Background
The acute corona crisis in The Netherlands appears to be over, although the virus is still circulating in society and its evolution in the future remains uncertain. While during the first vaccination round more than 80% of Dutch citizens above 12 years old got vaccinated, little more than 25% went for the latest booster vaccination. However, until now, there has been little insight into the ‘why’ behind vaccination choices. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport therefore commissioned the Athena Institute to explore how people arrive at their vaccination choice.
Objectives
The main goal of the dialogues was to gain insight in the various perspectives, experiences and motives of Dutch citizens in the context of COVID-19 booster vaccinations. The method of dialogue itself was explored as a means for the ministry to engage in meaningful interaction with citizens and to better align policy with these variegated perspectives, experiences and motives. In light of the controversies surrounding the vaccinations that led to polarised societal debates and friction between citizens and the government, we also studied the relationship between citizens and state (institutions): when and where did these relations become problematic and how it can be improved for future purposes?
Approach
The study consisted of three stages. Firstly, three dialogue evenings were organised in Zwolle, Amsterdam and Eindhoven in which Dutch citizens with different vaccination statuses were invited to exchange their experiences and perspectives. Thereafter, a theater dialogue took place at the ministry in The Hague with public health officials to ‘practice with reality’. The actors from theater group BINT confronted officials with people and situations based on the findings of the citizens dialogues. As such they playfully gained insights into the several experiences, motives and norms and values that influenced people's vaccination choice. Lastly, the end session took place in Utrecht where officials from the Ministry and citizens came together in a joint dialogue.
Lessons and outcomes
We saw that the participants based their vaccination choice on multiple (sometimes contradictory) norms, experiences, and perceptions. Their final choice to vaccinate (or not) was based on consciously and unconsciously weighing these different motivations against each other. Their vaccination choices are also dynamic and can differ per phase of the pandemic. Almost every participant mentioned that their vaccination choice was influenced by their place in and interaction with their direct social and societal contexts.
Participants experienced feelings and situations of division and discord. The sentiment of polarisation in society is still prominent. However, the dialogue sessions showed that respectful interaction is possible, even when norms and values were in conflict: interacting in such a dialogic setting gave rise to mutual understanding and respect. Many participants experienced a disturbing distance from the government during the pandemic. People were critical of the general communication by the government and the way corona policy had been developed.
Based on these findings, six lessons for the ministry were developed:
- The situated personal context is the starting point of opinion formation;
- There are many different motives and perspectives, especially within the ‘homogeneous’ groups of completely vaccinated, partly vaccinated, and non-vaccinated people;
- This makes it important for governmental bodies to connect with the various citizens’ frames of reference;
- The assumptions about one another hinder understanding;
- Citizens want more transparency and honesty about the way in which corona policy has been developed;
- Citizens would have liked more interaction with the (local, regional) government besides ‘the press conferences only’.