About the project
European cities are more diverse than ever—yet we still don’t fully understand how street-level workers like teachers, police officers, and healthcare professionals apply policy in complex, everyday situations
European cities have undergone rapid demographic transformation due to new levels of migration and mobility. This has given rise to what scholars call superdiversity.
These shifts create complex institutional challenges, especially for street-level workers such as teachers, police officers, healthcare providers, and social workers, who operate at the intersection of public policy and everyday life.
Despite the urgency of these challenges, there is still little systematic understanding of how such workers justify their decisions—or why similar cases are treated differently. Through four interconnected subprojects, Project ICONIC opens the “black box” of frontline decision-making in superdiverse cities, aiming to reveal how institutions adapt (or fail to adapt) to new forms of diversity and what we can learn to foster more equitable practice.
Comparative case study design
Project ICONIC uses a most-similar case study design to better understand how institutions respond to superdiversity across different European settings. Six non-capital, post-industrial port cities (with populations between 300,000 and 900,000) were selected across three European regions. Each city includes one urban neighbourhood with a superdiverse profile (40–70% of residents with a migration background). These neighbourhoods are paired into three coupled cases for cross-contextual comparison.
Fieldwork focuses on two exemplar sectors based on an ideal-typical distinction of street-level roles: (1) community policing, representing rule-oriented “law maintainers,” and (2) community healthcare, representing client-oriented “welfare implementers.” These sectors are especially relevant given concerns around ethnic profiling, healthcare disparities, and the increasing influence of predictive technologies.
Project ICONIC pioneers a new interdisciplinary field of comparative justification studies to systematically tackle street-level bias and discrimination
Project ICONIC pioneers a new interdisciplinary field of comparative justification studies to systematically tackle street-level bias and discrimination
Research objectives
Analyse histories of justification
Subproject 1 investigates how street-level decisions were justified in the past.
Read more
We conduct an in-depth analysis of closed case files to understand the kinds of arguments and legitimations that professionals have used over time.
Understand practices of justification
Subproject 2 studies how street-level workers justify decisions as they unfold in real-time.
Read more
Researchers follow the movement of workers, data, and practices by shadowing professionals in peer meetings, brainstorm sessions, and daily encounters with citizens. This includes observing both frontline work and back-office activities where digital tools and automated systems play a role.
Identify scenarios of justification
Subproject 3 explores why street-level workers justify decisions differently in similar situations.
Read more
It focuses on how professionals interpret who “belongs” or “deserves” certain services, and which categories guide those judgments. To study this systematically, we use vignette experiments: fictional but realistic case descriptions that reflect actual dilemmas faced in diverse urban settings.
Share lessons of justification
Subproject 4 ensures street-level workers directly benefit from participation in the research.
Read more
Rather than simply extracting knowledge, we create a co-creative learning infrastructure where participants reflect on findings and learn from each other’s experiences. We organize Local Labs (two per neighbourhood, twelve in total), where street-level workers discuss research insights and share practical challenges in their local context. Additionally, transnational Labs bring together participants from different countries to exchange experiences across borders and cultural contexts.
1
Determining histories of justification
What have been repertoires of justification?
This subproject investigates how street-level decisions were justified in the past. We conduct an in-depth analysis of closed case files (25 per city, across six cities) to understand the kinds of arguments and legitimations that professionals have used over time.
The research follows three steps: first, we study the policy categories used in decisions; second, we analyse the language and reasoning behind these justifications; and third, we trace how arguments developed within specific cases. This helps us understand how professional expertise interacts with institutional pressures, and how particular ways of reasoning gain legitimacy within organisations over time.
How do street-level workers in superdiverse neighbourhoods justify citizen-client-based decisions and why do justifications differ?
2
Understanding (digital) practices of justification
How are decisions justified in the making?
This subproject observes how street-level workers justify decisions as they unfold in real-time. Researchers follow the movement of workers, data, and practices by shadowing professionals in peer meetings, brainstorm sessions, and daily encounters with citizens. This includes observing both frontline work and back-office activities where digital tools and automated systems play a role.
Researchers spend 720 days total across all neighborhoods, shadowing workers and conducting narrative interviews to understand their reasoning and perceptions. This “being there” approach allows us to observe how workers actually do what they do, including how they use digital tools, communicate decisions, and navigate between institutional requirements and the complex situations they encounter.
3
Identifying scenarios of justification
Why do decisional justifications differ?
This subproject explores why street-level workers justify decisions differently in similar situations. It focuses on how professionals interpret who “belongs” or “deserves” certain services, and which categories guide those judgments.
To study this systematically, we use vignette experiments: fictional but realistic case descriptions that reflect actual dilemmas faced in diverse urban settings. In each neighbourhood, 30 professionals (180 total) are asked to respond to these scenarios. This approach allows us to compare how different features—such as a client’s background or behaviour—influence decision-making across cities, professions, and policy contexts. By analysing these patterns, we gain insight into how workers apply discretion in practice and how societal assumptions may shape the choices they make.
4
Sharing lessons of justification
Which lessons can be drawn between cases?
This subproject ensures that street-level workers directly benefit from their participation in the research. Rather than simply extracting knowledge, we create a co-creative learning infrastructure where participants reflect on findings and learn from each other’s experiences.
We organize Local Labs (two per neighbourhood, twelve in total), where street-level workers discuss research insights and share practical challenges in their local context. Additionally, transnational Labs bring together participants from different countries to exchange experiences across borders and cultural contexts. These sessions function as “communities of practice,” where professionals collaboratively build case-based knowledge and develop shared strategies for improving public service delivery in superdiverse neighbourhoods.