I work as an assistant professor in sociology, specializing in Labor, Organization, and Management at the Sociology department at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam in the Netherlands. I am also a member of the Amsterdam School for Social Science Research (ASSR), committee member of the Dutch Sociological Association (NSV), and editor of the Dutch scientific journal Sociologie.

As a researcher, I consider myself to be primarily a policy sociologist. Policy is based on the basic assumption that humans can be influenced. Taking a closer look, we see that the theoretical assumptions that underlie policy instruments often prove to be incorrect or remain implicit or uncorroborated. Consequently, policy measures often have unintended consequences because users or target groups attach different meanings to policy instruments than policy makers or scholars had hoped for or assumed. I primarily assess the assumptions underlying specific policy measures, how these assumptions are connected to the motives and interests of the policy subjects, and what happens if the policy subjects do not act in accordance with the presuppositions underlying policy instruments. My research of the last few years focuses on the legitimization and implementation of health and safety policy, asylum policy, and crime and terrorism fighting.

Health and safety: objectifying risks

Health and safety policy is primarily focused on objectifying risks. I have done research showing that the effect of this goal is limited. Safety instructions and trainings seldom change dangerous habits in the long term because they are not in accordance with learning processes of employees in daily practice. Dangerous situations arise because managers or inspectors maintain counterproductive rules. Employees withhold information on (near) accidents or twist information because they anticipate that those involved will be blamed for this information. Risk stockings and rankings are one-sided and contested because dominant parties succeed in forcing their risk perception on marginal groups. In short, unconditioned faith in the objectivity of risks is likely to result in an illusion of control.

Asylum: ‘genuine’ and ‘economic’ refugees and Gender and asylum

In recent public debates, it has often been argued that the majority of asylum seekers are ‘economic’ refugees. This thesis is based on the assumption that it is possible to distinguish this type of refugee unequivocally from ‘genuine’ refugees. My research on the application of asylum policy shows that this assumption is problematic. Decisions from regional offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) based on applications that are equal in all essential aspects lead to differing outcomes. Furthermore, these regional differences were not compensated in appeal processes. In addition, individual employees of the IND made different decisions with respect to an identical asylum application because their role definition and reputations varied. Therefore, the ease with which ‘genuine’ refugees are opposed to ‘economic’ refugees in public debate ought to be mistrusted.Another research project I have done with Marjolein van Bochove (Erasmus University Rotterdam) concerns gender and asylum. Attention for discrimination against women in asylum law has grown considerably during the last few decades. Yet it is male claimants who have had smaller success rates in the asylum procedures of different countries. Using administrative data from the Dutch INS, we have shown this difference is caused by the traditionally gendered migration pattern of asylum seekers. Men have a smaller success rate than women because they are less likely than women to have a spouse or children, are less likely to follow their spouse to the country of destination, and are more likely to come from countries considered to be safe. This suggests that men are less successful in their attempts to seek asylum because they better fit the image of ‘bogus’ refugees, while women more clearly match the image of ‘victim of patriarchal domination’.

Crime: support of repression, rehabilitation, decriminalization, and tolerating

For over a century scholars and practitioners have conceived public support of rehabilitation as the progressive opposite of the support of repression. Together with Dick Houtman (Erasmus University Rotterdam) I have proven that this deeply entrenched habit is incorrect because: 1) support of both types of crime solving are not mutually exclusive, 2) rehabilitation is just as popular among the constituencies of right-wing political parties than among those of left-wing political parties, 3) authoritarians attain equal importance to rehabilitation as do libertarians. Rather, it is ascertained that public support of decriminalization is really the progressive opposite of the support of repression. Moreover, the reprisal of tolerance of violations of the law is not specific to conservatives, as is often assumed. After all, tolerance of violations of the law that endanger individual liberty or impart the redistribution of welfare is particularly disapproved of by progressives.

Terrorism: sympathizers

According to some terrorist fighters and academics, the constituencies of Muslim extremists are vital to the persistence of the jihad. Together with Maite Verhoeven (Scientific Research and Documentation Center of the department of Justice), I have established that although sympathizers are indispensable for recruiting and sponsoring terrorism, they are less crucial for making journeys abroad, generating revenue, and communication. This is not only so because sympathizers refuse to help because of fear of retaliation, but also because it is unnecessary, impossible, or unfavorable for extremists to recourse to their constituencies. Therefore, sympathizers may be important for the persistence of the jihad, yet their role is not self-evident.