Mega Factory and Social Trust
Once in Skellefteå you are a Skelleftener?
Thesis for a master’s seminar in Peace and Conflict Studies 15HP Umeå University Spring 2021 Anna-Klara Granstrand
Abstract
In my hometown Skellefteå, in the north of Sweden, Northvolt is building a mega factory for the production of lithium batteries. Labour supply for this massive new industry will demand a large influx of people from all around the world. The rather homogeneous population of Skellefteå, characterized by high levels of social trust and cohesion, is expected to grow with up to 20% the coming decade, largely due to immigration. Research suggests that ethnic diversity might have negative effects on social trust and cohesion, but the evidence is mixed and seemingly context specific. The purpose of this work is to better understand how the increased diversity in the wake of the mega factory establishment might affect the social trust in Skellefteå. The purpose is pursued through a hermeneutical phenomenological study exploring how immigrant women experience social trust in Skellefteå. The findings suggest that factors connected to diversity may slow down interpersonal trust processes, nevertheless, immigrant women do experience and develop social and community trust in Skellefteå, through processes of recognition and accommodation. Also, a new word, Skelleftener, meaning someone living in Skellefteå, regardless of origin, is suggested.
Content
Abstract ... 1
Introduction ... 4
Purpose and Research Question ... 4
Delimitations ... 5
Outline ... 5
My Horizon ... 6
Phenomenology ... 6
Hermeneutical Phenomenology ... 7
The study of Trust ... 8
What is trust? ... 8
Trust as a function ... 9
Trust as a value ... 9
Trust as rational choice ... 9
Trust as the unknowable ... 9
Trust as a societal value ... 9
Types of Trust ... 10
Trust and Diversity ... 11
Conflict and Contact theory ... 11
Reflexion on my Horizon ... 13
Theoretical framework ... 13
Research Methodology ... 14
Methodology to fit the Project ... 14
Hermeneutical Circle as a Research Method ... 14
Participants ... 15
Selection process ... 15
Production and processing of the material ... 18
Transcripts and language ... 19
Identifying Common Themes ... 20
Reflexions on the Analytical Process ... 22
Ethics ... 22
Establishing Rigor ... 23
Findings ... 24
Encounters with trust ... 25
Summary Findings ... 35
Policy implications and further research ... 39 Referenser ... 41
Introduction
My hometown Skellefteå, some 800 km north of Stockholm, has for the last few decades, like many other municipalities in the north of Sweden, been facing dwindling population caused by a combination of negative birth rate, ageing population, and urbanization towards the larger cities in the south. Less people mean less income tax and less public money to spend on investments and welfare for those who remain. Troublesome, to say the least.
To counteract depopulation and diminishing public finances the municipality of Skellefteå has, by highlighting accessibility to green energy, political stability, and reliable business climate, worked to attract foreign investments and new industrial establishments.
And the efforts have borne fruit; Sweden’s largest industrial establishment in modern times is now under way. Northvolt is building a mega-factory to produce lithium batteries and some 100 billions of public and private money is being invested in the region. Celebrations all around!
But after the initial celebration, the mega factory establishment also raises many questions about what it will entail, beyond the investments, for the future of Skellefteå.
The new industries have massive demands for labor. And the only way to meet those demands is to attract people from all around the world. A huge challenge to begin with!
And, if all goes to plan the population is expected to increase by up to 20% over the coming decade, primarily due to an extensive influx of people from abroad (Norran 11/5, 2021). The present population of Skellefteå, today some 72 000, is relatively homogeneous and is, like many other cities in norther Scandinavia, characterized by high levels of social trust and cohesion — something which is extremely valuable to every society. However, research suggests several possible connections between increased diversity within a population and decreased social trust within communities. But the field of research is wide and inconclusive.
Having worked with societal integration of immigrants and the challenges posed by
segregation in my municipality for the last decade the subject of social trust and cohesion is of specific interest to me. And it makes me wonder what is really at stake here?
Purpose and Research Question
My purpose is to better understand how the increased diversity is likely to affect social trust in my hometown. But when ransacking myself I find an additional purpose; I want the study in
itself, through its production and/or through its findings, to contribute to social trust in my hometown. To pursue my dual purpose, I will be exploring trust in relation to diversity in my local context aided by locals with lived experience of trust in an ethnically diverse setting. I choose to focus on the experience of non-western immigrant women, partly because this is a group that will have experiences of trust in relation to diversity but also because of my feeling that this it is a group often talked about but rarely heard in the societal discourse about
integration in Skellefteå.
My study will be guided by the following question:
- What is the lived experience of social trust amongst immigrant women in Skellefteå?
The study will be conducted from a hermeneutical phenomenological standpoint as well as producing and processing the material adhering to a phenomenological methodology.
However, I will in the last chapter when analyzing my findings let the material enter into a dialogue with the literature on diversity and trust through the lenses of conflict and contact theory. This will be further developed in the section on theoretical framework.
Delimitations
This study, that belongs within the study of trust and diversity, interpreters the lived
experience of trust as conveyed by five immigrant women. Thus, it is limited in scope and has no ambition to any universal claims whatsoever.It does not aim to test or verify anything merely to add meaning and understanding to the concept of trust in relation to diversity (Gaudet and Robert 2018). This paper is presented within the field of Peace and Conflict studies and even if it does not specific discuss peace or conflict it is my hope that it might, if well in an indirect manner, contribute to the understanding of underlying causes for peace and conflict.
Outline
The following chapter will present my philosophical point of departure, followed by a chapter containing a literature overview and what sums up to my theoretical framework. The next chapters will introduce my methodological approach as applied when producing and processing my empirical material. In the final chapter I will present my findings and let it enter into dialogue with some of the research literature. I will conclude with some thoughts on
policy implications and further research.
My Horizon
Horizon is a phenomenological concept which describes a person´s limited view of the world at any given time (Lewis et al. 2010). In this chapter I will present my horizon in relation to trust and diversity. I will start by offering some basic principles of phenomenology, the philosophy which, through its methodological application, and analytical lenses will guide this study. I will then turn my attention to the concept of trust followed by a literature overview which relates the concept of trust to diversity. At the end of the chapter, I will conclude by summarizing my theoretical framework.
Phenomenology
Rooted in philosophy and psychology, phenomenology is both a branch of philosophy and a qualitative research approach. Phenomenology appeared in the middle of the 20th century in opposition to naturalist conceptions of knowledge as an object separated from subjectivity and truth as something that can be obtained through scientific methods alone (Holtzen, 2016).
Both as a philosophy and as a research approach it aims to explore the human condition and the nature of being (Lewis et al., 2010, p. 1).
There are two distinct versions of phenomenology, descriptive and hermeneutical. I will briefly present hermeneutical phenomenology, which will guide this study, after a few words about the descriptive approach.
Descriptive phenomenology is derived from the work of Husserl(1859–1938) and focuses on describing the human experience as understood and described from the perspective of those who have had the lived experiences (Lewis et al., 2010). In Husserl´s view the only way we can truly understand a phenomenon is by putting aside one´s own experience and
preconceptions. This can, according to Husserl be obtained through a reduction practice known as bracketing. Bracketing means that the researcher by acknowledging his or her presumptions of the research object would be able to exclude those biases from the research process and from its findings (Lewis et al., 2010).
Hermeneutical Phenomenology
Martin Heidegger(1889–1976), a student of Husserl and the father of hermeneutical
phenomenology, recognizes the importance of context. According to Heidegger a researcher neither can nor should attempt to “bracket out” their own biases and pre-conceptions. Rather, a researcher should acknowledge and embrace her own experiences and use them as a way to interpret the object of study. According to Heidegger, the dialogue between the researcher, her biases, and the interpretations of the research object is ongoing throughout the research process and contributes to the quality of the findings (Lewis et al. 2010). Knowledge is continuously created through what Heidegger calls the hermeneutic circle in which parts of the whole is investigated in relation to the whole, and the whole is investigated in relation to its parts and continually revised through life. (Lewis et al. 2010). I will expand about the hermeneutical circle as a research tool in the methodology chapter.
At the core of Heidegger’s extensive philosophy is the concept of the human being as a being-in-the-world. He calls this human condition Dasein. Dasein is our situated existence, completely and inseparably intwined in our situated context. Our awareness of our
situatedness in the world is dependent on the knowledge available to us, at any given time, this knowledge represents our horizon. A horizon expands either due to internal
interpretations of personal experiences or through interaction and thereby fusion with the horizons of others (Lawn 2006).
Gadamer (1900-2002), a student of Heidegger, asserts that entailed in the conception of Dasein is a constant interpretation of the surrounding lifeworld. Interpreting is not something humans do but something human are, ongoing interpretation is the human way of being. This is what Gadamer means when he calls humans “ontological interpreters” (Holtzen, p 89.) In our ontological interpretation of our lifeworld, we are according to Gadamer, constantly conditioned by history, tradition, and language. Those three constitutes our situatedness, our prejudice, when interpretation our being, from which we cannot separate our interpretation by any kind of method nor reasoning.
Another important contribution by Gadamer is his convincing argument that all human understanding is created through language, either by spoken or written words or by thoughts.
Gadamer asserts “being that can be understood is language” (Gadamer 1981 p. 474) but he also acknowledges the unknown, something beyond words, which is part of the human experience although not part of the human knowledge.
When explaining how a person continuously interpret and thereby understand her lifeworld Gadamer uses the metaphor of conversation. Through genuine conversations with others (either through text or spoken word) a person “opens himself to the other”; which enables a
“fusion of horizons” in which understanding takes place and expands (Gadamer, 1981 p.385).
To Gadamer the main meaning of human communication is not the exchange of information rather an exploration of what part of ones understanding of being is shared and held in common with others. “To reach an understanding in a dialogue is not merely a matter of putting oneself forward and successfully asserting one’s own point of view but being transformed into communion in which we do not remain what we were.” (Gadamer,1981 p.
379). In sum, according to Gadamer, the human being is ontologically interpretative, constantly revising its lifeworld in dialogue with, and conditioned by, history, tradition and language. It is with this understanding of the human condition I will approach this study.
The study of Trust
As a researcher within a hermetical phenomenological tradition, it is essential to be both aware of, and transparent with, one´s own biases and preconceived notions of the object of study. Hence, the following literature overview has, beyond the purpose of placing my study in a research context and to familiarize both me and the reader with the field of study, the additional purpose of declaring some of my own biases created by my “conversation” with the presented literature. Since this study is primarily phenomenological the theories presented in the literature review are not meant to guide my work rather to be acknowledged as lenses through which I, as a researcher, unwittingly interpret my material. However, the findings in this study will enter into a more conscious dialogue with the literature in the concluding section of my findings.
What is trust?
For a study within the hermeneutic phenomenological tradition, it is not desirable to step into the project with a readymade definition of the phenomenon (Laverty 2003). However, with the intention to share preunderstanding with the reader I will offer some examples of how trust has been conceptualized within the literature.
Trust as a function
Trust has been described as a necessary mechanism for humans to handle the complexities of the modern world. Without trust people would not be able to handle the uncertainty and risk involved in interacting with others (Luhman 1988).
Trust as a value
Trust has also been understood as a moral value, “...faith in others without expecting anything specific in return”. Uslaner claims that this type of moralistic trust that people, we do not know and are also likely to be different from ourselves, share our fundamental moral is an essential foundation of a civil society (Uslaner 2002, s. 15).
Trust as rational choice
Williams suggests a rational understanding of the concept as the belief that the trustee will put the truster’ s best interests first and has no agenda to the contrary. He also touches on the opposite of trust as having to do with the sense of loss of control “mistrust is always connected with this sense of not being in control”. (Williams 2007, p. 4).
Trust as the unknowable
In Möllering´s understanding trust is rather irrational and has the unknowable as its defining character. He draws the mental picture of trust imagined as the mental process of leaping - enabled by what he calls suspension - across “the gorge of the unknowable from the land of interpretation into the land of expectation” (Möllering 2001, p.412). Möllering’s
philosophical notion of trust as a process entailing “the unknown” is methodologically helpful to this study aiming to explore trust using a phenomenological approach.
Trust as a societal value
Within political science the academic discourse about social trust, is intertwined with the concept of social cohesion and the overarching concepts of social capital. Social capital entails a myriad of different values and phenomena that all relates to governability of a society and is of obvious interest to political scientists and practitioners alike (Uslaner 2002).
Putnam describes social capital as "connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” ( Putnam, 2000 p. 19). When
social capital is studied it is often the concept of social trust that has become the main focus (Van Deth, 2003).
Social trust has been connected to a wide range of positive outcomes on both individual and societal level and has been described as the glue that holds entire societies together
(Fukuyama 1995). Trust reduces transaction costs and makes economies grow (Knack &
Keefer 1997) is strongly associated with pro-democratic attitudes and governability (Tilly 2004) and is found to counters corruption (Bjørnskov 2003). There are also documented relationships between trust and health, mortality and quality of life, both at the individual level and at the societal level (Helliwell 2001).
Types of Trust
Within research, social trust has most often been perceived as a dichotomy with the level of familiarity between the truster and the trustee as the differentiating criterion (Tilly 2004). On the one end, scholars have identified an abstract trust in unknown others. This generalized trust carries both normative and descriptive elements. It is as according to Uslaner (2002) based on moral norms, but also on an empirically informed conviction that the world is a benign place (Wollbaekk et al.) On the other end of the dichotomy, we find particularized trust between people who know each other, like family, friends, and acquaintances. It is primarily generalized trust, understood as the notion that most people can be trusted, that has been found to have wide ranging, positive consequences for individuals and societies alike (Uslaner 2002). The substantial returns, on a societal level, entailed in widespread generalized trust are not seen in the case of particular trust. Or as Uslaner puts it, trust in known others
“can only lead to cooperation among people you have gotten to know, so it can only resolve reasonably small-scale problems” (Uslaner 2002 p. 20). When it come to the study of trust in relation to diversity this dichotomous divide has proven to be insufficient since diversity is spatially bounded and does not necessarily affect trust in mankind nor in friends and family.
For this purpose, a third type of community trust, bounded in space rather than persons and neither fully particularized nor fully generalized, has been suggested. “Community trust is partially a product of personal experiences with the people with whom the space is shared, and partially based on socially formed perceptions of that shared, lived space as
context“ (Wollebæk e al. 2012, p. 322).
Trust and Diversity
Considering the extensive societal benefits related to high levels of social trust in a society it is obviously troublesome to politicians and researcher alike when researchers indicate that ethnic diversity might have a negative impact on social trust. And this was exactly what Putnam (2007) did when he kickstarted the debate on diversity and trust with his claim that increasing diversity, at least in the short run, has negative consequences for a range of outcomes related to social capital, including, most prominently, trust. He based his findings on an American context in which people in diversifies areas tend to withdraw from society and interact less with people in their neighborhoods, which according to social capital theory leads to diminishing social trust.
Putnam´s (2007) main argument is that diversity is potentially a source of conflict and that people will in diverse settings “hunker down” and focus their social co-operation towards their
“in-group” on the expense on more general social co-operation including “out-groups” (p.142).
He even found that individuals living in ethnically diverse areas reported lower levels of outgroup trust,as well as neighborhood trust and even in-group trust. In the words of Putnam diversity appears to “make people pull in like a turtle” (p.149).
Conflict and Contact theory
Putnam’s hunker down hypothesis is based on conflict theory from within the field of social psychological (Hewstone 2015). Conflict theory was one of the first theories trying to explain how societal macro‐level features, such as diversity, may impact individual‐level outcomes. It suggests that intergroup contact will lead to anxiety and antagonism, partly due to innate psychological processes of in-group and out-group identification but also due to perceived competition for scarce resources such as labor-market opportunities, housing or other public goods (Hewstone, 2015). Putnam takes his theoretical reasoning one step further when he suggests that exposure to social diversity leads individuals to withdraw from social life at large meaning diminishing trust amongst all people not just between out-groups. Putnam loosely labelled his hypothesizing, that diversity reduces trust in society at large “constrict theory” (2007). Putnam´s claim triggered an extensive academic debate and a wealth of subsequent studies that examine the links between diversity and trust, both in Europe and elsewhere (Hewstone 2015).
Since then, European scholars have, on national and international, level found no, little, or some evidence to support Putnam´s claim in a European context (Hooghe et al. 2009, Sturgis et al. 2010, Rothstein at al. 2005). Although, in recent years there is a growing body of
research focusing on the local level suggesting a stronger negative correlation between trust and diversity (Delhey and Newton, 2005; Putnam, 2007; Stolle et al., 2008, Wollbaekk et al.
2012). Although inconclusive findings there appears to be a growing concern within the field of research that ‘high levels of racial and ethnic heterogeneity are accompanied by lower levels of trust and other civic attitudes” (Stolle et al. 2008)
However, there is also a substantial body of research gathering evidence for the, seemingly contradictory, intergroup contact theory that suggests that inter-ethnic group contact erodes the in-group/outgroup distinction and thereby enhances outgroup trust and solidarity (for extensive review see Pettigrew et al., 2011). The findings from those studies are however as inconclusive as the ones investigating conflict theory (Van der Meer et al.2014).
Although conflict and contact theory might be seen to be proposing competing explanations of how diversity may affect trust they are best understood, as pointed out by Sturgis et al. as complementing processes, operating in tandem in most localities. For some individuals in a diverse setting, “direct contact will reduce distrust of those from ethnic out-groups; while, for others, the appearance of new ethnic groups in a neighborhood will lead to avoidance of social contact and the development, or exacerbation, of existing stereotypes and out-group mistrust” (Sturgis 2010, p.60).
The results for both conflict and contact theory are mixed and there is reason to question the generality of the conclusions. Apart from the use of large-scale survey data there does not appear to be any concurrence within the field of research. Not when it comes to how diversity is measured nor when it comes to what kind of trust is being measured (Sturgis et al. 2010).
Further, Hewstone claims that much of the research has been “conducted in a somewhat atheoretical manner without seeking to understand how diversity may affect trust and
intergroup attitudes” (my emphases, Hewstone 2015, p. 420). An additional explanation to the mixed results lies in the different contexts in which the studies have been carried out.
Different countries have differing immigration histories as well as different social welfare policies. Also, different studies focus on differently sized geographical units. Sturgis asserts that general conclusions about the diversity – trust relationship is not possible due to the
“wide variety of model specifications, geographies and measures of ethnic diversity and trust that have been employed in the literature” (Sturgis et al. 2010, p. 61).
Another weakness in the research is according to Hewstone (2015) that it has primarily been testing a direct relationship between diversity measures and outcomes of trust while largely
ignored mediating processes crucial to understanding the link between diversity and trust, such as the quality of intergroup contact and perceived intergroup threat. On a similar note Sturgis et al. find the link between diversity and trust “essentially weak and of contingent nature” Instead they suggests that it is the degree of contact between people that determines whether diversity results in trust or distrust. (Sturgis et al. 2010, p. 58). The relationship between diversity and trust is thus far from consistent and far from understood.
Reflexion on my Horizon
The literature presented represent a share of my limited theoretical knowledge of diversity and trust at this point. The chosen sources make it obvious that my understanding is formed by a distinctly western perspective and by contemporary researchers many using positivist approaches in their studies. My theoretical horizon is certainly limited, seemingly more so the more I read. However, adding to my theoretical horizon is my practical experience gained through many years working with promotion of social integration of newly arrived
immigrants in my municipality. To my theoretical and practical horizon, I also add my own personal experience of trust as an existential notion. In my experience trust has to do with the surrendering of the Ego, something I practice through my daily yoga routine. To surrender the Ego entails to submerge myself into the unity of the existence and is my way of exploring and understanding my being in relation to the totality of the existence. However, my experiences of surrendering and trust are at this point mostly beyond words. Hence, those experiences belong to “the unknown” and do not constitutes knowledge nevertheless form part of my horizon, and must thereby in the name of transparency, be accounted for (Lawn 2006).
Theoretical framework
In my theoretical framework I draw from the Hermeneutical Phenomenological tradition the importance of the lived experience as the starting point for knowledge acquisition, the
understanding that knowledge is negotiated for a particular time and place, and the notion that the human being is ontologically interpretative, constantly revising its lifeworld in dialogue with, and conditioned by context such as history, tradition and language. The material will be produces and processed in accordance with this tradition using the hermeneutical circle, focusing on the lived experience without any additional framework. However, once the
material is produced and processed into findings, I will let my findings enter into conversation with the literature on trust and diversity not with the intention to verify or reject but rather to
look for increased understanding or raise more questions.
Research Methodology
In this chapter I will present my chosen methodological approach based on hermeneutical phenomenological research principles and I will explain how the chosen methodology fits the dual purpose of the study. I will go on to account for how the material is produced and
processed as well as addressing issues of scientific ethics and rigor in qualitative research.
Methodology to fit the Project
According to Polkinghorne a hermeneutical phenomenological research process should adhere to a methodology rather than a method. In his distinction a methodology is a creative approach to understanding entailing whatever means necessary for the task at hand rather than a correct method focusing the researcher on procedure and exact knowledge. The use of methodology instead of method requires on part of the researcher the ability to be reflective, insightful, sensitive to language, and constantly open to experience (van Manen, in Laverty 2003).
This study has a dual purpose. It both sets out to better understand how increased diversity is likely to impact the social trust in my hometown and also aims to create some trust, either through its production or through its findings. Since I am entering this project from a hermeneutical phenomenological viewpoint my research approach will be focusing on the lived experience of the phenomenon. And by choosing to explore the phenomenon through open hearted dialogues with local women in Skellefteå I hope to be able to pursue both my aims by the chosen methodology.
Hermeneutical Circle as a Research Method
Adhering to a hermeneutic phenomenological research method means that the researcher is to explore the lived experience of a phenomenon by processing material by employing the use of the hermeneutic circle. The hermeneutic circle describes a process in which I, the person trying to understand, is processing the material by moving from its parts (the individual statements and accounts), to the whole of the experience (the totality of the material accounts) and “back and forth again and again to increase the depth and level of understanding from within the text” (Laverty, 2003, p.24). The employment of the hermeneutical circle is an
intense and demanding endeavour for the researcher as one is expected to fully submerge in the material. Within the hermeneutical circle the analyses move from what is unique within one account to what is shared among the participants. The researcher is expected to interpret the participants experiences, using own experience but with a commitment to understand the participants point of view as well as keeping a focus on meaning-making within the context of the phenomenon. Also, as this hermeneutical circle proceeds it requires some important introspection and work on the self on the behalf of the researcher (Laverty, 2003).
The production of the material will be described in detail below. Once produced the material was processed in the following stages; as described below the accounts were not easily
transcribed hence I resorted to extensive listening and re-listening to the recordings to identify significant statements. After having singled out the significant statement I could find in each account I identified themes to which the significant statements could be seen to belong.
Themes identified in one account were then sought across all texts to identify common
themes. This circle of examining and re-examining the material both parts of a whole and as a whole is meant to continue until no new themes emerge, a point called saturation. (Laverty, 2003). However, coming to a point of saturation is a fleeting moment in a hermeneutical endeavor. And as I will describe below in the section about rigor, I feel some hesitance to whether I reached saturation within my material.
Participants
The aim of participant selection is to find participants who have lived experience that reflects the focus of the study, who are willing to talk about their experience, and who are diverse enough from one another to enhance possibilities of rich and unique stories of the particular experience (Laverty 2003). To be able to answer my research question; what is the lived experience of social trust amongst immigrant women in Skellefteå? I needed to find
immigrant women, with diverse life-words, who were willing to talk about their experiences of trust.
Selection process
To find participants for my study I contacted a local NGO called Tusen Systrar (transl. A Thousand Sisters). This NGO is working for sisterhood, existential health and empowerment with a focus on newly arrived immigrant women. Had it not been for the Covid pandemic I could have visited one of the weekly events organized by the organization to meet potential
participants. But due to the Covid restrictions no events were scheduled. Instead, I asked the employee of this organization, for full disclosure also my own sister, to find me five non- western immigrant women, preferably from different regions and with different educational background. My only additional selection criteria was that I wanted to be able to conduct the interviews in Swedish. The participants did not need to be fluent in Swedish only able to express themselves.
We agreed that she to begin with would only present potential participants with a written letter in which I described my project to see if that could attract any volunteers. However, the letter, although presented to potential participants by a person known to them, did not
generated any interest of participation. She then informed the same women that I was her sister and that it would be helpful to me if they would agree to speak to me after which she immediately got five volunteers. She passed on their mobile numbers to me, and I contacted them by SMS and asked if they were willing to participate in the study. Three of them replied, via SMS, that they were willing to participate, and we arranged to meet in person.
Due to the Covid restrictions we arranged to meet outside, either nearby there home or place of work.
Since I did not receive any response from the last two women, I went on to look for other candidates who would fit my selection criteria. This time I ended up asking two women who I knew from before. They both fit the selection criteria and also added variation when it came to educational background and I had reason to believe that they would have a lot to say on my topic of interest. One of those interviews was conducted digitally and one took place in a coffee shop.
The five participants were all mothers between 30- and 45-years old living within the
municipality of Skellefteå. They originated from different countries, two had Middle Eastern origin, two had African origin and one had Asian origin. They had different educational background, ranging from no formal education to advanced university degrees. Two of them had come to Sweden as refugees with no prior knowledge about Sweden, two had come to join their husbands who had previously arrived as refugees and one married a man who had grown up I Skellefteå. They had lived in Skellefteå between five and nine years. One of them is in full time employment, one was working full-time in supported employment, two were part time working and part time studying and one was studying full time. Four out of five of the participants expressed concerns that there Swedish would be insufficient to take part in the interview.
In a phenomenological study language is of essence. When choosing to conduct the study in such a way that it would include participants with whom I do not share fluency in a common language I took a deliberate risk. I do understand and acknowledge that language will be a barrier and necessitate additional layers of interpretation on my behalf which might come to affect the quality of the findings. In a way this study becomes an experiment to whether it is possible to interpret lived experiences through additional layers of interpretations.
There was a risk that I would not be able to understand the participants accounts and there was also a risk that the participants might feel that they were not able to fully convey their experiences. During the interviews the language was an issue but not a barrier. I felt that I understood what was conveyed and the participants expressed afterwards that they were happy with their contribution. However, while transcribing the material the language issue caused me to add layers of interpretation that might have affected the quality of the material. I will return to this in the section on how I have processed the material. Nevertheless, I opted to include women with restricted command of Swedish partly because I wanted to include their experience in the material and partly in pursuit of my second aim, to allow for the study itself to create some trust. I will return to this later.
I would, at this point, like to emphasize that although some of the participants in my study might be less than proficient when it comes to the use of the Swedish language, they are all fluent in one or many other languages. Hence, the participants are proficient in making meaning of themselves and explore their lifeworld using tools available to them by the other languages they command.
Table 1 Participant Demographic Summary
Age Origin Educational
background
Time in Sweden
Reason for relocation
Occupation
W1 30-34 Middle East High school degree
5-10 years Love Studying
Working part time
W2 30-35 Asia No formal 3-7 years Refugee Working
(arbetsmarknadsåtgärd)
W3 30-35 Africa High school
degree
5-10 years Love Part time studying part
time working as a temp W4 40-45 Middle East High school
degree
5-10 years Refugee Studying
Vocational education
W5 40-45 Africa Advanced university degree
5-10 years Love Working, fulltime
employed
Production and processing of the material
All the interviews were conducted one by one, in Swedish during April 2021 and they lasted between 41 and 63 minutes and they were all recorded. Had it not been for the time
limitations of this project I would have done follow up interviews. The location for the first three interviews were chosen by me and the participant together, we met up nearby there home or place of work and walked until we found a suitable place to sit down, a playground, a park and a bench outside a laundry facility. Before the interview we talked about my project, I explained how I was going to use the material, that their participation was voluntary and that they could choose to finish the interview at any time or even to withdraw their participation at a later date. I also asked for permission to record our conversation and ensured that the
recordings would only be used for the purpose of this project.
I used a simple interview guide with just a few, experienced based, open-ended questions to allow for as much free speech as possible. I approached the interviews in a very mundane manner. My intention was that the set up would feel more like an everyday conversation between friends than an interview per se. In my chosen approach the interview is meant to be an interaction between researcher and participant and the material is seen as produced by the participant and the researcher together. As Rapley states “interviewers don't need to worry excessively about whether their questions and gestures are ‘too leading’ or ‘not empathetic enough’; they should just get on with interacting with that specific person. When it comes to analyzing interviews, I argue that you should analyses what actually happened – how your interaction produced that trajectory of talk, how specific versions of reality are co-
constructed, how specific identities, discourses and narratives are produced” (Rapley 2004, p 80).
Considering my second purpose; that my study shall contribute to trust production, I would have chosen focus groups as my tool to produce material if it had not been for the Covid restrictions. My own experiences of sharing circles in women only settings make me believe that focus groups could have been trust producing events in themselves. Focus groups could have offered women an opportunity to share experiences as well as an opportunity to revise
existing knowledge about the surrounding community. But this time I had to settle for one-to- one interviews and as mentioned I did my best to make the interviews into friendly
conversations. After the interviews I asked the participants how they had experienced the interview and was told by two of the participants that this was the first time they had ever spoken about “real things” in Swedish and that they felt empowered because they had managed to have that conversation.
Transcripts and language
It was my intention to do verbatim transcription of all interviews. However, after having tried that I came to the conclusion that due to the participants use of Swedish the transcript became almost incomprehensible. This was somewhat surprising to me since I had not experienced any difficulty in understanding what was said during the interviews. Being able to have and meaningful conversation with people with limited command of Swedish is an acquired skill, and something I have practiced a lot during my years working with newly arrived immigrants.
It is about listening for the meaning more than listening for the words. This is easier in a meeting with a person than when reading words from a script. I had to be pragmatic and the interviews that made sense in transcript I transcribed word by word and the others I
transcribed much freer summarising the meaning in what was said rather than focusing on the words that was used (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009). However, as a researcher employing a hermeneutical phenomenological approach, after the first transcript of the interviews one is meant to look for significant statements in the scripts. This is not possible to do from
summaries. Instead, I returned to the recordings, listening and re-listening until I felt sure that I had interpreted what was said correctly. I then wrote it down using correct grammar and phrasing to make the meaning of the significant statement clear to the reader.
Choosing participant without fluency in the language certainly effects the material. One aspect is that of an additional layer of interpretation on my part. But if fluency in Swedish or English would have been a prerequisite to participle in the study the experiences of those particular women would not have been accounted for. Being able to include their experiences in the study outweighs the interpretive implications it entails for the material (Kvale &
Brinkmann 2009).
Identifying Common Themes
The analyze of the material begins with a process of identifying significant statements in the individual accounts. A significant statement is an account that seems to carry meaning related to the phenomenon under study (Laverty 2003). In my material, due to language difficulties when transcribing, those statements are not always verbatim transcript but rather my
summarized interpretation of the meaning of what was said. The significant statements are then, if possible, related to other statements within the account to create themes. Themes from individual accounts are then meant to be joined with similar themes in other accounts and emerge into common themes, representing the totality of lived experience of the phenomenon under study as existent in the material. The daunting final task in a phenomenological study is to convey the findings as a narrative that comprise the totality of the experience conveyed in the material in such a way that it elicits an experience of the phenomenon within the reader.
(Laverty 2003)
To be able to identify significant statement in the accounts I used both the transcripts but also the recordings. It was a rather straight forward process although it entailed some thought- provoking findings of significant silences within the material (see below). Once I had identified a statement, I labelled it as potential theme such “loneliness”, “heart and mind”
“acts of trust,” “isolation,” “recognized and accommodated”, and” there is a line” “accepted vulnerability” etc. Although it was difficult to separate one theme from the next and some statements entailed many different themes it felt like a meaning making process and I reached a point when the different themes had merged into four common themes which I called “acts of trust”, “isolation”, “recognized and accommodated” and “there is a line” and I felt satisfied with my categorization. However, the hermetic circle never stops turning and a point of saturation is time limited (Laverty 2003) something I experienced when I revisited the
recordings and a new theme emerged which restarted my process and all my previous themes tangled back together. Conditioned by time limitations I started to write my findings in relation to my previous themes. However, this felt as if I was wrapping the material rather than presenting it. To be true to my understanding of the material I eventually ended up with just one common theme which, however, is a continuum that spans the distance between the two poles of belonging and separation. The common theme of belonging-separation contains all the fifteen significant statements I have singled out from the material.
In the table below I have included the previous themes of “acts of trust”, “recognized and accommodated”, “isolation” and “there is a line” and also the fifth theme of “significant
silences” I have also included the significant statement according to my previous
categorization. I have done this for transparency of the analytical process. But they do not reflect my final interpretation of the material in which all individual statements merge into a whole representing the span between belonging and separation.
Table 2, Common themes, related themes and significant statements
Common theme Related themes Significant statements Belonging-
Separation
Acts of trust Statement 1
Statement 2
Recognized and accommodated
Statement 6 Statement 7 Statement 9
Isolation Statement 3
Statement 4 Statement 5 Statement 8
There is a line Statement 11
Statement 12 Statement 13 Statement 14 Statement 15 Significant Silences Statement 10
Reflexions on the Analytical Process
I have submerged myself into the material and processed it, and my own experience of it, in many ways. I have analyzed the material through theoretical lenses at my desk, but I have also allowed the material to flood through me by listening and re-listening to the recorded
interviews while doing laundry or walking my dogs in the woods. Insight have suddenly occurred to me while grooming my horse, listening to music and while meditating. The frequent occurrence of the topic of trust in mundane conversations has made it obvious both to me and to my family that my dialogue with the material has been more or less constant during a number of weeks.
Ethics
“The potential benefit of the project must be greater than the potential harm imposed by the project” (Gustafsson et al. 2005, s.19). Social trust is a valuable resource both to individuals and society. The purpose of this project: to better understand the concept of trust and if possible, contribute to the production of trust this project is certainly not intending to do any harm.
However, I have had some issues of ethical concern while conducting the study. To begin with I have been questioning how to understand the voluntary participation of the participants.
None of them volunteered to begin with, only after having been asked to participate by my sister they agreed to do so. It would have been preferable if they had opted-in to participate without further encouragement (The Research Ethics Guidebook 2012). But on the other hand, without further encouragement they would not have taken part and their experiences would not have been accounted for. In a sense, my sister was putting pressure on the
participants to take part when she told them that the researcher was her sister. It can be seen as she asked them for a favor. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In a sense it might somewhat even out potentially power imbalances between me as a researcher and them as participants (The Research Ethics Guidebook 2012). After the interviews they all expressed that they were happy to have taken part. Also, they expressed that they were happy that they had been able to help me by providing the material I needed. Their understanding of giving something to me entails a measure of reciprocity.
Another concern is that the interviewee itself might become too therapeutic. This might lead to the participant sharing more than she wanted which might be against the interest of the participant. However, this was in my experience, never the case. The interviews were conducted more as a conversation than as an interview making it possible for me to balance shared thoughts and feelings with my own accounts. I did this purposely to make sure that the participant would not leave our encounter feeling as if she had been exposed while I had been guarded. I was also very clear to point out that the interview was voluntary and that
everything that might happened, even if they choose to quit the interview would be a learning process for me and that the material would be dealt with in a confidential manner no matter what.
An ethical consideration of greater concern has been how to protect the participants identity.
I have been very careful when processing the material by using codenames since the first transcript. However, when it comes to writing the report it has become obvious to me that the participants would be quite easily identifiable if more than a minimum amount of personal information is shared in this report. The community of newly arrived immigrants is rather small in Skellefteå, barely a couple of thousand people. To ensure the participants anonymity I have left out village names, country of origin, number of children, occupation and any other personal information that would make it possible to identify them. Even though I have been going through great lengths to ensure the participants anonymity they can still obviously recognize themselves and maybe each other since they are all in the circle of the same NGO.
However, even if they would recognize each other I do not consider that a great ethical concern since they frequently share experiences within their joint belonging in the NGO (The Research Ethics Guidebook 2012).
Establishing Rigor
Establishing rigor in qualitative research differs from that of quantitative research and offers a distinct and separate language. Tobin and Begley state “rigor is the means by which we show integrity and competence” as qualitative researchers (2004, p. 390). Many qualitative
researchers refer to the terms of trustworthiness, dependability, and confirmability,
established by Lincoln and Guba when presenting the rigor of their research project (Laverty 2003). I will adhere to the same concepts.
Trustworthiness is a matter of credibility of the interpretation by the researcher. This can be demonstrated through peer debriefing, prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and
audit trails (Tobin et al. 2004). In this limited study I have not had the opportunity to fully live up to the standard of trustworthiness as I would have liked. It would have been preferable to have used my tutor for some kind of peer debriefing, but my calendar did not allow for that.
I would also have liked to have had the time to let the participants take part of my summaries of there accounts to make sure I did not misinterpret something. However, there was no time for that either. And it is my feeling that I did not really reach a point of saturation with my participants meaning that I would have liked to do follow up interviews as well as include a few more participants in the material. However, there was not enough time. My best way of achieving trustworthiness is to be open about those limitations of the study.
The Dependability of this study has been assured through the use of recorded interviews, transcripts and audio trails throughout the analytical process. The most concreate way to prove dependability would be if the findings of this study could be repeated in other studies with similar participants and contexts (Tobin et al.2004).
Confirmability of this study is comprised of the elements of the research process such as audio recordings of the interviews, transcripts of the interviews, and a trail of my own audio recorded reflex ions throughout the analyzing process (Tobin et al.2004).
Findings
In this chapter I will, present my findings by going through and present different accounts of trust, illustrated by significant statements and allow the material to rather uninterrupted speak for itself. I will then in the following section let the summaries material enter into
conversation with the literature on diversity and trust. The chapter will end with some thoughts on potential policy implications and recommendations for further research.
Inspired by Gadamer, who claimed that strict adherence to method risked hiding the truth (Lewis, p.60) I will present my findings as one narrative without further categorization. To leave out subheadings might render the material difficult to intellectually grasp. However, I have chosen to present my findings in this manner partly to be authentic to my own
experience of the material; as one whole consisting of all its parts without further
categorizations, and partly due to my intention to intellectually overwhelm the reader who thereby might be able to absorb the material, not just intellectually but also as a lived
experience. However, I offer the reader to interpret each statement through a lens reflecting different depth of belonging and separation.
Encounters with trust
The participants lived experience of trust span from smaller acts such as agreeing to talk to me, which to some required some risk calculation, or leaving the front door unlocked while talking to me in a nearby playground, to acts of such magnitude that they are difficult to fully comprehend for a person in my lifeworld; such as boarding a rubber raft as a lone parent with two small children and a baby, trying to cross the Mediterranean sea for the seventh time after six failed attempts.
(W2, 11:10)
- Tell me about trust.
- The boat sank, but young people jumped in the water and swam, carrying the boat for three hours with us inside. Imagine that! (Significant Silence)
The way his statement was conveyed, with a subtle smile and gestures as if she was carrying the boat in the palms of her hands, made this potentially very traumatic experience into an account about being taken care of, either by those young people she refers to or maybe by something bigger in an existential sense. This participant kept on telling stories about how unknown people had been helpful to her throughout her life. Her way of interpreting her lifeworld as trustworthy is to me an illustration of her ontological trust.
In the following statement the participant vividly conveys her experiences of calculating the risk involved in her either attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea in a rubber raft or staying where she was:
(W4 21:35)
- First, I did not want to go. I did not want to take a raft over the water. I was thinking for three days. I was thinking, okey, if I stay here, I will have the same life as before. If I go, I might get a new life. I might die on the way. And if I die, I die. But I want a new life. I will go! (Significant Silence.)
The beginning of the statement reads as a somewhat intellectual rationing, but it was communicated in a very passionate manner, with her face, gaze and palms facing upwards when she states “if I die, I die” suggesting that her decision was not an intellectual one rather based on a feeling that she trusted something greater and was not fearing the potential death.
Her last words: “I will go!” were delivered as an acclamation
This account is a marvelous illustration of Möller´s trust process as he describes it as a mental leap “across the gorge of the unknowable from the land of interpretation into the land of expectation.” (Möllering 2001, p. 412). The participant´s trust process starts in her land of interpretation, or her horizon, which is everything that is known to her at that point. “First I did not want to go. I did not want to take a raft over the water.” Then her trust process
begins:” I was thinking for three days. I was thinking, okey, if I stay here, I will have the same life as before. If I go, I might get a new life. I might die on the way.” Up until this point she is still in the land of interpretation, within what is known to her, within her horizon. However, in her next statement “And if I die, I die” supported by her gaze and gesturing she starts to blend the known with the unknown. Then she takes the mental leap: “But I want a new life.” And she lands, jubilant, in the land of (positive) expectations: I will go! And with that she starts her journey towards a new setting.
Once in Skellefteå the participants begin their exploration of their new lifeworld. As already established, language is the main tool to create meaning and understanding. And the
participants are initially restricted in their meaning making processes by not speaking the common language.
(W1, 27:17)
- Without speaking the language, I do not feel confidence. I want to be a part of the language of this country. I feel embarrassed when I do not understand. I feel shame.
Her experienced inability to be part of the common language is reducing her trust in herself and is conveyed as a shameful experience. Not speaking the language has for this participant become almost synonymous with not belonging as she illustrates in the following statement describing her local area that is characterized by middle class, house-owning, native Swedes.
(W1, 15:42)
- It is a quite area, I like it, people are nice, the neighbours are nice. I do not feel that
“I do not speak good Swedish”. They great me in the mornings, they help me with the snow. They are nice to me. I do not feel isolated.
Some of the participants no longer feel restricted by their use of language. Instead, they are facing another hurdle in their interaction with the local community, the mysterious nature of the native inhabitants. There are many accounts of Swedes being “nice”, “kind”, “calm” and
“law-abiding”. Swedes are described as “respectful” and “democratic” but at the same time the participants find the Swedes introvert and difficult to understand.
(W3, 10:04
- (Local area) is a very nice place! We have coffee shops, restaurants, grocery store. It is super nice! And there are people from all around the world. It is super!
- And your neighbours?
- Unfortunately, I do not feel contact with my neighbours. We just say hello. I know their faces, but I don´t know their thought and feelings.
- Why is that?
- It is difficult to know Swedes. They do not trust others. Do you understand?
- Are they mostly Swedes...? And they don’t trust you...?
- I do not know if they trust me. It is difficult to have contact with Swedes.
- Do you trust them?
- They are kind, I know they are kind…
There is a lot in this account. To begin with enthusiasm and pride in her local area. But her mood swiftly shifts when I ask about her neighbours. She becomes hesitant and almost apologetic when she conveys her lack of contact with her neighbours. In her “Do you
understand?” she is trying to find out if her experience about Swedes not trusting others is an experience shared by me. My response, meant to be encouraging, is uttered almost
disbelieving, seem to signify to her that our experiences do not conform and her following “It is difficult to have contact with Swedes” might well include me. Her concluding remark: “they are kind, I know they are kind” is expressed as if almost mystified. And in the following significant silence I feel as if I somehow have abandoned her.
However, feeling distanced from her neighbours doesn’t hinder her from perceiving herself as
“a local” in Skellefteå.
(W3, 32:30)
How did you become a Skelleftebo (transl. identify as resident of Skellefteå)?
- When I started to work!
- How so?
- I started to meet new faces I never met before. And I got to know them. And I got to know my work. All my life I have been studying and when I started working at (place of work) I could feel that I developed as a person. And my language! (…) Now I feel as if I know everybody who lives in those places, how they experience, how they think.
I don´t know why, but it feels wonderful!
Her work setup is characterized of ethnic diversity, hence provides a setting which recognizes and accommodates many different ways of being. This could possibly be an explanation to how she can both feel mystified by her Swedish neighbours and at the same time feel like a Skelleftebo.
Diversity is constantly present in the material since all the participants are non-western immigrants and their lifeworld in Sweden is thereby conditioned by the diversity represented by their native origin in relation to their place of residence. However, some of the participant also live in areas that are characterized by ethnic diversity. Ethnically diverse areas are according to constrict theory making people less trusting due to perceived norm asymmetry.
(Putnam 2007). In the following account the participant tells us about the diversity in her local village, she acknowledges that diversity could be perceived as a problem by some. But not by her.
(W4, 33:55)
- There are a lot of people from different countries and cultures and religions, immigrants but also Swedes. I have heard that there are a lot of problems in (local area). I have heard it but I have not experienced it. I can go to school and to work without feeling any problems. When I first moved here, I was told about the problems but now I have lived here for four years and I have never had any problems with thieves or alcoholics or anything else.
In this account the participant acknowledges diversity “different countries and cultures and religions” but conclude by recognizing only two groups, “immigrants but also Swedes”. Her way of dividing inhabitants into immigrants and Swedes is reoccurring in the material. And it is noteworthy that the only group referred to as ethnic and attributed specific characteristics in the material is “Swedes”. Her account continues whit what could be interpreted as an account of community trust in line with our given definition, “a form of localized collective memory, where actual lived experience is mixed with impressions gained from local folklore, stories told by others in the community and reports in media”. (Trädgårdh et al.p 322). However, she has not let “stories told by others or media report” mix and influence her own experience of not feeling any problems. Whatever its reputation, her local community has recognised her resources and accommodated her for who she is. Her way of acknowledging the diversity before stating that she has not experienced any problems can be seen as a way to stand up for the ethnically diverse community that she herself is part of. And it adds support to the notion in a previous account of how diversity can be accommodating.
All the participants convey their experiences of trust (and distrust) with different words but also with differing manners; vividly, cautiously, spontaneously, deliberately. However, there is one commonality in the totality of the material, that is that accounts of trust are told with confidence and pride and accounts of distrust are told hesitantly and apologetically.
The following participant, always very deliberate in her way of speech, becomes obviously thoughtful and seemingly tense when asked about her feeling of local belonging in her local village.
(W5, 16:35)
Do you feel like a (local resident)?
- I would like to, it is difficult. I do not know if that is a feeling you have or if that feeling must be confirmed by the local community. Parts of me feel like a (local resident) but there are other parts that tells me, hey wait, you are not from here.
In this account the participant wants to experience herself as a local resident but finds herself restricted by not feeling recognized and accommodated for who she is. Her local area is characterized by a large number of asylum seekers and being a visible minority herself she feels as if she is being grouped together with others without being recognized as her true self.
The tension between her wish to feel part of the local community and her inability to truly do so became obvious in her breathing and her posture as well as in her speech. Her tension disappears with a sigh of relief when she goes on to state:
- I feel more like a resident of Skellefteå.
- Why is that?
- I think it has to do with a feeling of reciprocity. I have put a lot of effort into being part of Skellefteå and Skellefteå has done the same for me. Doors were opened, I met people and I opened my heart and felt let’s do this together. It is almost as if Skellefteå and I have a relationship which we both contributed to. (…) It doesn´t matter where I come from, once in London you are a Londoner kind of thing. I guess I am a
Skelleftener...
The only social groups previously referred to in the material are Swedes and immigrants (regardless of origin). This participant suggests a recategorization of the previous mentioned groups and suggests a “shared membership in a superordinate category that includes both groups” (Gaertner & Dovidio, in Pettigrew 2011, p.74). This is the participant who is very deliberate with her words and as she suggests this new word, Skelleftener, she simultaneously seems to explore its potential as a re-interpretation of what it means to live in Skellefteå (Lewis 2010).
In the following account the same participant once again becomes thoughtful and hesitant as if she is testing how the words sounds as she goes along.
(W5 37:40)
Do you trust the police?
- Well, … I don´t know… Once when I called the police, they didn´t come… but when I went to my neighbour, who is Swedish and asked him to call, they came straight away… It makes me think... What is this...? Do I trust the police, well…I know you do… (Significant silence)?
The participant herself is unsure if to interpret her experience as an account of discrimination or not and she seem to be testing her interpretation with me. From her horizon it is an account of possible discrimination, but she is also aware that from my horizon it is most likely a coincidence. In the following silence I restrain myself from offering my interpretation of the situation. Instead, my silence becomes a way to confirm her interpretation as possible also for me. In this silence our horizons merges into a shared understanding which can accommodates both interpretations. Recognition and accommodating each other’s perspectives create in this moment, as experienced by me at the time and confirmed by the participant afterwards, an experience of trust.
(W3, 14:39)
How do you experience trust?
- No, well, I can’t trust myself... or I trust myself, but I do not trust anyone else.
- So, you only trust yourself...
- Not just myself, also those I know.
- Who would that be?
- Family....
- Yes…Friends?
- No, just family…maybe neighbours …and some colleagues maybe.
The original family seem to be the base of trust for most participants. With time and
experience in their new setting their trust radius seems to expand. This is exemplified in the account when the participant explores her notion of trust while conveying her account. She enhances her trust radius as she goes along, initially not even trusting herself, to trusting family and finally also including some colleagues. Using Uslaner´s terminology one could say
that by meeting and getting to know more people we expand our moralistic community (2002).
Another theme frequently referred to in the material is not having any friends.
(W3, 17:17)
- Unfortunately, I do not have any friends here. I have acquaintances but no friends.
- What is the difference?
- With friends, I can say everything straight from my heart without being afraid. (…) - Is it your choice?
- Yes, I don´t know, it might be wise to keep a distance… there is a line.
- What would happened if you got friends?
- Chaos! I mean, I can´t know how people think, do you understand? (…) I have good contact with others, but I do not get close.
The statement commences with the expression of regret “unfortunately” followed by the participant explaining that not having friends is her own choosing. At a closer look this initial regret seems to refer to the participant´s lack of trust that stands in her way of having friends with whom she can speak “straight from my heart without being afraid”. Although we can assume from her stated regret that she would like to have friends she considers the risk involved too great since crossing “the line” entails the potential loss of control, “chaos”.
Therefor it is wise to “keep a distance” and she explains that she has “good contact with others without crossing “the line.” Crossing the line is a culturally transcending expression since it is referred to by other participants as well.
(W1, 17:00)
- My trust depends on how much space I am expected to give a person. It is difficult to say. There is a red line. If I give too much space maybe they do not deserve it. It depends…I do not know their thoughts and feelings…
