Alle college aantekeningen en de bijbehorende literatuur van het vak "Kwalitatieve methoden" van iemand die bij alle hoorcolleges aanwezig was en het vak in één keer gehaald heeft
,Kwalitatieve methoden, week 1
Introductie van het vak
Voorbereidend
Nadine Raaphortst: How to prove, how to interpret and what to do?
This study is about the kind of uncertainties frontline tax officials, who work with
trust-based inspection approach, experience in interacting with citizen clients
Two kind of uncertainties frontline officials face:
1. Information problems
2. Interpretation problems
But there is more: action problems requiring improvisational
judgements
Different sources underlying uncertainties, which explain them
What kind of uncertainties do frontline tax officials experience, how do officials
respond, and what are the sources of these uncertainties?
Lack of understanding of the kinds, conditions, and consequences of uncertainty at
play in frontline work
Horizontal interactions between officials + citizens improve the uncertainty
If the actions of bureaucrats depend on their perception of citizens in
interactions, the less important formal rules are This improves uncertainty
Uncertainty as information problem
Rules + procedures can be applied to a specific case, without the interference of the
human factor (bureaucrats’ interpretations)
Technocratic knowledge, embodied in rules + procedures + polices are at the heart of
bureaucratic organizations
Simon: Bounded rationality; members of an organization can act limited because of
their incomplete knowledge about future consequences + incapability of assessing all
possible alternative behaviors
But still, bureaucrats are viewed as actors who get to their goal by applying
knowledge in order to get rid of uncertainties before making a decision
From a perspective that views technical knowledge as a tool to control
administrative work, 'unknowns' are looked at as problematic
In this perspective, uncertainty is perceived as an information problem
Technical knowledge in rules/standard procedures should give bureaucrats some
certainty
, Because knowledge about a situation gives a possibility to master + act in a
situation
Uncertainty as interpretation problem
Bureaucrats’ discretionary practices are also formed by personal judgement of a
client their worthiness/deservingness
Based on cultural schemes, moral beliefs, values, stereotypes
Those are never simple/straightforward
In this street-level bureaucracy literature, knowledge is not “just out there” to rely +
act upon, it needs to be interpreted first
In this view the source of uncertainties is not so much an absence of information,
but rather a problem of interpretation of what 'is really happening'
Uncertainty of social interactions
It is very important with discretion that only in specific cases’ encounter, rules are
enacted
Discretion at the frontlines is important to respond to unexpected things + ensure
that services are responsive to individual needs
This shows the uncertainty apart of social interactions
Unpredictability of street-level work + tensions of face-to-face encounters
Discretion is always about interaction between known abstract rules + unknown
particulars
Dependent on interactions with citizen-clients
This is way less looked at
Because of some changes, Dutch tax administration now work with responsive +
collaborative regulation and enforcement (horizontal policy)
Tax officals are street-level bureaucrats because of their pressure, constraints, tax
laws and interpretation
But there are also some differences:
Rules + legislation is often complex and not common knowledge
Interactions are initiated by the tax officials + entrepreneurs cannot just leave
the interactions
Lack of information
Tax officials (TO’s) create an account/storyline supported by sufficient evidens to
equip themselves for the negotiation with citizen-clients
TO’s ask themselves if this account is strong enough for the evidence + aruments of
the citizen-clients
, Example of a story:
This story shows that the respondent did not search information out of a sense of
uncertainty of what happened The respondent strongly felt that his account of the
situation was true, because he had cues to believe so
Uncertainty in not knowing if you’re able to find enough evidence
Ambiguity of interpretation
Different from information problems because; more information solves the
information problem, but does not help in difficult situtions to interpret
Interpretation problems don’t arise as a result of lack of info
Interpretation problems arise because the standard officials use t evaluate the case
are conflicting or vague in themselves
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper isadruijts. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
