Neighborhood governance during COVID-19: What is lost with reduced face-to-face communication?

ABSTRACT

Neighborhood governance demands ongoing communication between public and private actors. Area brokers, working as boundary spanners, are essential in this process. Their work was severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Social distancing measures hindered face-to-face (F2F) interaction rituals, such as informal conversations and participation meetings. Therefore, area brokers had to turn to communication technologies to mitigate this loss. This research explored how a shift from F2F to mediated communication, affected area brokers’ effectiveness. In total, 21 sequential interviews and three focus groups were conducted with ten area brokers, acting as so-called boundary spanners, in Amsterdam during three phases of the pandemic. The analysis shows that, while mediated communication helped them to continue their tasks, the relational and functional affordances of communication technologies constrained boundary-spanning activities, impacting neighborhood governance. The paper raises two critical issues for neighborhood governance beyond the pandemic. First, mediated communication can aggravate existing inequalities in the ability of citizens to communicate with local government representatives. Second, although communication technologies are currently on the rise in local governance, they are only effective when coupled with discretionary space for boundary spanners to employ them in fitting ways.

KEYWORDS:

• Communication affordance
• interaction rituals
• neighborhood governance
• boundary spanning
• COVID-19

Introduction

This paper aims to unravel how neighborhood governance has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the pandemic, many cities shifted to neighborhood governance; a governance form in which residents are stimulated to actively participate in urban development (Bartels, 2016). Neighborhood governance emerged out of the idea that municipalities need to act more as an equal network partner for citizens and other local stakeholders (Kalandides, 2018; Strydom et al., 2018). The rationale for this approach is that local communities are most affected by changes in their direct surroundings (Kalandides, 2018) and have the knowledge, position, or resources required for an effective approach, which the government often lacks (Bartels, 2016). Citizens and other local stakeholders want room for own initiative and interactive municipalities (Kruyen & Van Genugten, 2020) that provide opportunities to participate in policymaking (Bovens et al., 2012).

Ongoing and two-way communication with local stakeholders through fitting and extensive communication practices is vital for public engagement in neighborhood governance (Falco & Kleinhans, 2018). Following public and bureaucratic demand (Jeffares, 2020), communication technologies are increasingly incorporated in municipal workflow, also within the context of neighborhood governance (Falco & Kleinhans, 2018). However, face-to-face (F2F) interactions are still integral to the process of stimulating and facilitating collaboration with residents, business, and other organizations (Bartels, 2013; Breek et al., 2021b).

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced municipalities to reconsider their communication practices. Specifically, COVID-19 measures have severely constrained officials in engaging in F2F interaction, both within and outside the organization. These measures not just aim at decreasing the amount of F2F interactions but also hinder interactions through social distancing or wearing face masks. Similar to other organizations, municipalities resorted to digital communication methods while the social distancing measures were in effect (VNG Realisatie, 2020), also to facilitate participation (Blok et al., 2020). Insight is required in the way in which neighborhood governance has held up under the interaction constraints due to coronavirus measures. This understanding is pertinent given the fact that many of the challenges related to the pandemic require a municipal response in constructive collaboration with local stakeholders, while various dimensions of neighborhood governance rely on social interaction and may have come under increased pressure. Furthermore, the impacts of loss of F2F contact is likely to be unevenly distributed, affecting some parts of the population more severely than others. But also looking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, the exceptional circumstances of the crisis can generate better insight in the potential role of communication technologies in neighborhood governance, as well as associated pitfalls.

Zooming in on the forms of communication and the technologies used by neighborhood governance officials who regularly engage with residents and other stakeholders within and outside the organization, the question is how the coronavirus restrictions impacted their ability to function, and whether the loss of F2F contact could be mitigated through the use of communication technologies. In addition, the paper discusses what or who suffers when communication cannot be done F2F.

In order to analyze communication practices in the context of neighborhood governance during the COVID-19 measures, the paper, exploits a theoretical framework, further outlined in the theoretical section after this introduction, that integrates Collins’s (2004) work on interaction ritual chains (IRC) and media affordance (Bucher & Helmond, 2017). IRC theory focusses on the drivers and the outcomes of social interactions in co-presence and offers a model for analyzing the workings of F2F communication. The conceptualization of communication affordances is a complementary theocratical lens, as it points to the relational and functional way communication technology allows and constrains human behavior (Hutchby, 2001).

The research consists of a single-case study in the Noord district in Amsterdam, comprising 21 interviews and three focus groups with neighborhood governance officials charged with the actual interacting with the local community. Noord is a diverse and fast-growing district, with a below average income due to its working-class history (Kamp & Welschen, 2019). Currently, higher educated and earning households are entering the district in a gentrification process (Milikowski, 2018; Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek [OIS], 2020). The COVID-19 crisis exacerbated already existing inequalities, as more disadvantaged residents were hit harder by the social and economic consequences (OIS, 2021b) and the switch to online has led to unequal accessibility of municipal services (OIS, 2021a, 2022). Therefore, the case allows for a better understanding of the unequal impacts of a loss of F2F communication in neighborhood governance.

In Noord, like in all other districts in Amsterdam, a specific form of neighborhood governance, area-focused work, was introduced in 2015. Area focused work ideally entails that the municipal organization is no longer the only one taking initiative in tackling local issue (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021a), as residents, entrepreneurs and (social) organizations are understood to be both able and willing to do a lot themselves (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid [WRR], 2012). When addressing the local issues, area focused work, aims to identify what is possible in the particular local context, who is willing and able to participate and what policies and rules stand in the way. While there are moral or political reasons for the approach, such as bringing municipal policy and services closer to the citizen, there is also the belief within government that it is more effective and efficient (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021a). In this research the focus is on, so-called area brokers, who are the main executors of area-focused work (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021b). They make connections within and outside the organization, create and maintain trust between various parties, boost local initiatives and regularly engage in public encounters with local residents and other stakeholders.

Experiences with the area focused work approach are mixed. In Noord, residents have voiced anger at municipal plans and at, in their eyes, limited opportunities for participation. Underlining the critique of residents, The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area Ombudsman ruled in one case that the district had been “inadequately careful” with residents’ participation (Ombudsman Metropool Amsterdam, 2021).

The main findings in this paper show how communication technology could only partially soften the impact of COVID-19 measures on neighborhood governance. In comparison to the F2F verbal and non-verbal communication potentials, communication technology has clear limits when it comes to the communicative maneuverability for subtle and flexible expression that is needed in the work of area brokers. This profoundly hinders them to adjust and attune their communication, essential for conveying information in sensitive situations, but also for negotiation and collaboration activities inside and outside the organization and maintaining internal and external networks.

In the general discussion and conclusion section, two critical issues for neighborhood governance are raised. First, mediated communication is problematic in neighborhoods with a weaker social-economic status. While increasing usage of communication technology has been observed in municipal practices (Jeffares, 2020), this study suggests this increase will add to the already unequal accessibility for citizens within interactive governance approaches (see e.g., Hastings & Matthews, 2015). Second, officials working in the frontline of neighborhood governance, need discretionary space in dealing with the local community (see e.g., Bartels, 2016), particularly when using communication technology. The paper ends with discussing implications for neigborhood governance practice.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework of this paper combines a focus on interaction rituals and the affordances of communicative technologies, with an understanding of the work of area brokers as boundary spanners. Below we discuss how each of these theoretical lenses contributes to the analysis and offers currently underdeveloped insights to the field of neighborhood governance.

Area brokers and boundary spanning

Area brokers operate as the local municipal network partner for citizens and businesses (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021b). Their key task is to bridge the gap between the political-administrative process of the municipality and the everyday life worlds of residents (Majoor, 2016). Area brokers pass on signals from the neighborhood to the relevant actors within the municipal organization, as well as vice versa. They take the position of “broker” between municipality and neighborhood, as they actively connect policies with existing local networks and ensure that a local issue is not viewed from one policy perspective (Majoor, 2016).

Officials operating on the border between policy and lifeworld of citizens are also called boundary spanners (van Meerkerk & Edelenbos, 2019). Boundary spanners are individuals who coordinate and collaborate across organizational boundaries (Williams, 2012). In the public sector, they are seen as vital in the initiation of cross-border collaboration and innovation (van Meerkerk & Edelenbos, 2019). Van Meerkerk and Edelenbos (2019) define boundary spanners in the public sector as follows: “boundary spanners are people who pro-actively scan the organizational environment, employ activities to collect information and to gain support across organizational or institutional boundaries, disseminate information, and coordinate activities between their ‘home’ organization or organizational unit and its environment, and connect processes and actors across these boundaries” (p. 2).

Relevant for our analysis is van Meerkerk and Edelenbos (2019) distinction between four types of activities of boundary spanners: (1) collecting information and exchanging knowledge (including the translation of information for different audiences); (2) developing and maintaining relationships between actors of different organizations; (3) coordinating and negotiating with internal and external actors; (4) mediating and facilitating cross-border cooperation, often involving different and sometimes opposing interests.

F2F and informal interaction in neighborhood governance

According to Blijleven and van Hulst (2021) F2F contact is especially important for public officials operating in what they call “the frontline” of public engagement. They see extra value of F2F interaction for “understanding the situation.” In other words, officials can take stock on site and meet with the locals involved. Listening carefully to their perspective and asking further questions, provides them with a more thorough and balanced understanding of the situation. Also, face to-face contact is important for “building rapport and trust,” as it allows public officials to communicate in an intimate and synchronized way. Relating on a personal level, showing that they take them seriously, helps the public official in collaborating and participating with local stakeholders (Breek et al., 2021b).

Boundary spanners, such as area brokers, in particular, feel this need to engage in F2F interaction. Not only do F2F interactions help them to operate more efficiently and effectively, but such interactions are explicitly demanded by citizens and other local stakeholders (Bartels, 2013, 2014). They want to engage with public officials in an equal and interactive manner and not have the feeling they are fobbed off with more instrumental participation and collaboration instruments such as surveys or public enquiry meetings (Bartels, 2014).

Bartels (2013) defines F2F interactions between public officials and citizens as public encounters. His research points specifically to “the communicative in-between” of these public encounters, to stress the importance of the inherent relational dynamics. “Public encounters involve not only the exchange of substantive arguments, but more fundamentally a process of relation-building work through which people learn to communicate with others with very different backgrounds, ways of thinking and ways of valuing” (Bartels, 2013, p. 476). Bartels (2013) emphasizes the situational and performance aspect of public encounters. What is said or not said, the setting of the encounter and the particular way in which the participants interact, are all significant for the outcome of public encounters (Bartels, 2016).

Boundary spanning public officials, such as the area brokers of our research, not only depend on effective communication practices with local stakeholders. In order to be effective, they also rely on “collaborative, deliberative and participative encounters” within their own organization (Bartels, 2013, 2016). They have to interact with people in the municipal organization who hold information or decision power, so they can incorporate ideas, initiatives and complaints in policy plans and budgets (Blijleven & van Hulst, 2021).

COVID-19 measures limit F2F contact of public officials both within the municipal organization and with citizens and other stakeholders. There is emerging evidence of the inadequate nature of digital communication practices for the kinds of tasks that area brokers perform, although research specifically on area brokers is scarce. Informal communication and awareness has been shown to decrease when interaction between coworkers is mediated by communication technologies (Röcker, 2012). Informal F2F interaction is necessary for network-management (Fayard & Weeks, 2007). It helps building relationships (Guest & Oropesa, 1986) and co-operation (Pinto et al., 1993) and stimulate unforeseen knowledge exchange, essential for the conception of new ideas and solutions (Brake, 2014). In addition, when coworkers rely solely on formal interactions, this impacts their efficiency, as formal interactions needs to be scheduled and administrated (Kraut et al., 2002).

Furthermore, the “communicative in-between” that Bartels (2014) deems essential for the kind of work area brokers do, cannot be so easily replicated in technology mediated communication. A study conducted within the field of public health emphasizes that mediated interactions obstruct the so-called social noise; the less obvious but important non-goal-oriented aspects of social interaction between people, like a conversation about the weather, a smile, or a hint of recognition (de Vries & Pols, 2020). Bosker and Peeters (2021) underline these findings as they point to the importance of hand gestures during F2F interactions. Such hand gestures are part of spoken language and can reinforce a message and make it easier for others to understand (Bosker & Peeters, 2021). If hand gestures are missing, as with most digital communication, this has a clear impact on effective communication. This is cumbersome for boundary spanners, trying to bridge the government reality with the lifeworld of citizens, as officials tend to rely more on technocratic and text bound communication (van Woerkum, 2002).

Interaction rituals and chains of interactions

Collins’s work on interaction rituals and chains of such interactions (2004) offers a theoretical frame for analyzing the impact of COVID-19 measures on communication practices for boundary spanning activities. Large gatherings in a football stadium, but also participation sessions and informal get-togethers with colleagues or residents, can all be defined as interaction rituals (IR).

Collins (2004, 2020) argues that in situations of “co-presence” (physically demarcated interactions between people) and “mutual focus of attention” participants start “sharing mood or emotion” as “they get into the same rhythm, with voice or body (rhythmic entrainment)” (Collins, 2020, p. 479). He sees these ingredients building up in feedback loops, but F2F contact or bodily co-presence is considered the main enabler of the IR process.

When rhythmic entrainment occurs, “a process of intensification of shared experience” (Collins, 2004, p. 35), the IR will produce positive outcomes for the participants: emotional energy, group solidarity, feelings of morality, and the creation of meaningful symbols (Collins, 2004, 2020). Such outcomes entice people to engage in the ritual again. Positive outcomes and the ensuing desire for them, are the fuel behind the formation of interaction ritual chains (IRC). The formation of such chains of interaction is vital for the shift from one-off encounters to durable relationships and networks.

The question whether powerful interactions and the emergence of IRC can also be established through interactions that are mediated through communication technology, has been a topic of debate. Collins’s initial conclusion (2011) was negative. He judged that without co-presence, and therefore without verbal and physical engagement and attunement, no true interaction ritual would emerge, as shared emotion would be hard to achieve. Others have argued that the mutual focus of attention and the buildup of shared emotions can also be found within social media interaction (Breek et al., 2021a, 2018; van Haperen et al., 2020).

Within the COVID-19 context, Collins (2020) revisited his original statement. Although he now acknowledges the body of literature “that electronic media do not substitute for it [F2F communication], but instead supplement it” (p. 478), he maintains the conclusion that completely switching from F2F to digital communication due to COVID-19 circumstances comes with loss: “If people are deprived of embodied interactions, we can expect they will be more depressed, less energetic, feel less solidarity with other people, become more anxious, distrustful, and sometimes hostile” (Collins, 2020, p. 496).

IRC theory provides an analytical focus to study practices and dynamics in social interaction, which is deemed essential for boundary spanning activities (Bartels, 2013). However, the above shows that there is still a lack of clarity about the effects of communication technology on human interaction. It remains to be seen how a switch to digital communication, as required during the COVID-19 crisis, impacts the work of public officials who normally rely on F2F contact with local stakeholders. For this question, it is also relevant to explore how specific communication technologies enable and constrain interaction rituals.

Communication technologies and how they help shape interactions

With the development of internet and digital communication, an ever-broader range of technologies can be used in communication, ranging from e-mail to WhatsApp and video conferencing. Theorization of technologies’ affordances can help to unravel how technologies co-shape interaction. The term affordance was introduced by the ecological psychologist Gibson, to point out that the physical environment provides or constrains certain behaviors. Hutchby (2001) defined affordances as “functional and relational aspects which frame, while not determining, the possibilities for agentic action in relation to an object” (p. 444). The term functional refers to the notion that technology both enables and constrains certain practices, thus shaping the conditions of possibility. The word relational points to the notion that practices, and outcomes of such practices may differ for the same technology in different contexts, as well as between different users. In other words, while technology may enable a certain practice and outcome, whether that materializes is a situational question. As Hopkins (2020) states: “The verb ‘to afford’ means that it is not the outcome alone that we look at, but also the technology and see what it allows and/ suggests. Thus, in using affordances we do not ignore the way in which technologies can, and often do, put users on particular paths” (p. 2).

Communicative affordances are specific to communication technologies (Schrock, 2015) and highlight how the latter enable particular and constrain other actions (Boyd, 2010; Papacharissi, 2015, 2016). For example, social media enables specific expressivity (for example, emoticons) that accelerates and intensifies interactions, while uneven accessibility of a platform or online community may constrain broad network formation. In line with the work of others (Faraj & Azad, 2012), the analysis in this paper resists the reduction of communicative affordances to features of a technology (e.g., the buttons and screens). While specific features of a technology such as WhatsApp may change, our focus is on how such a technology is embedded in interaction practices and affords a particular form of connectivity and communication. In other words, how are communicative affordances incorporated in the practices of area brokers, and how do they contribute to their ability to operate in their neighborhoods? This knowledge gap is not only related to neighborhood governance during the COVID-19 crisis, but links to discussions about how digital communication and web-based technology may affect boundary spanners professional performance. There is concern whether discretion in work practices would be lost (Bovens & Zouridis, 2002), while others points to digital communication and web-based technology’ potential for reducing cost or organizational control (see Jeffares, 2020).

With this combined conceptual framework this paper outlines the impact of COVID-19 measures on the four types of boundary spanning activities of area brokers (van Meerkerk & Edelenbos, 2019). Collins’s IRC theory (Collins, 2004) draws our attention toward F2F verbal and non-verbal communication potentials, essential for boundary spanning activities as conveying information, but also for negotiation and collaboration. Second, it provides insight in the dynamics of building durable relationships and networks. Successful IRs engender positive outcomes as emotional energy, group solidarity and shared feelings of morality. These outcomes bind participants together as they want to experience these outcomes again. While thinking in terms of communication affordances, helps to steers the analyses away from technological determinism, without also rendering technology into the background (Bucher & Helmond, 2017). Neither technology nor social forces shape interactions alone (Hutchby, 2001).

Methods

Research strategy

The research for this paper used a single case study approach (Yin, 2018). The case was purposively selected and builds on knowledge gathered during previous research on how area brokers in this neighborhood use and perceive communication technology for their activities (Bosker & Peeters, 2021). Based on this previous research it was clear the case would be rich in information on the topic (see Flyvbjerg, 2006).

Noord is the only district of Amsterdam on the northern bank of the IJ. For area-focused work, the district is divided in three areas, that consist of dissimilar urban environments, including business zones, new residential areas and leisure developments, but also neighborhoods having deep socio-economic inequalities. All three areas are covered by an area team, consisting of an area manager, an area coordinator and 4–5 area brokers. The area manager leads the team and works on a strategic level with partners from within and outside the organization. The area coordinator supports the area manager at the operational level. Area brokers regularly engage in public encounters, as they are the linking pins between local government and residents and other stakeholders (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021a).

A large population increase (2010: 86.327 2020: 99.238), presented a major social challenge in Noord (OIS, 2020) as newcomers on average have higher levels of education and income than the residents predating this new influx in the district. Cultural differences and economic inequalities adds to already existing tensions and challenges (Kamp & Welschen, 2019). The socioeconomic consequences of the COVID-19 measures aggravated this, as also the unevenly distribution of the impact of municipal services switching to online (OIS, 2021a, 2022). Noord is a mixed, urban context and contains very diverse needs. This makes the case suitable for an exploratory qualitative case study on the impact of the pandemic on boundary spanning activities within neighborhood governance.

Data collection

For our study we distinguish three phases. Each phase marks a period of scaling up or down of restrictive measures, affecting the area brokers’ F2F options:

• Phase 1 (March 2020–April 2020): shock due to acute health and safety crisis. Restrictive measures were announced in March 2020 for the whole of the Netherlands, coming down to two most prominent: a request to stay at home as much as possible and to keep 1.5 meters distance from others. During this period there is limited opportunity for F2F contact.

• Phase 2: Rlaxation of COVID-19 measures (May 2020–September 2020). The number of infections decreases drastically, and various government measures are gradually relaxed. Working from home and 1.5 meters distance remain the norm, but especially outdoors there is more room for F2F contact.

• Phase 3: back into lockdown (October 2020–March 2021). A partial lockdown is announced again in mid-October 2020. A face mask becomes mandatory in public spaces. As no improvement in infections is observed in December, a “hard lockdown” follows which includes an evening curfew and closure of all schools and non-essential shops. F2F contact is to be minimized as much as possible.

Research methods

Data was collected by means of 21 interviews and three focus group interviews. Interviews were conducted in phases 1 and 3. The research included a majority of area brokers in Noord. While area brokers not included in the research may have different perspectives, given the variety in the interviewees that were reached, the research was able to gather a diverse picture. Ten area brokers, two area managers and one area coordinator, who all vary in terms of age, ethnicity, gender and employment history, were interviewed in Phase 1. The area managers and the coordinator were only interviewed in the first phase. Eight area brokers were interviewed in Phase 3, while two were not able to participate in this phase. Four area brokers were approached for an interview but did not respond. Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. During interviews, the impact of measures and relaxations on their activities and changes in their activities were discussed. Due to the measures, MSTEAMS was used for most interviews. One interview was conducted by telephone, and one was conducted F2F.

In Phase 2, three focus group interviews were conducted, all through MSTEAMS. Three area brokers participated in each focus group, thus reaching nine area brokers in total, all of whom had participated already in the first phase of the research.

The focus group interviews lasted an average of 1.5 hours. In line with the appreciative inquiry method (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2011), interview questions were designed to let focus group participants elaborate on both positive and negative experiences as well as adaptations in their communicative practices. This approach has been shown to generate more balanced discussions in focus groups, as group dynamics sometimes lead to participants re-affirming especially negative experiences voiced in the group.

The research participants gave informed consent (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) to take part in the research, they were fully informed about the scope of the research and how the data will be used. The identity of participants is kept confidential.

Analytical procedures

MAXQDA was used to transcribe and analyze the data. The approach consisted of a first phase of inductive coding, a second phase of deductive coding, with a third phase of clustering and analyzing based on sensitizing concepts, following the approach of Bowen (2006). In the first round of coding, experiences, perceptions and adaptations to practices were identified. Each new experience, perception and adaptation of a practice emerging from the data was given a new code (for example, neighborhood contacts) and subcode (for example new and disappearing). In the second phase, new codes emerged out of a priori theoretical interest (for example, informal interaction). In the third phase, these codes were thematically categorized according to the four types of boundary spanning activities. Additionally, the codes found in each of the four categories were interpreted using sensitizing concepts (Bowen, 2006) from the conceptual framework, namely interaction rituals and communication affordances. Simply put, sensitizing concepts provide a solid foundation to evaluate the emerging thematical categories as they “draw attention to important features of social interaction, providing guidelines for research in specific settings” (Bowen, 2006, p. 3). The constant interpretation and organization of the data offered a path toward refinement and saturation (Bowen, 2006).

Findings

Restrictive measures and the use of communication technologies

COVID-19 measures during all three phases covered in this research apply to area brokers without exemption. Interviewees highlight two main restrictions that impacted their work, first, working from home and second, a ban on organizing official F2F meetings. The requirement to work from home, which was imposed in all three phases, limited informal and formal F2F interaction with residents and other local stakeholders, as well as their opportunity to observe issues or developments in their neighborhoods firsthand. Although some area brokers lived near their work area, most did not. Especially, the latter category indicate they were much less frequently present in their neighborhood. In addition, working from home also meant not going to the office. This resulted in not having any F2F interactions with most colleagues for more than a year.

Regarding the second measure, a ban on official in person appointments, area brokers emphasize the inability to organize consultation hours or neighborhood meetings. This ban was strict in the first and last phase, while more lenient in the second phase, as area brokers indicate that they sought opportunities to engage in F2F interactions with citizens and coworkers while remaining in compliance with the COVID-19 measures. Such interactions happened mostly in the open air, allowed by weather conditions in Phase 2. When keeping 1.5 meters distance, these small-scale get-togethers were considered safe and permitted, also according to their manager. In Phase 3, this was rolled back again, as area brokers should not act as a driver of interaction with and/or between residents. Area broker Babs:

Our organization is being more difficult about it [F2F interaction]. They are very strict. And they continue to insist on it. I always keep that in mind. That doesn’t mean I did not do it. Previously, I would just have sat here, for a meeting about the day market, but I don’t do that anymore. It causes problems, so I don’t do it.

As a result of both measures, all interviewees indicated they used more communication technologies. Before the crisis, area brokers already had their own work telephone and laptop, and WhatsApp, e-mail and telephone were fully integrated in their communicate practices. Also MSTEAMS software had already been rolled out within the whole municipal organization. Although actually using MSTEAMS for communication was still new for them, it was quickly incorporated into their working practices during the first phase, though mainly for meetings with coworkers. Some mention they organized or joined an occasional MSTEAMS meeting with residents, as part of a mandatory municipal participation trajectory.

Retrieving information and knowledge exchange

Having established the broader context of interaction and restrictions during the three phases, we turn to the first task of area brokers, in line with their capacity as boundary spanners. Area brokers act as a pivot point for information exchange within and outside the municipal organization. This task was felt with additional urgency at the start of the COVID-19 crisis. At that time there was a need to monitor sentiment over COVID-19 and the related measures from the neighborhoods, but also to communicate the measures locally to people who would otherwise be less informed. Area brokers are normally uniquely positioned for such communication tasks. They are well connected and have a good sense of how the community will respond. While sentiment analysis and information exchange were deemed essential in the context of the crisis, such activities were challenged by the coronavirus measures.

A first challenge emerged from the limited presence in the neighborhood. In order to form an understanding of any local situation, in this case the impact of the crisis, area brokers depended on getting a wide range of signals and forms of information that they would normally interweave to form an assessment. Limited access to the area and an inability to have F2F interaction limited the ability to play their regular role in retrieving information. Area broker Phillip expresses this as follows:

You are trying to do the kind of work that cannot be done by a computer yet. You are trying to find the common threads, in all kinds of signals, in all kinds of actions, in all kinds of accents and you try to bring that together in a coherent story. And the less input and stimulus you get, the more difficult such a wicker-work becomes.

Due to limited presence in the neighborhood, area brokers were hindered in obtaining diverse signals that normally helps build a picture of an issue or situation. Or, as interviewee Fred puts it: “When you’re on location in the neighborhood, the topics are much clearer to you.”

In all three phases, area brokers employed digital communication to compensate for the lack of local presence and F2F interaction. In line with the conceptualization of affordances, with the impact of technology being relational (Hutchby, 2001), success of such communication depends highly on the socioeconomic profile of neighborhoods. In neighborhoods with a relatively high educated population, area brokers experienced an increase in people seeking to communicate with them, and the use of communication technology was no impediment. They explain this increase in communication with residents with the fact that many high educated professionals were mandated to work from home. As a result, this group paid suddenly more attention to their neighborhood and they were at ease with using digital media to communicate with area brokers.

Other area brokers worked in more disadvantaged neighborhoods. They noticed that COVID-19 pandemic had a detrimental impact in these communities. In their assessment, more residents struggled to keep their heads above water and were thus less focused on their immediate living environment. Therefore, the area brokers felt a need to initiate interactions themselves in order to gain local information. One area broker working in such a neighborhood called residents in the first phase by phone without a direct aim, just to hear what is going on. Both examples show that incorporating digital communication technology in their work is dependent on the context in which it is incorporated. This issue was affirmed in a municipal studies indicating the switch to online has led to unequal accessibility of municipal services (OIS, 2021a, 2022).

Area brokers not only collected information from their neighborhood. As boundary spanners they also facilitated and moderated the distribution of information within the neighborhood (Birkinshaw et al., 2017). Being the personal contact point of the municipality in the neighborhood, area brokers played a role in communicating municipal information, decision-making and procedures to local stakeholders. Due to their knowledge of the local context and their personal connections within the neighborhood, and knowing what the sentiment will most likely be regarding a certain issue, they are in a good position to forward the municipal information in a culturally fitting way (Breek et al., 2021b).

Due to the coronavirus measures, area brokers experienced complications in their leeway to offer information in a suitable manner. For example, some area brokers noticed that in their neighborhoods residents had doubts about many aspects of the COVID-19 crisis, and were sometimes persuaded by conspiracy theories. One area broker told she had to ride on a bus providing information about the vaccination program. While she was asked for this role due to her familiarity with the local inhabitants, the task made her feel uncomfortable. Boundary spanners know that sharing information across borders often requires a certain amount of information translation (Birkinshaw et al., 2017). In this specific situation, the area broker was not able to do this. The information provided about the vaccination program was pre-set, literally printed in brochures. Just spreading government information, or communication in a way that could not be adapted to the situation or perspectives of residents, jeopardizes the trust of people in their network. Interviewees highlight tensions with communications styles that are impersonal, while their network was built on personal relationships and trust. As area broker Phillip expresses: “But then they [communication officials] want me to ask something on their behalf and often I get a ready-made WhatsApp message forwarded, a text and then they ask me to forward that, to ask this from my personal capacity.”

Trust was also an issue in how information was obtained from residents. For example, at the start of the COVID-19 crisis, area brokers had been asked by the municipality to find out whether the youth in their neighborhood were abiding with the COVID-19 measures. Specifically they were asked to enquire in private neighborhood-based WhatsApp and Facebook groups. Area broker Phillip complied with the request, but experienced that using groups for this purpose was not appreciated by the residents: “And then I asked, do you have any signals that there are young people who do such things [illegal parties]? And then I immediately received back; Like, I hope this is sarcastic. And then someone with three question marks.”

While area brokers had been participating to neighborhood-related social media groups prior to the crisis, this particular enquiry was not appreciated and violated the implicit norms that governed the openness offered to the area broker. Asking such sensitive questions through digital media put area brokers in a difficult position. They had less room to maneuver their communication, to adequately adjust their tone-of voice or steer the conversation, which they would be more able to do within in F2F interactions. Especially, emotional interaction on social media over contentious issues could escalate more quickly at the expense of their position in the neighborhood (see also Breek et al., 2021a, 2021b).

Interviewees indicate that the municipal organization understood the importance of F2F interaction for area brokers’ work. Hence, possibilities to still have them, despite coronavirus measures, would be explored by management. Nevertheless, the status quo of working from home and MSTEAMS-meetings instead of meeting F2F was maintained. No exceptions were made for area brokers, as area broker Eric expresses:

That something extra would be organized for us, facilitated, to get more in touch with the neighborhood, not really. It was said by the management months ago, we are working on a plan, to give the area broker, an exceptional position, because it is essential for you. Essential workers, I haven’t heard anything about that yet.

The findings in this paragraph show that area brokers need room to adapt their communication to fit the local community, both in retrieving and conveying information. It needs to feel authentic within the digital media that they used. F2F interaction offered them more flexibility to communicate in ways that suited local stakeholders and decreased or prevented tensions. Without the option of F2F, they sometimes found themselves using communication technology in ways that did not work for them or their local community. Not only did this limit the effectiveness of their work, it also jeopardized their network in the neighborhood, because they ran the risk of violating carefully built trust.

Relational activities

Another important activity for boundary spanners, which was reflected in the work of area brokers, is to form and maintain a network with local residents and other stakeholders. Next to planned and formal interactions, the interviews emphasize the importance of informal, unplanned F2F interactions for maintaining relationships locally, such as stopping by a resident to discuss an issue, a chance encounter at a neighborhood event or having a chat after an official participation meeting. Area broker Suzanne:

You can do less. Certain people text me, with a question, just this or that. I don’t always manage to properly respond to that. Normally you are in the neighborhood or you are at the office and you cycle by and meet four or five of those contacts. Now you have to do that [use digital media] much more. You won’t lose them, but you can give them less attention and maybe with the danger, if this [COVID-19 measures] takes longer, that you will lose them.

Limited formal and informal F2F interactions had severe impact on the networks of area brokers within their neighborhood. First, the interviews show that most area brokers found maintaining contact through digital media easiest to do with the residents and other local partners whom they were already acquainted with. As also indicated by Collins (2020), it is easier to maintain an existing network than to develop important new links remotely. Area broker Phillip expresses this:

I really have to work towards some sort of plan, how I can get new key figures again, which is of course a bit inconvenient, because it can only be done over the phone or digitally with someone you don’t know.

Second, area brokers experienced that as the COVID-19 crisis continued, not all external contacts managed to switch to digital communication, and some contacts also had other preoccupations, due to or amplified by the COVID-19 crisis. Area broker Suzanne: “Normally I get all kinds of signals from residents. Now it remains silent. Every now and then it pops into my head, then I go and approach residents and it turns out that people are working on other troubles.”

This reaffirms the notion that affordances of technology are relational, and they differ between different user groups (also see OIS, 2020, 2021a, 2021b), Especially those area brokers that worked in socio-economically weaker neighborhoods felt that they had lost a part of their preexisting contacts due to the inability to move conversations online.

I do notice that I am really falling behind a bit, with the feeling with the neighborhood, the fingerspizen gefuhl, to use a nice German word, that I am losing that a bit. Certainly because the motto is not to meet with people physically, but my neighborhood, the people I normally speak to a lot, those are not people you just call, who will then tell you in half an hour how everything is going in the neighborhood. (Phillip)

Challenging living conditions of some contacts further affected their network. In the lower social-economic status areas, where houses are smaller, while sometimes accommodating large families, coronavirus measures, such as the curfew (Phase 3) and the closure of schools (phases 1 and 3), disrupted the lives of these residents more severely. The economic impact of crisis was also felt more strongly in these neighborhoods as many low-skilled jobs were less easily continued from home. Area broker Phillip expressed his concerns about how this skewed his network toward those less affected by the crisis:

The great danger is that you speak to certain groups much more and certain groups much less. The groups of people who can organize themselves better, who are much more skilled and who also work from home, are all doing quite well. The somewhat older people, who do not have a highly educated job, or do not have an office job, with them there is less contact.

The COVID-19 crisis has been shown to deepen preexisting inequalities, as it hits the underprivileged residents harder (OIS, 2021a). This also applied to the ability to make yourself heard in the municipality and to receive relevant information through area brokers.

Another relational activity of area brokers is to connect issues, situations and signals from the neighborhood with municipal programs and developments (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021b). For this relational work, they depend on a well-maintained social network in their neighborhood, but also on having good professional contacts within and outside the municipality. For this task area brokers saw several advantages to the new digital working practices:

I think the advantage of this period [coronavirus measures] is that I am in a way more flexible in my appointments. Recently, during a physical consultation with a resident, I had a colleague connect digitally at the same time. This worked very well and easily. While before, this appointment would not take place due to my physical absence. (Ahmed)

The quote shows the way in which communicative affordances can inform behavior and organization of interaction. Most area brokers agreed that digital meetings allowed them to work more efficiently as they had more control over their agenda. The communicative affordances of the suddenly much more used MSTEAMS also altered their communicative practices (see also Schrock, 2015). Digital MSTEAMS meetings allowed for multi-tasking and offered possibilities to switch to other applications, such as google maps, during consultation, which could help clarify a certain point.

Despite such advantages, interviewees mainly emphasize negative impact of mediated interactions on their professional network. As shown, informal, unplanned F2F encounters with colleagues are essential for boundary spanners such as area brokers (Brake, 2014; Fayard & Weeks, 2007; Pinto et al., 1993; Röcker, 2012). During such interactions they bond and form professional relationships, but they can also casually inform a colleague or dig deeper into a certain issue, without an official agenda and minutes. The interviews show that, as the crisis continued, area brokers had not personally spoken to most of their colleagues in person for months, which drastically reduced opportunities for informal consultation and weakened their professional network. Area broker Inge remarks: “My internal network has really become many times smaller. Really. Mainly work-related interactions with a number of colleagues that I also regularly need for my work.”

Also for maintaining contact with colleagues, area brokers depended on informal communication and unplanned interaction which was less easy to establish from a distance.

Coordinating and negotiating with internal and external actors

The third activity of boundary spanners is to play a coordinating and negotiating role. Area brokers did not have a budget, and were not positioned highly in municipal hierarchies of decision-making. However, based on a good network and effective communication, they can have an impact within their own organization and in the neighborhood. It provides the opportunity for area brokers to act as coordinator and negotiator, actively brokering solutions, speeding up processes and creating smoothness in policy making to achieve results within area focused work (Majoor, 2016). Interviewees indicate they felt hindered in this role due to the limitations on F2F interaction and thereby their ability to have more equal, open and interactive dialogs. As one interviewee express:

I find that almost impossible to do through the screen. 1 on 1 no problem, but if you are with five or six others. You can’t even make eye contact. It quickly becomes a nasty kind of conversation. You also can’t do something with a joke and with a certain look, or in a critical way, which is not immediately intended as an attack. (Suzanne)

In order to play their coordinating and negotiating role, area brokers need to exchange information that could not be captured so easily in a letter or e-mail. Communication based on text and written arguments tend to have a more authoritative tone, which makes the communication less tailored to the audience, while citizens expect a more open and authentic communication from the area broker (Breek et al., 2021b). One interviewee adds that e-mail did not allow the immediateness of a verbal conversation. Waiting on someone to react made it harder to adequately adjust and attune the communication, but it also limited their ability to speed up processes.

Due to the dominance of mediated interactions, the scope for coordinating and negotiating had been drastically curtailed, not just outside but also within their organization.

Especially with WhatsApp. If you write something using WhatsApp, you can mean something, which comes across as completely wrong. And I know that this now and again causes problems. And everything officially by e-mail is much more complicated than meeting each other in the hallway and briefly tuning in. (Suzanne)

Interviewees also indicate that digital communication tended to move internal meetings more straightforward toward decision-making. As shown in the quote above, this was caused by the more rigid character of digital communication, allowing less room for probing and inquiring. Especially in difficult, more complicated cases, where a solution is not immediately evident, area brokers must be able to ask critical questions internally, to bring in underrepresented local perspectives, but also to deliberate and debate the decisions that are made. Important as area brokers are often the ones who convey these decisions in the neighborhood. Even video conferencing did not allow room for such work in the same way as F2F meetings.

Also, the so-called “communicative in-between” established within F2F interaction (Bartels, 2013), was being missed. As area broker Phillip stated, in this communicative in-between area brokers could be effective in finding the room for coordination and negotiation:

That noise, to call it like that, which is very informative, very productive noise. It helps. When you were to ask the same question using the email, it would be a very formal question. So in a more appropriate way, by sitting down at a table, and then ask them: can I ask you a question? And then you can also read between the lines, this is a case you have to watch out for, or a case you don’t even need think about.

Negotiating and coordinating between the municipality and local stakeholders often consisted of furthering a process of de-escalation. F2F contact is considered vital for this (Collins, 2020), not only to bring more nuance, but also to steer and diminish a tense conversation, in particular with the more complex and emotional subjects. For this purpose digital communication offered no real replacement (see also Breek et al., 2021b). Then, it was better to meet up F2F with the people who were concerned, as this allows area brokers to communicate in a more sensitive manner. Area broker Phillip realized that harmonizing without F2F interaction was more difficult.

The interaction has all become digital. An email or an [Whats]app. This already used to be the case [before corona]. But then you would quite quickly also meet outside [in person]. It usually starts with a complaint. By going there [meeting face-t-face] you just de-escalate the matter.

Another obstacle in playing a coordinating and negotiating role, which several area brokers express, was that not all colleagues within the municipal organization were easily reachable now everybody worked form home. One area broker put it even more bluntly:

Some of them seem to have disappeared from the face of the earth, they don’t respond to signals that I’ve send. … there is no response at all. I’m sometimes silenced. I find that very odd. Yesterday I had a consultation with my own area team and the others …, that it [no response by some colleagues] was also experienced that way by them. (Suzanne)

While the quote foremost points to working from home having an impact on the ability of are brokers to initiate interactions with colleagues, it may also be seen as another example of conflict and unrest developing much more easily when F2F intersubjectivity is lacking (Collins, 2020). When people are not in direct proximity, or more precise, they do not look each other in the eye, people are less afraid of the social sanction than during F2F meetings (Hopkins, 2020). This is in line with the thought that loss of F2F interaction rituals diminishes group solidarity (Collins, 2004) which will also be addressed in the next section.

Mediation and facilitating cooperation

The last activity of boundary spanners, again building on the previous activities, was to act as a mediator and connecter between diverse stakeholders in their network in order to enable new initiatives and local cooperation. Regarding this task, interviewees indicate a substantial change between the first and the later phases of the crisis. During the first phase of the COVID-19 crisis interviewees praise the flexibility of most of their colleagues, despite a lack of F2F contact. There was a great willingness to be lenient with the rules, in order to absorb the negative impact of the crisis for residents and entrepreneurs, thus enabling area brokers to get things done in their neighborhood. “I think in particular at the start, the crisis resulted in more flexible colleagues. Everyone wanted to contribute from behind their computer, I felt more willingness to look beyond their own station” (Ben).

A municipal policy implemented at the start of the crisis supported them as well. To compensate for the economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 crisis, residents, entrepreneurs and cultural institutions were allowed to propose their own plans, like temporary space for social initiatives in the neighborhood or restaurant terraces. Such plans would be addressed in an online meeting, at the so-called “One-and-a-half Meter Table,” in reference to the social distancing guidelines in the Netherlands. This is an integral advisory board of district Noord, where all relevant public services were brought together in order to facilitate quick decision-making.

Most area brokers reported positively about this One-and-a-half Meter Table. While they were normally positioned to act as mediator and at the mercy of colleagues willing to seek opportunities, this task was greatly aided by the fact that relevant officials were already combined in one committee and the basic inclination was to try and advise positively. As one interviewee stated: “The tendency is, we just try it, because it was consulted with the residents.”

Over time, during the second and third phase, the flexible attitude waned. This experience resonates with Collins’s observation of the social responses to the crisis. Based in Simmel’s theory of solidarity, Collins (2020) sees that the solidarity goes up in the face of a crisis, but typically fades, when IRC interactions are impeded. During the third phase, interviewees report more difficulty in their ability to mediate and facilitate cooperation within their own organization. Without the heightened sense of solidarity of the first phase, area brokers had to rely once again on their ability to communicate within their network. Area brokers experienced that they were becoming increasingly distant from the organization and rely on smaller networks. Area broker Jim says: “Well, for sure you miss your exchange with your colleagues. Of course you still have meetings every 2 weeks via MSTEAMS, but you miss direct contact to coordinate something …”

As research on neighborhood Facebook groups (Breek et al., 2021a, 2018) and social movements (van Haperen et al., 2020) showed, digital media mediated interactions can fuel group solidarity and create the kinds of positive outcomes that keep people engaged. From the experience of area brokers however, social solidarity was only heightened during the first phase of the crisis. After time, solidarity weakened and limited F2F interaction became much more of an impediment for them to be able to mediate and facilitate local cooperation. At the same time, the positive experiences during the first phase, when F2F interactions were highly restricted, but much was possible, indicate that in line with Hutchby (2001), forms and features of communication do not determine outcomes by themselves, but such outcomes are situational.

General discussion and conclusion

This paper set out to answer the question how boundary spanning activities of area brokers were impacted by the communication restrictions imposed in subsequent phases of the COVID-19 crisis. Overall, this research showed substantive evidence of hindrance in their ability to act as boundary spanners when F2F interaction possibilities became more limited. Area brokers in particular need a wide variety of interaction rituals relying on co-presence. Meeting with citizens and professionals on location, visiting key figures from their neighborhood network, organizing consulting hours and catching up with colleagues in formal and informal meetings remains crucial for all facets of their work. Lack of such F2F interaction hampered all four boundary spanning activities. Although area brokers have increased the use of communication technologies in their work, several drawbacks due to functional and relational aspects of communication affordances have been identified.

First, the research unraveled the way communication technology functionally enabled and constrained certain communication practices. When routinely interacting with their existing network, using communication technology proved to be effective. In most other cases, area brokers experienced inadequate results. In particular, the research revealed hindrances in the ability to adjust and attune communication to their audience. Area brokers operate as linking pins between different publics, inside and outside the municipal organization and were accustomed to adapting their communication style and message to the people they were interacting with. In comparison with F2F communication, digital communication technology misses the maneuverability to do this accurately. This lack clearly obstructed area brokers. The rigid and asynchronous communicative affordances of e-mail and WhatsApp, did not allow enough room to accurately change the tone of voice and rhythm of exchange. In particular, when they talked about sensitive and contentious issues or tried to develop meaningful and emotive connections with residents and colleagues, those technologies were unsatisfactory.

Boundary spanners need dynamic and adaptive communication, to connect in a sincere way to the local community. For this F2F communication remains the stronger means of communication. For example prewritten and set text messages, handed down by municipal communication specialists, that could not be adapted to a particular public, or to the response of the receiver, jeopardized carefully built up trust. Even with technologies that allow instant interaction, such as telephone and video conferencing, area brokers emphasized diminished outcomes due to a decrease in social noise, such as small talk about a recent holiday before the start of a meeting. Such informal communication part of many interaction rituals is hard to replicate through communication technology, but is essential in professional and public engagement. Unplanned and informal F2F communication helps to build networks and form the base of pleasant and productive work relations.

Next to impediments due to limitations in functional affordances, this research uncovered drawbacks related to the relational affordances of communication technologies. The ability to use communication technology was different between stakeholder groups. Not everyone in the neighborhood adapted to the new communication regime in the same way. This entails a great risk for area brokers as they may rely too much on those in the network least affected by the crisis and most comfortable with technology mediated communication. Also within their professional network, it was easier to maintain contact with officials they were already acquainted with and had a well-developed working relationship with. Over time this impacted their internal network, which is vital to for their role as carful negotiator and mediator of solutions.

The paper shows the broader relevance of the IRC theory for understanding the importance of F2F interaction in neighborhood governance. First of all, IRC theory helps to understand why F2F interaction is preferred to convey more complicated or nuanced messages within area work. F2F contact allows for micro-coordination of verbal and non-verbal communication, building into shared aims and moral (Collins, 2004, 2020). During small-scale, personal talks, both the area broker and the attendees could present, discuss, adopt, and dismiss various facets of the situation, establishing a rhythm (pace and emphasis) and mutual commitment to their conversation that is characteristic of an interaction ritual (Collins, 2004). A successful interaction ritual will lead to shared emotions and solidarity, which binds the attendees together in a manner that allows them to come to a more shared understanding of the issue or even alignment over the outcome (Rossner, 2019). It is therefore quite explicable that area brokers reported reduced effectiveness of their communication when it was no longer embedded in F2F interaction rituals.

Secondly, Collins sees a shared group feeling as one of the vital outcomes of successful interaction rituals. Digital meetings differ from in person meetings due to the lack of all kinds of recurring small “pre-structured rituals” that normally emerge around and during F2F meetings with colleagues (Andersson & Andreasson 2021). The small habits and kindnesses, like the conversation with your colleague next to you, all these rituals contribute “toward group belonging and increased emotional energy” (Collins, 2020, p. 480). When such rituals disappear, this leads to what he calls “failed interactional rituals.” In the case of area brokers in Amsterdam Noord during the COVID-19 crisis, we could clearly see such a dynamic as both internally and externally, interactions became more sparse and less successful which resulted in lower solidarity after the first phase. Interaction rituals are an important motor of renewed energy to interact again. When interaction rituals fail to achieve positive outcomes and a sense of belonging to a group, the chain may falter.

This study of both digital and F2F communication practices of boundary spanners, also makes two additional contributions to the literature on neighborhood governance. First, it stresses the importance of restraint with incorporating digital communication technologies in neighborhood governance (see also Breek et al., 2021a). A wide variety of factors, such as control, costs, convenience, and connection (Jeffares, 2020) push public administrations toward further integration of digital communication and web-based technology in their workflow. Officials working in the frontline of public encounters are not exempted from this trend (Bovens and Zouridis (2002). This research has shown that such bureaucratic preferences for digital communication practices can jeopardize the work of area brokers as they need discretion in dealing with the local community. Stimulating and facilitating collaboration between residents and the municipality is never straightforward, but rather a fluid and complex process of social interactions (Bartels, 2016). Less quantifiable boundary spanning practices, such as having a substantive local presence or having an informal meeting, are also important for establishing a successful in-between position, as local network partner for citizens and businesses. Therefore, the forms of communication and communicative practices of boundary spanners must fit the needs and dynamics of the particular urban contexts.

Second, the case study stresses significant class differences in relation to the level of agency when interacting with the government. Communication technology is clearly adding to this issue, as it affords accessibility in an unequal manner. In particular, area brokers operating in neighborhoods with socioeconomic inequalities and tensions were affected by COVID-19 measures. They experienced difficulties reaching and helping the vulnerable residents, who tended to more and more withdraw from interacting with area brokers as the pandemic proceeded. These residents were also more reluctant to use communication technology to communicate with their local area broker.

The COVID-19 crisis has forced structural changes in different sectors, by forcing professionals to rethink and redefine their role and working methods. In our case study, we found that limiting area brokers face-to-face communication has severe implications on the nature and outcomes of their public encounters. Still, the crisis did not lead to major structural changes to the working method of area brokers. We identify three possible explanations for this. First, without F2F interactions, area workers found that their brokering role became more and more dejected and less focused. Still, in particular in Phase 3, with vaccines looming, many area brokers were waiting out the COVID-19 crisis, expecting things to return to normal. Second, area brokers made small individual adjustments to their working methods in ways that fitted their own competencies (for example, being technology savvy or not) and their working area (for example, business zone or new residential area). On one hand this autonomy to adjust as they deem best, is essential for their role as area brokers, but it also dampers organizationally mandated changes to their working method. Third, the municipality had an exemplary role to comply with the COVID-19 measures, with an emphasis on working from home, using video conferencing and no F2F meetings. No exceptions were made, even for area brokers.

While from the start of the COVID-19 crisis a lot of attention has been directed at national directives on coronavirus policies, is it the local level of governance where most frictions emerge. And it is locally where activities and policies are developed to absorb the negative impact of the crisis. This political reality informed the necessity to study the impact of mediated communication replacing F2F contact on the activities of boundary spanners engaging in neighborhood governance. Still, the findings presented in this paper are based on an single case and the qualitative study only addressed the experience and perspective of area brokers, not citizens and other local stakeholders. In addition, it is unclear whether experiences were specific to area brokers, or more common to other kinds of boundary spanners. Additional research, including cases from outside the Netherlands, are needed to further unravel how reduced F2F interaction affects the work of boundary spanners in other local contexts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Pieter Breek

Pieter Breek is a PhD candidate at the University of Tilburg. He is also lecturer at Inholland University of applied science. He focuses on the impact of social media on the social forces that are involved in the construction of place. His work has also been published in City & Community, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Journal of Place Management and Development.