actually counter-productive, fuelling anger and resentment and thus exacerbating rather than working to respond sensitively to civic problems at hand.” (Nussbaum, as cited in 1990 in Forester, 2006b, p. 127). Here is touched upon the importance of acknowledging emotions as part of rationality and being aware of the impact that a response will have, can lead to a constructive or destructive turn in the conflict situation. Fisher et al. (2011) also recommend to “recognize and understand emotions” (p. 19), meaning both the emotions of the other and your own emotions. The action related to this statement is to acknowledge emotions as legitimate.
Furthermore, allowing people to let off steam can also be a strategy, as people need to express their emotions to find the starting point of a reasonable conversation. On the other hand, if emotions are not recognized or heard, people will get frustrated and upset. This can lead to an impasse in the conflict situation. Emotional outbursts can best be responded to by listening and without reaction to possible accusations. When the other side reacts emotional to the emotional outburst as well, than this might lead to increased tense situation that can get out of control (Fisher et al., 2011, p. 19-20).
Another strategy to improve a conflict situation is using a symbolic gesture, which can according to Fisher et al., have a “constructive emotional impact” (2011, p. 20). In order to understand the power of these symbolic actions, Hannah Arendt (1958) wrote on promises and forgiveness. Here, she directed attention to the fact that actions and speech of humans can result in consequences that are irreversible and unpredictable, because every action leads to other actions and reactions in the world of human relation and interactions. Arendt thought of two ways in which to undo actions in human interaction: forgiving and promising. Forgiving relates to the past and the irreversibility of actions, forgiveness can release a person from the unintended consequences of a certain action.
26 Promises relate to the future, and with a promise the actions in the future are somewhat less unpredictable (Arendt, 1958, p. 212-237). Such small acts of apologizing or a note of sympathy, cannot lead to the other forgiving you, however it can send the message that you are personal and emotionally invested and might improve a hostile situation (Fisher et al., p. 20).
Communication
Listening is one of the reoccurring themes in this table, above listening is already mentioned as a powerful sign of recognition, understanding and respect. However, as a communication tool listening as active listening, is also crucial. Negotiation, problem solving, working together, these are all processes of communication according to Fisher et al. (2011, p. 21). “Listening actively and acknowledge what is being said’ and “Speak to be understood” are their main advices to improve communication (p. 21-22). Their advices to improve communication are to focus on the other, try to understand and hear what they tell you, ask for clarification of statements, and speak in a clear manner in a way that the other will understand. Also, to improve communication it could work to organise smaller meetings or other ways to have a conversation without distractions (Fisher et al., 2011, p. 21-22).
Deutsch (1973) wrote on how the process of destructive conflict often starts with unreliable and impoverished communication, and the parties become more sensitive to differences than similarities, which in turn can lead to misjudgement and misperception (p. 353). “Misperceptions function to transform a conflict into a competitive struggle - even if the conflict did not emerge from a competitive relationship”. (p. 353-354). This can result in the escalation of a conflict situation. Misunderstanding or misinterpretation is easily created, as people often do not listen actively or do not hear what the other said (Deutsch, 1973). Therefore, all forms of communication are important to take into account.
Listening to the other also means learning about the other and their interests, perspectives, emotions and backgrounds. As Forester wrote: “[...] In a globalizing world of increasing cultural diversity, we need to listen more carefully both to—and, every bit as important, beyond—“the words”!” (2009, p. 54). He described how mediators advise to focus less on conflicting arguments, and more on for instance the tone and style (Forster, 2009, p. 56). As the people in the interactions are growing increasingly diverse, attention needs to be payed to the differences and be curious to really relate and understand, this will improve the opportunities to find new solutions to conflict situations. Another strategy used to improve communication discovered by Agger and Poulsen (2017) was the “deliberate use of ‘positive storytelling’ by street-level practitioners. This was done in various ways, in which the practitioners tried to find the common direction for different opinions or to focus on ‘what could be’ (p. 382).
27 Interests
Looking for interests is important in negotiations and problem-solving. Fisher et al. (2011) argue that It is important to focus on the underlying interests instead of the positions of the involved persons. People tend to take positions in a conflict and argue about these conflicting positions. However, these scholars argue that interests define the problem and that it is necessary to discover the other parties’ interests, needs and concerns to move beyond an impasse (p. 23-24). This moves the conflict out of the pro- and anti-positions that oppose each other, to the option that various solutions might be possible to reconcile the variety of interests. As stated by the authors; “Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones.” (2011, p. 24). This provides the possibility that these positions are not so opposed as parties in a conflict might assume.
When people in conflict are proposing their solutions to a problem, these solutions do not tend to cover all the interests that lie behind those. Forester (2006a) researched best practices of mediators and describes how mediators try to find the interests behind people’s positions and the solutions they propose to a problem. Therefore, one “[…] must listen to the reasons justifying those solutions, which may reveal pressing underlying interests.” (p. 452). Listening to the argumentation of people for their solutions might offer an insight in their real interests behind the position they have taken (Forester, 2006a).
The destructive turn is in this case exactly the opposite of looking for underlying interests, thus: arguing over positions, not pausing to listen to the arguments and interests of the other party. Trying to reach agreement and settling on one position often results in stalemate (Fisher et al., 2011, p. 23). In the research of Agger and Poulsen (2017) on street-level practitioners’ behaviour in conflicts, they found that in such stalemate situations SLBs would play “the municipal card”. This meant that they would intervene and take the situation of disagreement to the City Council, and this often resulted in anger among the citizens (p. 382). This signalled the end of the conversation or negotiation between the parties and moved beyond reconciling interests.
This section illustrates how various behaviours and actions and can lead to improvement or escalation of a conflict situation. As shown are small gestures, behaviours and actions already able to make a significant impact. This framework of behaviours and indicators will be used to analyse the behaviour and actions that the street-level practitioners in this current research employ, in the case of the LVV shelter pilot in Amsterdam.
28
4.
Methodology
In this methodology chapter I will explain what research design and research methods were used for this study. The first section is used to elaborate on the research design and my choice for both a qualitative approach and a case study design. In the second section I will explain why I used the research methods ‘discourse analysis’ and ‘semi-structured interviews’ to gather data for this study. I will furthermore elaborate on why I combined two research methods in order to be able to fully understand the cases. The data selection and sample of respondents will also be discussed. In the final sections of this chapter I will reflect on the limitations and ethical implications of my research.
4.1 Qualitative approach and a case study design
The focus of the research that was conducted for this study was to understand how street-level practitioners respond to conflict situations that emerged in their daily work. This was done by looking at a local case that has caused conflict; the implementation of LVV shelters for undocumented migrants in Amsterdam. I decided to apply a qualitative approach to my research because the aforementioned research question of this study is focused on behaviour and personal experiences. The aim of this research is gathering data to seek understanding in how the involved practitioners acted the when encountering conflict and gain insight in their behaviour within the context of their experiences. I decided to use a case study design for my research, because a case study design has several advantages for a research that focuses on complex social situations (Yin, 2003).
First, a case study design made it possible to create understanding in a situation and its uniqueness, fully in depth. It therefore provides an insight in the complexity of the real social world that is studied. Case studies are used to understand complex social phenomena and to study contemporary events (Yin, 2003, p. 2-6). This makes this a great method to understand a complex social phenomenon as conflict, while focusing on conflict situations and tensions that were developing at that moment. The LVV 24-hour shelter implementation (and all tensions that arose with it in the local neighbourhoods) was used in this research as the case to gain insight in the complexity of a real-world conflict, to which the involved practitioners responded.
Furthermore, the experiences, behaviours, actions and strategies of the involved practitioners is the output this research is aiming at, therefore it is important to have a research design that makes it possible to understand complex situations and human behaviour: “For researchers, the closeness of the case study to real-life situations and its multiple wealth of details are important in two respects. First, it is important for the development of a nuanced view of reality, including the view that human
