REVISITING METHODS AND THEORY Methods

In this thesis an interpretive research approach was chosen, based on case stud-ies and the principles of openness and heterogeneity (Whiteley and Whiteley,

149 2006; Bevir, 2010a; Lincoln and Canella, 2004). The interpretive research ap-proach made it possible to start with a general interest in the development of groups of people taking charge of their living environment and from there to go deeper into the aspects that seemed relevant. This resulted in a bigger focus on the relational perspective in the second phase. It became clear that the fact that citizens’ initiatives and self-organizing communities are different entities to governmental organizations is a decisive factor in their roles, attitudes and strate-gies. In the light of this, the interpretive research approach enabled me to further explore the logics, values and other kinds of capital of groups of people taking charge of their living environment. The principles of openness and heterogeneity have been followed in all stages of the research, from the general idea, to the method and case selection, to data collection and analysis. All these stages are described in this thesis.

The interpretive approach also meant I didn’t decided a priori how many re-spondents or practices to include in order to fully understand the dynamics of groups of people taking charge of their living environment. In each phase I con-tinued to gather information until saturation point, a point of diminishing re-turns from the data collection efforts at which we can reasonably assume that a thorough study has been conducted (Guba, 1978; Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

The process stopped when a convincing and empirically grounded argument could be constructed which was intelligible not only to the authors, but also to others, without the need for full closure (Kincheloe and McLaren, 2011). It provided me with insights in the practice of groups of people taking charge of their living environment and into the dynamics within and surrounding these groups of people. Although the analysis is the interpretation of the authors and the logic of the arguments is for the reader to evaluate, analysing patterns and mechanisms helps make the analysis transferable to other situations, as does the multiplicity and plurality of cases. Nevertheless, it is still difficult and sometimes even impossible to define generally valid (policy) measures. This does not mean recommendations cannot be made, but that modesty should be exercised.

In an interpretive research approach, meaning is seen as intertwined with ac-tion, so that researchers cannot dissociate themselves from the practice being studied. As Taylor (1995) says: our understanding of the world is grounded in our dealings and actions. This has several implications. Firstly, as a researcher, however much distance you maintain, you are part of, and therefore also in-fluencing the practice studied. Secondly, it has consequences for the choices made by the researcher in this research. This is not necessarily explicit but an inevitable consequence of the fact that the understanding of our world is

150

grounded in our dealings and actions. So my viewpoint and priorities are re-flected in this research, even if not explicitly. To give an example, I am interest-ed in processes, in how things develop and interact. It therefore comes natu-rally to me to look at things from a developmental and relational perspective and to focus on mechanisms and principles. Thirdly, Taylor’s words relate to the question of how involved you are or choose to become as a researcher. The ini-tiators are people who are putting words in to action. Moreover, they seize the opportunities they get, and they often see the research itself as an opportunity.

The initiators perceive research and me as a researcher as a possible ‘tool’ for legitimation, acknowledgement and recognition, things which many citizens’

initiatives and self-organizing communities crave. Lastly, there are implications for methodology. Among the many methods used, I carried out non-participa-tory observation as well as participanon-participa-tory observation and I also engaged with initiators in some meetings. Generally, I would say that as a researcher I acted as an observer who was involved, meaning that I was genuinely interested in and genuinely cared about the motivations, perspectives and actions of the respondents.

Theory

This research contributes to the existing literature by shedding light on the ac-tual practice of groups of people taking charge of their living environment and on how the roles of both citizens and governmental organizations are taken up. This thesis can be seen as an elaboration of people’s actual activity in prac-tice, viewing actors as interdependent subjects whose identities and resource capabilities – i.e. the very assets that enable them to act – are co-constituted by their relations. This corresponds with theory on practice (Knorr-Cetina, et al., 2001; Arts et al., 2012). And as the contribution of citizens in the creation of public values becomes more and more important, in the ‘green domain’ as elsewhere, it is relevant to have a detailed view of the organization, develop-ment and dynamics of groups of people taking charge of their living environ-ment. Taking a relational perspective and looking at citizens’ initiatives in their social and institutional context, it becomes clear that the roles of both citizens and governmental organizations are related and thus influence each other. We also see the contextuality, the path-dependent nature and the contingency of citizens’ initiatives and self-organizing communities, which is something to take into account in governance processes (refs relational turn). At an ontological level, the focus on practices and the relational perspective enters the structure-agency debate by ascribing a greater role to structure-agency as opposed to structures in analyses. For classical public administration theory, traditionally accustomed to categorizing, making frameworks and sketching other formal pathways and

151 solutions, this focus poses the challenge of how to deal with these pluralistic, informal and contingent citizens’ initiatives (Shafritz, 2015; Dubois et al., 2009;

De Schutter and Lenoble, 2010).

In line with the above, by focusing on the micro level of the practice of groups of people taking charge of their living environment, this thesis also highlights the importance of place. The activity of the groups of people in the cases con-cerns a certain place. They connect not only socially or institutionally, but also, and in some cases primarily, with a place. As has been mentioned, initiators are persistent and driven. And this drive is fuelled by emotion: at the heart of these groups of people taking charge of their living environment are their feel-ings about a place. A place they see as magical, or a place that could be magi-cal with a little help, or a place in need. In any case, place is not often included as a factor that influences the governance of self-organizing communities and citizens’ initiatives. Yet a lot of current citizens’ initiatives manifest themselves spatially, and place may even form an important driver. It therefore seems fruit-ful to follow both the social and the spatial factors at work and to intensify the cross-fertilization of the social and spatial aspects of citizens’ initiatives and self-organizing communities.

Another concept, that of informational capital, is neither well-known nor widely used. The concept originates from Bourdieu (1987, 1998), who extrapolated it from the concept of cultural capital. Informational capital is generally used to indicate formal forms of information. Munk (2003), for example, analyses the acquisition of informational capital, i.e. academic capital, measured as student mobility and understood as transnational investments in prestigious foreign edu-cational institutions. And Arvidsson (2003) refers to informational capital as in-tellectual capital and relates it to ownership of information which is relevant to discussions on intellectual property such as patents, trademarks and brands. In this thesis, informational capital is viewed as a form of capital like human and social capital. These forms of capital reflect a changing social system in which citizens play a vital role in creating public value, and other, less tangible, forms of capital and reciprocity gain importance alongside financial capital and general-ized reciprocity (chapter 4; chapter 6). The concept of informational capital has been broadened to include not just formal kinds of information but also informal kinds of information, thus broadening the intellectual and academic perspective as well. Informational capital is seen as a resource for citizens and covers all kinds of data, information, knowledge and expertise which citizens have at their dis-posal, in both explicit and informal, tacit forms. It implies a capacity for action based on information. And those resources, that informational capital, can also be gained, used/injected, and shared/exchanged.

152