Refugee Education

Enakshi Sengupta, Patrick Blessinger

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781787439368
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Multicultural Education

Thisvolume examines how universities and colleges are working towards implementing variousinterventions to integrate refugees along with non-governmental organizationsand local governments to achieve an optimal level of integration withhost communities. The first part of the volume addresses the challenges of educating and integrating refugee populations, while the second part considers methods for establishing support systems. Using case studies and other empirical research, this volume presents a broad and in-depth overview of the various methods implemented to integrate the refugees into society.The international case studies revealthe complexity of the perception-practice dynamic and the multi-faceted factors that influence various levels of integration.

PART I

THE CHALLENGES

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO REFUGEE EDUCATION: INTEGRATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF REFUGEES IN MAINSTREAM SOCIETY

Enakshi Sengupta and Patrick Blessinger

ABSTRACT

This chapter focuses on the concept integration and its wider meaning in the context of refugees and internally displaced people across the globe. The purpose of this volume is to highlight the various interventions used to integrate refugees and the efforts implemented by the non-governmental organizations and local governments toward achieving an optimal level of integration with host communities. Using case studies and other empirical research, this volume presents a broad and in-depth overview of the various methods implemented to integrate the refugees into the society. This chapter provides an overview to this volume and establishes a framework for a better understanding of the nature of integration. It also reveals the complexity of the perception-practice dynamic and the multifaceted factors, which influence the various levels of integration.

Keywords: Refugee education; refugees; settlement; refugee integration; internally displaced people; social cohesion

INTRODUCTION

A 1st grade teacher asked her class: What do you think is the color of apples? Some said green, some said red; however, one boy stood up and said white. The boy insisted that his answer was right and said firmly, “look inside” (Goldstein, 1999). Just like apples, we are all similar inside; but when put in a basket, we may stand out as green, red or yellow, as we are often classified according to our external appearance.

The term “integration” in many countries is defined as:

assimilation to a pre-existing, unified social order, with a homogeneous culture and set of values. Integration is not only a reciprocal process. It also consists of complex and multi-layered practices: economic, social and cultural. Successful integration cannot be promoted by designating a specific path and outcome. (Rudiger & Spencer, 2003, p. 4)

The term “integration” places a special emphasis on the concept of unity and stability, resulting in social cohesion. Social cohesion does not advocate homogeneity of culture, but a pluralist society where members from different cultures foster a bond with the help of continuous social interaction.

Multi-dimensional notions of identity, multiple senses of belonging and attachment often add self-confidence and thus stability to social networks. Far from hampering the process of integration, they can add a layer of respect and recognition to social interaction, thus deepening the cohesion of communities. (Rudiger & Spencer, 2003, p. 6)

“Social integration is not necessarily confined to the entry of individuals into a society but can as well refer to groups or to even much larger social aggregates,” (Baubock, 1995, p. 12). The concept of integration has a positive connotation: that the society is experiencing stability and the entry of individuals or groups does not endanger or alter the existing system (Baubock, 1995).

The integration of refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) is a task that can be confusing and complex. It is a dynamic and multifaceted process which requires constructive efforts by all willing parties, including a state of mind on the part of the refugees that will help them to adapt and accept the host society without having to sacrifice their own cultural identity. On the other hand, it also needs a readiness on the part of host communities and public institutions to welcome refugees without prejudice and meet the needs of a diverse population. The process of integration is gradual; it involves several multi-dimensional aspects such as economical, socio-cultural perspectives, and legalities, which become vital for integrating the refugees, IDPs, and asylum seekers in the mainstream society.

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol place considerable emphasis on the integration of refugees as a part of the acceptance program. The 1951 Convention enumerates social and economic rights designed to assist integration, and, through Article 34, calls on States to facilitate the “assimilation and naturalization” of refugees. Governmental bodies and non-profit organizations are working to formulate strategies to combat racism and xenophobia. Such policies aim at strengthening the concept of equality, chalking out paths to enhance participation in community activities, and several confidence-building initiatives with host communities recognizing that each individual may need different forms of integration and support. Close cooperation among various actors working in the field of refugee protection, with the help of those involved in the planning and implementation of integration policies at national or regional level, has become the need of the hour.

ALLPORT’S CONTACT THEORY

One of the most comprehensive theories in the field of social integration is that of Allport. Allport’s (1954) contact theory states that as contact increases between social groups, it helps the groups to reduce their prejudicial attitudes and move beyond racial and ethnic divisions (Hayes et al., 2007). Allport’s contact theory was framed in the post-World War II era; while using this theory, one needs to keep in mind that it was a tumultuous time, when social scientists were seeking avenues to bind the human race in some commonalities amidst hatred and mistrust. This theory still remains one of the most comprehensive frameworks on reducing racial prejudice.

Allport (1954) defined prejudice as “an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual who is a member of that group” (p. 10). The four conditions specified by Allport present the guidelines to eliminate the racial bias prevalent among out-group members. These four conditions are inherent in a society, are not difficult to achieve, and need not be imported from the outside world.

For the past fifty years the ‘Contact Hypothesis’ (Allport, 1954, 1958; Amir, 1969; Cook, 1984; Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Watson, 1947; Williams, 1947) has represented a promising and popular strategy for reducing intergroup bias and conflict. This hypothesis proposes that simple contact between groups is not automatically sufficient to improve intergroup relations. (Dovidio et al., 2000, p. 5)

Allport (1954) challenges the idea that integration occurs merely by sharing the same environment. Successful integration occurs when certain conditions, in which the intergroup interaction occurs, are met. The condition of “equal group status” occurs when the contributions from a group are equal to those from another group (Enoch, 2004). Allport stresses equal group status within a given situation. Most research supports this contention as it is important that both groups expect and perceive equal status in any given situation (Cohen, 1982; Cohen & Lotan, 1995; Riordan & Ruggiero, 1980; Robinson & Preston, 1976). Other conditions that Allport (1954) specifies are a common goal and cooperation that is needed to reduce bias between groups.

At the individual level, one’s personal welfare and goals are most salient and important. At the group level, the goals and achievements of the in-group are merged with one’s own and the group’s welfare is paramount. (Gaertner et al., 2000, p. 100)

“Support of Authority” is another vital condition proposed by Allport (1954) in reducing prejudice and fostering integration. The Authority supporting the intergroup contact has been shown to be an important variable inducing a positive affect among groups (Dovidio et al., 2000). The Authority not only provides structure, but also has the power vested in it to promote greater contact (Gilbert, Fiske, & Lindzey, 1988). The Authority helps to create a new social climate that makes people tolerant toward intergroup attitudes (Gilbert et al., 1998). Allport’s (1954) “The Nature of Prejudice” remains the most widely cited work on social psychology dealing with prejudice. Allport has defined and dealt with the core issues, and provides insights into the field of prejudice. Allport, however, does not venture to advocate a single “pet theory” of prejudice but works to identify and illustrate a variety of perspectives ranging from macro to micro or individual causes (Dovidio et al., 2000). Nonetheless, Allport acknowledges the functional nature of prejudice and identifies both material gain and self-enhancement as basic motivational processes responsible for prejudice (Dovidio et al., 2000). Allport’s theories and frameworks remain the directional guide in further research on the theme of integration.

SCHLOSSBERG’S TRANSITION THEORY

Nancy Schlossberg’s transition theory also gives us a foundation to work on integration issues. Schlossberg et al. (1995) define a transition as “any event or non-event that results in changed relationships, routines, assumptions, and roles” (p. 27). When a transition occurs, a process takes place as an individual integrates changes into his or her daily life. There are four aspects of a transition that affect how well individuals deal with change. Schlossberg explains the complexity of the situation where all the four factors of “self, support, situation, and strategies” influence an individual trying to adapt to a completely new environment and situation. Schlossberg (1984), when talking about the transition theory, says that the primary goal of her theory is to formulate a framework that would facilitate an understanding of transitions in any situation. To create this framework, Schlossberg drew heavily on the work and ideas of others, including Levinson et al. (1978) and Neugarten (1979). Schlossberg’s work can be viewed as psycho-social in nature from the perspectives of different stages in life (Evans et al., 2010).

Schlossberg (1981) describes her model as the vehicle that will help analyze human adaptation to transitions in life.

I felt it is necessary in formulating the model to catalogue and categorize the tremendous number of variables which seem to affect the outcome of the transition on an individual. My belief is that it is not the transition itself that is of primary importance, rather how that transition fits with an individual’s stage, situation and style. (Schlossberg, 1981, p. 5)

She further adds that adaptation is usually influenced by three sets of variables: the individual’s perception of transition, characteristics of the pre-transition and post-transition environments, and characteristics of the individual experiencing the transition. The environment and personal characteristic of an individual play a crucial role in determining the individual’s ability to cope with a particular transition such as moving to a new country as a refugee or to another location in the same country as an IDP. Broadly, transition can be classified into three main categories.

The first is “anticipated transition,” which occurs predictably. The second is “unanticipated transition,” which is not predictable or scheduled, and the third is “non-events,” that is, those events which are expected to occur but do not. In this volume series, the relevance of the types of transition begins with “anticipated transition” in moving to a new country as a migrant or to another part of the same country as an IDP. The “unanticipated transition” may consist of facing a hostile environment, rejection, and non-acceptance resulting in a feeling of “marginalization” or being unable to “fit-in” in a given environment. “Context” refers to one’s relationship with the transition and the setting in which the transition takes place. Impact determines the degree to which transition can influence or alter one’s life in a positive or negative sense.

Policies seeking to integrate refugees should be designed to minimize isolation and separation and make them a part of the mainstream society by providing effective language and vocational skills’ training toward self-sufficiency. At times, the process toward integration can be a lengthy and exhaustive one, and refugees suffer from negative impact of an extended period of insecurity. Constructive efforts should be made to integrate the refugees to the host community in order to create an atmosphere of acceptance. Often, refugees do not enjoy the protection of their countries of origin and have to rebuild their lives in new countries of residence, without the option of returning home for an extended period of time. In most cases, these people have to flee at short notice, leaving behind belongings and documents and may have lost contact with family members and social-support structures in the country of origin. Resistance to the local integration of refugee population is also a harsh reality and can be a natural instinct to repel someone who belongs to the out-group.

This kind of resistance is seen in most cases from host governments and local communities. In addition, this sense of discarding others is based on a number of contributory factors, both – real an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Part I. The Challenges
• Part II. Creating a Support System
• About the Authors
• Author Index
• Subject Index