Measuring the Cultural Dimension of Migrant Integration and Integration Policy in the European Context: Dilemmas and Discussions¹

Abstract

Migrant integration is usually studied in four dimensions: economic, political, social and cultural. The cultural sphere seems to be the most ambiguous, but also the one that induces various interpretations as it touches upon core norms and values held both by migrants and by the receiving society. This paper aims to reconstruct research approaches to cultural integration and integration policy. Beside the receiving country’s language, that is the obvious differentiating factor of cultural integration, other aspects have been defined: migrants’ religion, knowledge of the receiving country’s symbolic culture, maintenance and transmission of cultural patterns, cultural identity. Furthermore, indicators which appear to adequately measure the effectiveness of integration activities have been assigned to the predefined aspects of cultural integration. They have been confronted with indicators used within integration policies of selected EU states and with expert statements (collected within the Delphi method‐based survey) on given aspects of policies aimed at cultural integration.

Comparing pre‐war and forced Ukrainian migrants in Poland: Challenges for the labour market and prospects for integration

“…Such qualifications would help refugees find employment, with many employers currently reluctant to take them on out of a belief that they will not be able to communicate on the job. Research has shown that knowledge of Polish makes it easier for migrants to find employment quickly (Kubiciel‐Lodzińska et al., 2020), while knowledge of a host country's language is an important factor supporting integration (Gońda et al., 2021).…”

Relationships between global orientations and attitudes toward integration policies: A sequential explanatory mixed methods approach.

“…While the integration policy in Hong Kong is still underdeveloped, existing integration policies in other countries generally focus on two dimensions of integration. Cultural integration emphasizes learning the norms and core values of other cultures, whereas socioeconomic integration emphasizes fair access to education, employment, and welfare (Gońda et al, 2021; Hansen, 2012; Penninx, 2005; Vollebergh et al, 2017). The cultural and socioeconomic dimensions of integration can thus be understood as remedies for the symbolic threats and realistic threats that undermine intercultural relationships.…”

“…To take account of these shortfalls in the integration policy in Hong Kong, we incorporated integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) and relevant literature (Gońda et al, 2021; Hansen, 2012; Penninx, 2005; Vollebergh et al, 2017) into our conceptualization of two types of proposed integration policies. Symbolic integration policies correspond to the cultural dimension of integration and offer a solution to symbolic threat, focusing on bringing South Asian cultures into the mainstream.…”

Exploring Extrinsic and Intrinsic Work Values of British Ethnic Minorities: The Roles of Demographic Background, Job Characteristics and Immigrant Generation

“…The theory argues that employees tend to adapt to their existing job attributes and 'learn to value job characteristics that they experience positively and to devalue those attributes that they are unable to obtain' (Kalleberg and Marsden 2013, p 256). For example, in Goldthorpe's 'Affluent Workers', it is argued that as a result of technological progress during the 1960s, workers tended to regard their jobs as instrumental means to satisfy aspirations outside work, since they enjoyed fewer opportunities to achieve self-fulfillment in the workplace (Goldthorpe et al 1968). Conversely, more recent research suggests that intrinsic job rewards such as higher job autonomy and skill levels can improve employee intrinsic work values, organizational commitments, wellbeing and future career opportunities (Gallie et al 2012;Peterson and Ruiz-Quintanilla 2003;Li and Wang Forthcoming;Shi and Wang 2021;Wang et al 2021a;Kamerāde et al 2019;Balderson et al 2021;Wang et al Forthcoming).…”