The Dutch I knew
Last week I participate a meeting organizaed by Netherlands Alumin in China, where I met vice mayor of Amsterdan, President of University van Amsterdam... In the meeting topics like Dutch image in Chinese's eyes were discussed. So I thought about my article on Dutch people written in Amsterdam.
It is a discourse analysis based on my interview of International students in Amsterdam. So, following is the shorten version of the article.
The Dutch: A Discourse analysis of research interview of the Dutch people
Introduction:
The characteristics of people in a country are difficult to be accurately defined. It would be interesting to look at how the international students think about the people of their current host country. The study focus on the perspectives the international students held toward the Dutch people.
The analysis will base on 7-recorded and transcribed interviews of international students in Amsterdam. The interviews were conducted by MA students from the ECS program of the international school of humanity and social science (ISHSS), University van Amsterdam (UvA). The interviews ranged from 15 minutes to more than half an hour long. The interviews were aimed to understand that:
1. Do the characteristics of the Dutch people mattered in their decision of study in Amsterdam?
2. What’s their first impression of the Dutch people?
3. What’s the opinion towards the Dutch people now?
Method:
Discourse analysis, reasons.....
Results:
Discourse analysis attempted to identify broad ‘discourses’, which participants use to define their identities and moral status. Thos ‘discourses’ are the units of analysis: interpretative repertoires. According to Potter interpretive repertoires are “systematically related sets of terms that are often used with stylistic and grammatical coherence and often organized around one or more central metaphors.” (1996)
Four repertoires were identified for our general topic. They are friendliness with limit, balance between crazy and conservative; discriminate/indiscriminate towards foreigners; and comparison with their home countries. The most interesting part of the finding is that although those are prominent repertoires used by the respondents, they could be associated with both positive and negative meanings throughout the 7 interviews by different respondents.
The most prominent repertoire used by the respondents is friendliness with limitation. Five out of seven respondents mentioned this theme during their interviews. The repertoires “friendliness with limit” means that Dutch people are nice and friendly, but there’s a limit of their friendliness. They are friendly but keep a distance at the same time. Respondent IV describe in the following way:
Informant (I): I believe they are friendly, but there is a limit on that. They are friendly up to a certain point. We will chart, we may have a discussion…but in order to go one step further, it is somehow difficult, or they don’t want to.
And later on the same respondent made another similar description about ordinary Dutch he encountered everyday:
(I): I’ve noticed that they have this politeness, they say ‘hi’ in the street. But this socializing process has a limit.
Other respondents also had quite similar description towards Dutch people. This is still the positive side of the Repertoire “friendliness with limit”. The repertoire was also used in a negative way meaning coldness and indifference. The most interesting thing is the second respondent treated it as both best side and worst side of the Dutch people. On one hand she argued that they don’t interfere what you are doing because their friendliness have a limit, which set you free; on the other hand she said they keep too much distance and cold, they say ‘hi’ to other people just automatically.
(I): Emm…because they kept a distance, so I cannot have real contact. For example, I go to shopping, I can’t have real conversation with them. They don’t even say hi. I mean, in the supermarket they say hi automatically, but it doesn’t mean that they care about their customers…
(I):…But as soon as she came back to the Netherlands, she became more Dutch. I don’t mean she is not nice…she is a little bite hard. She keeps a distance and not as friendly as she was.
(I): The best side is, they don’t interfere what you do, I mean, they don’t care what you do so they leave you to do whatever you want. They just leave you alone. They don’t curious about what you are doing. That’s the best side of Dutch people.
Most of the respondents felt that the Dutch people were “friendly to s certain point”. The difference is that some of them view it negatively associate the limit with “coldness” and “indifferent” while others view it in a more neutral term.
The second repertoire used in discussions is “balance between crazy and conservative”. This repertoire was used by four respondents. It means that on one hand the Dutch society is very open, liberal and tolerate towards something and some kind of people that cannot be accepted by other society. On the other hand the Dutch could balance the craziness with conservative. Following are some examples:
(I): …Their mentality is a mixture of the European coldness with very liberal elements. The Netherlands is like that; it is a liberal place in general, concerning let’s say, drugs and prostitutions. But there is also a kind of conservatism, more than you expected…and you will realize that day by day. I believe this is a good thing, because there is a balance…
(I): It’s an exciting (exiting) city I think…It’s got the beautiful site and then the crazy site. And then I like the balance very much…
With this repertoire, speakers mean the Dutch are not as crazy as they look like superficially, this is still a conservative society under the crazy surface of drugs and prostitutions this could be especially true when come out of Amsterdam.
The third repertoire is discrimination/indiscrimination towards foreigners. Two antonyms were used to name this repertoire is because, as mentioned above, respondents use same terms for different meaning. Respondents from different regions gave different opinion towards how the Dutch receive foreigners. There were four out of seven respondents mentioned this repertoire. It was minority people who have the feeling of being discriminated and white western respondents all thought there’s no discrimination. The only exception was a Japanese s/he felt no discrimination. Studying her background, I found she actually lives in the United States now. Her changing environment might have affected her perspectives on the Dutch people.
(I): they are quite nice people…also I don’t feel any discrimination or any wall between Dutch people and themselves. (Ourselves I guess).
Researcher (R): O.K. so you think Dutch people are good in accepting foreigners? You feel easier here as a foreigner and…?
(I): (A German) yes, yes…and also for example speaking English…
(I): (A Japanese) Oh, well. Yes, if I can call them friends. We are classmates, they are nice. But they are minorities. So they are not typical Dutch people. They are already others to white Dutch people. They are Dutch and live in the Netherlands, but they are not white typical Dutch people. So maybe that’s why we could be friends, because we could share how the Dutch people treat minorities, unkind, just like that. Holland is full, they say.
It would be interesting to look into the division respondents had over how the Dutch people treat foreigners. Is it result from discrimination of physical appearance or the sensitiveness of minorities? To answer this question more researches are needed.
The last main repertoire is that explicitly or implicitly the respondents all made a comparison between the Dutch and their own countries. Because they are from different countries the results generated are different however, the reasoning pattern existed in the interview. It is common to find words like, “not like Japan”, “it is different from Greece”, or “ Back home”, etc. This repertoire suggests that when people tend to make themselves as a benchmark to judge others. It is hard to criticize this comparison, because when there’re no other criteria at hand themselves could be the best alternatives.
Conclusions and Discussions:
Discourse analysis revealed four main interpretative repertoires used by the seven respondents. The first one is “friendliness with limit”. By this repertoire most respondents mean that the Dutch are nice and friendly at a certain point, their friendly has a limit. One respondent goes beyond, she uses it to describe both best side of the Dutch (never interfere others) and the worst side of the Dutch: coldness and the limited friendliness actually mean unfriendly.
The second repertoire is the balance between crazy and conservative, which means the Dutch could find a balance between superficial craziness and the actual conservative.
The third one is discrimination/indiscrimination towards foreigners. International students provide different opinions associate with their own background.
Then, almost all respondents made comparison between the Dutch and their own countries.
As mentioned in the method section that research interview could constitutive the data it collected. Different structure and style could result in different data. As we could see from the transcripts, that the seven interviews were quite different in styles and strategies. Some interviewers were very objective and try to avoid any close relationship with the interviewees, while others spoke in quite close tone and sometimes provided clue for the questions. The difference in interviewer’s role may have had influence on the final result.
Reference:
Potter, J., (1996) Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: theoretical background. In J. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Science. Leicester: BPS. pp. 125-40
Wetherell, M., (1998), Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires. In Antaki, C., (ed.) Analyzing Everyday Explanation. London:Sage. pp. 168-183
It is a discourse analysis based on my interview of International students in Amsterdam. So, following is the shorten version of the article.
The Dutch: A Discourse analysis of research interview of the Dutch people
Introduction:
The characteristics of people in a country are difficult to be accurately defined. It would be interesting to look at how the international students think about the people of their current host country. The study focus on the perspectives the international students held toward the Dutch people.
The analysis will base on 7-recorded and transcribed interviews of international students in Amsterdam. The interviews were conducted by MA students from the ECS program of the international school of humanity and social science (ISHSS), University van Amsterdam (UvA). The interviews ranged from 15 minutes to more than half an hour long. The interviews were aimed to understand that:
1. Do the characteristics of the Dutch people mattered in their decision of study in Amsterdam?
2. What’s their first impression of the Dutch people?
3. What’s the opinion towards the Dutch people now?
Method:
Discourse analysis, reasons.....
Results:
Discourse analysis attempted to identify broad ‘discourses’, which participants use to define their identities and moral status. Thos ‘discourses’ are the units of analysis: interpretative repertoires. According to Potter interpretive repertoires are “systematically related sets of terms that are often used with stylistic and grammatical coherence and often organized around one or more central metaphors.” (1996)
Four repertoires were identified for our general topic. They are friendliness with limit, balance between crazy and conservative; discriminate/indiscriminate towards foreigners; and comparison with their home countries. The most interesting part of the finding is that although those are prominent repertoires used by the respondents, they could be associated with both positive and negative meanings throughout the 7 interviews by different respondents.
The most prominent repertoire used by the respondents is friendliness with limitation. Five out of seven respondents mentioned this theme during their interviews. The repertoires “friendliness with limit” means that Dutch people are nice and friendly, but there’s a limit of their friendliness. They are friendly but keep a distance at the same time. Respondent IV describe in the following way:
Informant (I): I believe they are friendly, but there is a limit on that. They are friendly up to a certain point. We will chart, we may have a discussion…but in order to go one step further, it is somehow difficult, or they don’t want to.
And later on the same respondent made another similar description about ordinary Dutch he encountered everyday:
(I): I’ve noticed that they have this politeness, they say ‘hi’ in the street. But this socializing process has a limit.
Other respondents also had quite similar description towards Dutch people. This is still the positive side of the Repertoire “friendliness with limit”. The repertoire was also used in a negative way meaning coldness and indifference. The most interesting thing is the second respondent treated it as both best side and worst side of the Dutch people. On one hand she argued that they don’t interfere what you are doing because their friendliness have a limit, which set you free; on the other hand she said they keep too much distance and cold, they say ‘hi’ to other people just automatically.
(I): Emm…because they kept a distance, so I cannot have real contact. For example, I go to shopping, I can’t have real conversation with them. They don’t even say hi. I mean, in the supermarket they say hi automatically, but it doesn’t mean that they care about their customers…
(I):…But as soon as she came back to the Netherlands, she became more Dutch. I don’t mean she is not nice…she is a little bite hard. She keeps a distance and not as friendly as she was.
(I): The best side is, they don’t interfere what you do, I mean, they don’t care what you do so they leave you to do whatever you want. They just leave you alone. They don’t curious about what you are doing. That’s the best side of Dutch people.
Most of the respondents felt that the Dutch people were “friendly to s certain point”. The difference is that some of them view it negatively associate the limit with “coldness” and “indifferent” while others view it in a more neutral term.
The second repertoire used in discussions is “balance between crazy and conservative”. This repertoire was used by four respondents. It means that on one hand the Dutch society is very open, liberal and tolerate towards something and some kind of people that cannot be accepted by other society. On the other hand the Dutch could balance the craziness with conservative. Following are some examples:
(I): …Their mentality is a mixture of the European coldness with very liberal elements. The Netherlands is like that; it is a liberal place in general, concerning let’s say, drugs and prostitutions. But there is also a kind of conservatism, more than you expected…and you will realize that day by day. I believe this is a good thing, because there is a balance…
(I): It’s an exciting (exiting) city I think…It’s got the beautiful site and then the crazy site. And then I like the balance very much…
With this repertoire, speakers mean the Dutch are not as crazy as they look like superficially, this is still a conservative society under the crazy surface of drugs and prostitutions this could be especially true when come out of Amsterdam.
The third repertoire is discrimination/indiscrimination towards foreigners. Two antonyms were used to name this repertoire is because, as mentioned above, respondents use same terms for different meaning. Respondents from different regions gave different opinion towards how the Dutch receive foreigners. There were four out of seven respondents mentioned this repertoire. It was minority people who have the feeling of being discriminated and white western respondents all thought there’s no discrimination. The only exception was a Japanese s/he felt no discrimination. Studying her background, I found she actually lives in the United States now. Her changing environment might have affected her perspectives on the Dutch people.
(I): they are quite nice people…also I don’t feel any discrimination or any wall between Dutch people and themselves. (Ourselves I guess).
Researcher (R): O.K. so you think Dutch people are good in accepting foreigners? You feel easier here as a foreigner and…?
(I): (A German) yes, yes…and also for example speaking English…
(I): (A Japanese) Oh, well. Yes, if I can call them friends. We are classmates, they are nice. But they are minorities. So they are not typical Dutch people. They are already others to white Dutch people. They are Dutch and live in the Netherlands, but they are not white typical Dutch people. So maybe that’s why we could be friends, because we could share how the Dutch people treat minorities, unkind, just like that. Holland is full, they say.
It would be interesting to look into the division respondents had over how the Dutch people treat foreigners. Is it result from discrimination of physical appearance or the sensitiveness of minorities? To answer this question more researches are needed.
The last main repertoire is that explicitly or implicitly the respondents all made a comparison between the Dutch and their own countries. Because they are from different countries the results generated are different however, the reasoning pattern existed in the interview. It is common to find words like, “not like Japan”, “it is different from Greece”, or “ Back home”, etc. This repertoire suggests that when people tend to make themselves as a benchmark to judge others. It is hard to criticize this comparison, because when there’re no other criteria at hand themselves could be the best alternatives.
Conclusions and Discussions:
Discourse analysis revealed four main interpretative repertoires used by the seven respondents. The first one is “friendliness with limit”. By this repertoire most respondents mean that the Dutch are nice and friendly at a certain point, their friendly has a limit. One respondent goes beyond, she uses it to describe both best side of the Dutch (never interfere others) and the worst side of the Dutch: coldness and the limited friendliness actually mean unfriendly.
The second repertoire is the balance between crazy and conservative, which means the Dutch could find a balance between superficial craziness and the actual conservative.
The third one is discrimination/indiscrimination towards foreigners. International students provide different opinions associate with their own background.
Then, almost all respondents made comparison between the Dutch and their own countries.
As mentioned in the method section that research interview could constitutive the data it collected. Different structure and style could result in different data. As we could see from the transcripts, that the seven interviews were quite different in styles and strategies. Some interviewers were very objective and try to avoid any close relationship with the interviewees, while others spoke in quite close tone and sometimes provided clue for the questions. The difference in interviewer’s role may have had influence on the final result.
Reference:
Potter, J., (1996) Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: theoretical background. In J. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Science. Leicester: BPS. pp. 125-40
Wetherell, M., (1998), Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires. In Antaki, C., (ed.) Analyzing Everyday Explanation. London:Sage. pp. 168-183
posted by Beaver at 8:03 PM
