This study explores the relationship between street-level bureaucrats’ role conceptions and the ambiguity inherent to their work. Street-level bureaucrats are not neutral servants of the states,...Show moreThis study explores the relationship between street-level bureaucrats’ role conceptions and the ambiguity inherent to their work. Street-level bureaucrats are not neutral servants of the states, but have their own perceptions of what their work entails, i.e. role conceptions. As a result, they occupy their role differently even if they, technically, have the same job description. The perspective of street-level bureaucrats is adopted to explore whether they experience ambiguity differently due to difference in role conception. Additionally, it is explored how the street-level bureaucrats act in response to their experience of ambiguity. To ensure a theoretical foundation, broad expectations are formulated on the basis of existing literature. By means of a qualitative interview study, 10 street-level bureaucrats are interviewed. The street-level bureaucrats mostly experience ambiguity as expected from their role conceptions. Some experience ambiguity as undesirable and aim to minimalize it, while others experience ambiguity as desirable and want to make good use of it. Regarding the acts in response to ambiguity, it can be cautiously said that street-level bureaucrats acts in response to ambiguity in line with their role conception. Recommendations are made for future research, to eventually contribute to better coordination between organizations and street-level bureaucrats, which would ultimately also benefit citizens.Show less
This thesis explores the coping mechanisms street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) adopt to cope with patients who believe or share a form of mis- or disinformation. This is done by looking at two types of...Show moreThis thesis explores the coping mechanisms street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) adopt to cope with patients who believe or share a form of mis- or disinformation. This is done by looking at two types of street-level bureaucrats: health workers and teachers. Although health workers and teachers are often exposed to encounters where a patient believes or shares a form of mis- or disinformation and it is recognized that street-level bureaucrats have considerate discretion and can act as policymakers (Lipsky, 2010), the current literature has not taken SLBs into consideration with misinformation and disinformation yet. During the current pandemic, an excessive amount of misinformation and disinformation spreads on social media, and in today’s digital society it has become rather difficult to identify fake news (Vermanen, 2020)(Deprez, 2020). The spreading and belief in mis- and disinformation can have harmful consequences for democracy, public health, and societies' trust in science (Diepstraten, 2021). Through a qualitative analysis consisting of interviews and (media) documents, the results presented in this explored that SLBs adopt a wide variety of coping mechanisms. The findings of this study suggest that SLBs their coping mechanisms for clients who believe or share misinformation and disinformation are more similar than one expected beforehand and that the type of encounter is more important than the type of SLB. The results of this study can provide valuable insights into how SLBs can cope with mis- and disinformation, ultimately contributing to combatting and preventing the spread and belief in mis- and disinformation.Show less
