What is this research/panel about?
Refugee integration has surfaced as a hot topic of debate within political and social spheres with numerous stakeholders urging for swift solutions to resolve the refugees’ crisis. Not surprisingly, the effective deployment of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is often mentioned in conjunction with refugee’s integration as a means of facilitating and even expediting integrative efforts.
Beyond its sheer scale, the current refugees’ crisis is distinct from previous ones in a very crucial aspect – the unprecedented reliance of refugees on technology.
Particularly, smartphones have emerged as an instrumental piece of technology central for refugees, considering their reliance on mobile devices, Internet, and social networks in guiding refugees on their arduous journey to Europe and building new lives in their host country (Fitch 2016). Among others, refugees rely on smartphones to communicate with families and friends they have left behind; to access geo-location services; as well as to learn the language and societal norms of the host country. For many, smartphones represent the one and only information access point for information. Together with Apps and Internet access, smartphones allow refugees to navigate through the complexities of bureaucratic and socio-economic structure in their new homes. Considering the critical relevance of information access, it does not come as a surprise that Internet traffic of many refugee asylums exceeds that of major airports (WeltN24 2016).
Yet, the question of how ICT can be deployed for refugees’ integration is difficult one to answer. Despite the urgency and the potential risks of this issue, there is not only little consensus among stakeholders as to the type of technological solutions to aid refugees’ integration, but they are also divided over how such solutions could be deployed in an adaptive and culturally sensitive manner. Against this background, the goal of this panel is to initiate discourse and deliberation by experts (Safa’a AbuJarour, Jane Fedorowicz, Sebastain Olbrich, Chee-Wee Tan, Cathy Urquhart, and Viswanath Venkatesh) on how the knowledge accumulated by the IS community can be leveraged to design targeted technological solutions to tackle this crisis and avoid the potential risks associated with it. In this sense, the topic of our panel is situated within the domain of the Bright ICT Initiative – a set of concerted research directions promoted by the AIS to achieve greater impact of the IS discipline (Lee 2015).
What do you need to know?
Specifically, researchers found that the following four areas of ICT deployment are especially relevant to refugees’ integration, but at the same time, are often neglected or hard to get access to:
At the same time, these areas give direction how to support refugees through ICT and how ICT could be misused to jeopardize this vulnerable group. Panelists discuss about the limits of ICT and ethical issues in the refugees’ crisis. While broadly overlapping the refugee-relevant capabilities of ICTs identified by Andrade and Doolin (2015), their themes introduce the chances and challenges of ICT utilization by refugees at an operational level.
What did the researchers do?
In preparation for this panel, 15 face-to-face interviews with Syrian refugees have been conducted in Berlin, Germany in March 2016 (nine males and six females, ages ranged from 20 to 42 years). The length of the interviews was between 40 minutes and 2 hours. All interviews were conducted Arabic. The goal of the interviews was to elicit insights from refugees on how they have utilized various forms of ICT as well as their needs in terms of technological solutions. Preliminarily findings from our thematic analysis motivated the panel by providing key directions for structuring the panel discussion.
What did the researchers find?
Communication with the Government
Communication with local authorities is one of the focal tasks to be accomplished by refugees upon arrival. There is a need to open communication channels between governmental institutions, and integrate the ICT in their processes. Furthermore, public information websites have not been designed to meet the needs of this new audience. As one interviewee noted: “It is so useful to visit governmental websites and find the information also provided in Arabic. Unfortunately, this service does not exist so far. We hope it will be there in the future. This would be very helpful for us, and will save us time, efforts, and money.” Cultural adaptation of the governmental websites is almost non-existent.
On the other side, governments can abuse technology to infringe on the rights of refugees. Although in many countries security checks of asylum seekers are already part of a standard procedure, information technology makes it easy to gather extensive and intrusive personal data on this vulnerable community.
Social Connectedness
The sense of social connectedness plays a critical role in one’s perceptions of well-being and serves as a buffer against stressful life events (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Forced to leave their homes and relocate to a new environment which is often hostile and stressful, refugees rely on their smartphones for social support, communicating with the families and friends whom they have left behind, as well as to organize social gathering and events offline. One of our interviewees noted: “My daily call with my family in Syria is much more important to me than food and water. [...] My call is also important for them, because this is the only hope for them.” (This quote is echoed throughout the 2017 paper ‘As Important to Me as Water’: How Refugees in Rome Use Smartphones to Improve Their Well-being).
To enable refugees to gain the required level of social connectedness, they need regular access to the Internet, which is one of the main technical challenges therein. Although, such connections are vital for the well-being of refugees, they might become a path for them to escape from the cultures of the societies they live in and thus hinder the integration process. Therefore, there is an urgent need to establish best practices to ensure that ICT enables an acceptable balance of social connectedness with families back home and the necessary level of interaction with the locals in the hosting society to foster the integration process.
Participation in Educational Programs
An open education approach seems relevant, because online modes of pedagogy are scalable and can empower learners with control over where, what, how and with whom to study (Kop and Fournier 2010). For example, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which have no prerequisites and fees, have been growing in popularity and are attracting attention of millions of online learners worldwide and give them easy and ready access to education (McAuley et al.2010). Aligned with the fact that ICT can change the nature and raise the quality of teaching and learning (Reynolds et. al. 2003), we observe in our interviews that many refugees have already started learningGerman using ICT: “Without the German language, I can’t move around or talk to anyone. That’s why I installed apps that teach German language and I watch YouTube videos that teach German.”
Challenges remain. Digital literacy is a prerequisite for accessing online educational material. Second, most online courses are directed at adult learners. Third, general awareness of such educational offerings is often typically absent. Fourth, Internet connectivity is another issue.
Integration and Social Inclusion
Defined as “the extent that individuals [...] are able to fully participate in society and control their own destinies” (Andrade and Doolin 2015, Warschauer 2003), social inclusion of incoming refugees is the primary goal of governmental efforts and a major area of concern for participating stakeholders. On many levels, social inclusion is a bilateral social process, in which newcomers secure their place in the social networks of the hosting society, while incumbents provide them with sample space and opportunity to do so.
Undeniably, ICTs can play a significant role in facilitating these processes. One of our interviewees noted: “We joined Facebook groups that help us integrate into the German society and learn German. They include dialogs and language exchange so that we get to know the language, people, and the culture here. We agree on a time and we go to a dedicated location where we discuss things, learn German and exchange with them about cultures, languages, etc.” However, it is also apparent that more opportunities to socialize and learn about one another should be created: “I am ready to get integrated into the society, but I feel that the society is not willing to get me integrate into it” noted one of our interviewees.
How can you use this research?
Different audiences will find useful questions in each of the researchers/panelists 4 themes. It is worth reviewing these questions to see how they can be answered where you are, and if you are making progress in these areas.
Communication with the Government
Social Connectedness
Participation in Educational Programs
Integration and Social Inclusion
Additionally, it is worth noting that this research is part of an ongoing project Digital Integration: The Role of Technology in the Social Inclusion of the Refugees: "In our current research topic, we have been applying research methods to investigate the use of ICT by the refugees in Germany. In particular, our ongoing research revolves around investigating the chances and challenges of smartphones and Social Media use by refugees with the goal of utilizing them to get integrated into the new hosting societies, and how ICT systems should be designed and culturally adapted to help the integration process and the social inclusion of the refugees."
Introduction
“Immigration to Canada is generally seen as a very positive phenomenon by the country and its people. Indeed, the country is faced with demographic dynamics such as a declining birth rate and an aging population that immigration is helping to counter. Canada has also seen the arrival of new people to its territory as a means of ensuring its economic, social and cultural development. The welcoming and integration of immigrants is therefore a real concern for institutions to ensure that newcomers feel comfortable in Canada and that the society as a whole benefits from their knowledge and skills. Canadian integration is often compared to a two-way street: on the one hand, Canada has resources to offer to immigrants so that they integrate and benefit from their new country, and on the other hand, Canada tries to adapt to these immigrants to learn from their experiences abroad and from their cultures, while simultaneously, ensuring they fully participate in the country's economic, social and civic life.
Many actors have different roles in these processes of welcoming and integrating immigrants to Canada. The federal government is obviously very involved in these areas, but provincial governments, municipalities and various non-governmental organizations are also engaged in the settlement of newcomers. Each province is more or less involved in welcoming and integrating immigrants on its territory, depending on its agreements with the federal government on this issue. Québec is the province that has gained the most control over settlement and integration, particularly as a result of the 1991 Gagnon-Tremblay-McDougall Agreement, which is still in effect in 2020. These acquired powers enable Québec to be much more independent in the selection of immigrants arriving on its territory and in facilitating settlement and integration.
This report attempts to describe the operation of this sector in the province of Québec in five main sections. The first contextualizes how immigration is influenced by the federal government in order to understand the overall national immigration and settlement system. Second, we look at Québec's positioning in this Canadian context. Third, we examine how Québec's immigrant integration system is structured, and then we dedicate a fourth stage to exploring the interests of the community sector in immigrant integration and the ongoing dialogue between the Québec government and non-profit immigrant-serving organizations. Finally, we outline current key trends that are likely to influence the future dynamics of integration in Québec, within the context of reforms and other new measures being implemented by the provincial government.”
Conclusions
“Québec, rather than the government of Canada, is the dominant policy actor in the field of immigration, settlement and integration. This situation stems mainly from the 1991 Canada-Québec Accord, which reduced the role of the federal government with respect to immigration in Québec and transferred these powers to the Québec government. From a jurisdictional perspective, there is no doubt that Québec has more powers over immigration and settlement than the other provinces. Conversely, if we consider the how immigrant settlement I s organized, many services are provided by community organizations, as they are provided by immigrant-serving agencies in other Canadian provinces. Québec has entered into agreements with community organizations to offer many settlement and integration services with funding from the Québec government. Only francization services continue to be offered directly by the province, often through local school boards and other public agencies.
Overall, the organization of settlement and integration services is actually similar in Québec and in other Canadian provinces. Nonetheless, the relationship between community organizations and the Québec government diverges, in a number of respects, from that in other provinces. Contracts are negotiated centrally with government funders, the community organizations have a more activist orientation evident in their advocacy through TCRI, and the more singular service focus of most Québec community organizations compared to the multi-purposed immigrant-serving agencies in other provinces. The TCRI takes a lead role in establishing a meaningful and ongoing dialogue with the Québec government on issues of immigration, settlement and integration.
Although Québec's reliance on community organizations to provide many settlement and integration services is in many ways similar to that in other provinces, it remains a province apart from the rest from a legislative point of view and in terms of the relations between the provincial government and the community sector.
Recent dynamics will change the organization and objectives of the community organizations offering settlement and integration services in the province of Québec, and it will be interesting to compare Québec with other Canadian provinces and, as part of the BMRC-IRBU research partnership, to see whether the sector is more resilient in the province of Québec than in Ontario and other Canadian provinces.”
What the research is about?
This pilot study explores how participation in recreational activities impacts refugee children’s sense of belonging. It documents experiences of children, parents and staff at Camp Cosmos summer camp in Montreal during a six-week program. Camp Cosmos aims to foster a sense of belonging by providing children from diverse social, economic and cultural backgrounds with a safe and fun environment to play, learn and grow.
What do you need to know?
Objective: This research describes the experiences of campers, parents and staff who were part of Camp Cosmos in the summer of 2018, highlighting their perspectives on the Camp’s strengths and key benefits as well as areas of improvement.
Justification: There is very limited research on the sense of belonging held by refugee children and parents in early childhood educational and recreational settings. Assessments of integration often center on financial independence and access to rights and services. Sustainable integration, however, is much broader than economic participation; long-term integration consists of social, economic, cultural, and political participation in the host country while maintaining a relationship with the country of origin. For refugee children, participation in new educational contexts like Camp Cosmos typically creates a greater sense of belonging, which has been associated with lower depression and higher self-efficacy.
Practical Goal: Study findings can be used to inform research-based models and policy regarding culturally grounded recreational programs. Such programs would work towards developing a sense of belonging among refugee children and families by supporting their integration.
What did the researchers do?
Researchers used qualitative methods to determine how participants see their own stories of belonging. In-depth interviews were used, allowing participants to respond at length to open-ended questions. Participants were selected through ‘purposive’ sampling, where those at Camp Cosmos in summer 2018 were recruited for the study.
Interviews were conducted with 14 campers, 2 staff members, and a counsellor in training as well as a parent focus group discussion with 5 parents. Data collection with children included storytelling and drawings.
What did the researchers find?
The study found that by participating in a recreational setting such as a summer camp, children and their families can: make friends and learn social skills; learn about social norms and Canadian culture; share cultural concepts, learn about resources and support each other; gain a greater sense of belonging and feeling at home in a new city; interact with older children and staff who they identify with and admire; practice new language skills; and learn and grow in a positive, culturally supportive environment.
Campers, parents and staff reported positive experiences and appreciated their time at camp. All campers indicated they would return to camp in the future with some wanting to take on other responsibilities such as group leader and volunteer.
Several campers mentioned that they were introduced to new places and activities in the city that they later shared with their families, such as the use of public transportation. Campers reported that this made Montreal feel like home.
All children reported having made new and supportive friends there that they have maintained after camp, mostly through social media. Many campers reported an improvement in their English and/or French language skills.
Campers and their parents reported positive personality changes after attending the camp. These included improvements in time management, increased positivity and participation, and increased responsibility, organization and respect. Staff played an essential role in the community building at Camp Cosmos. Campers developed trust-based relationships with the counselors and described them as friends, brothers and sisters, or role models.
Overall, results suggest that camp plays an important role in the social integration of newly arrived families in Montreal.
How can you use this research?
Key recommendations for future camps:
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated and accentuated an ongoing crisis of care. Suddenly, the conditions of those working and living in these facilities have become a key concern for the public. LTC workers are predominantly women, and in Canada migrant and racialized minorities are overrepresented in the sector. In Canada, workers in this sector are low-paid, short-staffed and mostly part-time, who often piece together two or more jobs across many facilities. COVID-19, as with other epidemics, exposes how such working conditions undermine infection control protocols and make workers and residents vulnerable to infection.
This paper provides some context regarding the care crisis in LTC facilities, in particular its relationship with the type and skill mix of labour, including the degree to which immigrant workers are represented in this sector. It will highlight two of the contributing factors to this crisis:
A historic lack of investment in care, especially in areas of elder care, has resulted in long-term care (LTC) facilities being the epicentre of the pandemic in various nations. In France, one-third of all coronavirus deaths have been in care homes, and in Canada almost 80 percent. This is an international issue of concern, since in more than half of nations belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), population ageing has exceeded growth in the number of LTC workers. In many higher-income nations, deaths linked to the COVID-19 global pandemic have been concentrated in residential care facilities, including LTC facilities that house the elderly or those needing assisted living.
Main points
Recommendations
In this article, the author explores why during the Corona Virus Pandemic that Canada suffers from a shortage of health care professionals, it cannot benefit from its own immigrant professionals who immigrated to Canada as skilled workers? The author briefly reviews the background since December 2019 and elaborates on the barriers which immigrants’ professional doctors encounter, and finally offers some tips in order to see how we can include professional immigrants into the Canadian professional job market instead of rejecting and marginalizing them.
Full article
"Since December 2019 China was affected by Covid-19, and gradually the world became affected. Countries across the globe did not imagine that they too would be affected. Businesses have been closed and access to services has been limited. Furthermore, family and friends have been deprived of having a physical gathering and billions of people are in a state of panic. More importantly, Canadian seniors who rely on home-care assistance have been subject to high death ratios. This can primarily be attributed to the lack of staff support and other common issues, including each individual’s health condition. Moreover, indigenous communities and those living in remote areas are in the same precarious positions.
Hospitals and care-homes were/ are in need of more doctors, nurses, and medical-related workers. This current shortage results partially from practitioners being afraid of working in this time of uncertainty, so they do not go to work. As well, some have been directly affected by the virus, being tired from working long days, or having contracted the virus themselves. Regardless, the lack of practitioners is a significant factor since the federal government has consistently called for assistance for care-homes.
To alleviate these stresses, office staffs who work in a hospital and health care offices have been trained to assist with some tasks in the hospitals. As well, in addition to foreign doctors who are trained in Canada being called to register to work, military staff has also given a hand with care-home centers.
Along with this call for help, I would like to raise the ongoing issue that how and why many immigrants with a professional degree and experiences have been rejected in the Canadian workplace? They have been told that they need to obtain Canadian education and experiences or that they are over-qualified. In other words, how many doctors and nurses and all related professionals have obstacles to enter at even the entry-level of their fields after many years of studying and working in their homeland?How many of them that are supporting their families must opt for a job to ensure basic survival needs, alongside studying and taking expensive exams to be qualified as a Canadian health professional?
For example,an immigrant doctor needs to spend at least $6000-$8000for several qualifying examinations. They have to qualify each examination one at a time and then have to wait 6 to 12 months for the next examination.Upon passing these examinations, they also need to undergo residency training for at least2-5 years to obtain a license. In addition, each year, more than 2000 doctors (GPs and Specialists) are expected to come to Canada as federal immigrants. There are also doctors coming to Canada as provincial nominees as well as other immigration programs bringing doctors to Canada. If we consider the existing system and its capacity, only a small number of doctors, that being 5-6%, will be able to enter the system after crossing all the barriers. The question is what will happen to the rest? What will happen to those who have made much effort to come to this country, believing that they will be able to serve the people of Canada and help alleviate the shortage of public health?
We can ask more and more questions regarding this exclusion, marginalization, ignoring and marketization of professionalism in the Canadian context. For example; we can ask: does Canada really care about the knowledge and experiences of foreign professionals or does Canada like to impose its own professional agenda? This domination extends over immigrants and ignores them, instead of trying to integrate their professional abilities into Canadian knowledge production and environments.
In the present pandemic circumstances, I would like to further this discussion to point out that when Canada deprives professional immigrants of entering the Canadian professional market economy, it has lasting effects. The impact of such marginalization and ignoring have resulted in these professionals losing their skills, abilities, expertise, and self-confidence in a larger aspect. From the other side, their knowledge and training could have especially helped Canada during this time of hardship and in need of such expertise. It is evident, that there are a large number of immigrant professionals who can help but have been excluded and left behind.
Thus, instead of rejecting their professional accreditation earned elsewhere, Canada should open the door to them, allowing them to take updated courses and practice. Furthermore, Canada should provide an opportunity for them to work in their related professional positions, at an entry-level, but under the supervision of a Canadian specialist. And also by increasing the capacity beyond 5-6% of professional immigrants who have passed their related exams and allowing them to work on their own. This process is much more productive, cost-efficient, and inclusive. It will also have less of a mental health impact on immigrant professionals. Following this, such individuals will gradually journey to a higher level of their professions, so that when the country experiences difficulties like those of today, they can be part of the solutions and more engaged in Canadian society.
This inclusivity is not rejected in organizations such as Doctors Without Borders. Medical professionals from Canada and across the globe can go to any developing country and practice medicine without being qualified in these countries. Why is that? If the concern in Canada is that immigrant professionals may not be qualified, then why is the concern not extended when Canadian doctors practice medicine in other developing countries? Are the lives of those people less important than those of prosperous countries?
As a result, the current pandemic gestures Canada to think globally and act locally by revising its own regulation for immigrant professionals. Canada can establish legislation for all professionals to be involved efficiently in the job market and feel that they can be agents of change and social justice in Canadian society. If a professional immigrant starts her/his job in the related environment, even at an entry-level, it is much more productive and beneficial for Canadian society. As well, we will have a more inclusive society, than shifting them to non-related positions and causing mental health problems, along with social and cultural separation from the rest of society."
Introduction
“In Germany, a new program for refugee resettlement with the involvement of private actors is currently being tested. The controversially discussed pilot project points to a trend towards privatizing refugee reception policies – a model that was established in Canada more than 40 years ago and is a central pillar of its refugee policy. In this article, we compare programs of public-private cooperation in Germany and Canada and examine the relationship between the state and civil society with regard to these active refugee reception policies: In what ways is private sponsorship taking on tasks in the field of refugee policy that generally fall within the scope of state responsibility? And can the Canadian model be a prototype for German refugee policies?”
Discussion
What would it mean to establish private sponsorship as an integral part of German refugee policy? In order to implement a private sponsorship model as in Canada, a number of preconditions are required. First, civil society needs to be prepared to support refugees and mobilize private resources. This commitment has already been shown in the case of the Länder programs. Additionally, legal frameworks are required, on the basis of which the refugee can safely enter the country by visa and obtain a residence permit. To mediate between the state and the citizens and to support the latter, stable structures and institutions are needed, for example regulations for application, selection and matching processes as well as long-term advisory centres such as the Civic Contact Point.
Institutionalizing the program, as in Canada, would give public recognition to civil society's commitment to refugee reception. In addition, providing permanent residency from the outset would be required to give refugees a secure perspective regarding their future, which is currently not the case in Germany. However, the Canadian implementation of private sponsorship also has problematic aspects. The increasingly restrictive regulations on the number and selection of refugees make the process complicated for potential sponsors and make access more difficult for those seeking protection. Long and varying processing times depending on the region of origin can lead to frustration for private actors and the feeling of loss of control in the private sponsorship process towards the government -despite high personal commitment. In light of the Canadian experience, it is therefore important to make private sponsorship legally possible, easy to implement and accessible.
Conclusion
“Overall, the introduction of private sponsorship programs in Germany appears to be an ambivalent project with its implementation remaining unclear. On the one hand, new possibilities of refugee admission are created, on the other hand, the total number of refugees admitted as a result has not yet been significantly increased and the outsourcing of protection to civil society can be accompanied by a precarisation of rights. In addition, the same aspect of limited impact regarding numbers applies to this model as to resettlement as a whole and other state-organized refugee reception policies. These currently only allow a small and selected group of refugees to seek shelter in countries of the Global North. It is therefore problematic if these policies are indirectly used to justify the criminalisation of undocumented flight movements. On the contrary, state reception of refugees should be accompanied in the long term by recognition of their self-determined mobility. Currently, it is not sponsors, or even nation states, but primarily the refugees themselves, who enable access to refugee protection, even if illegalized and often dangerous escape routes have to be taken due to the rigid border controls.”
Related publications:
Executive Summary
“This report identifies, documents and assesses the many ways that the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been affecting migration, borders, immigrant populations, and Canada’s immigration and settlement system between March, 2020 and June, 2020. COVID-19 does not, at one level, distinguish between citizen and non-citizen nor resident and non-resident. Yet deeply embedded societal discrimination and structural inequalities mean that COVID-19 has negatively affected groups like immigrants, women, visible minorities, the poor far more than others.
The report is not exhaustive in terms of analysis or identification of issues, especially given that the pandemic continues to progress and evolve and its effects will take time to comprehend fully. Consequently, this review and analysis is inherently preliminary. Rather it provides a comprehensive initial overview of the challenges COVID-19 has created for migration, immigrants and settlement. While international cases are used, our focus is on the Canadian context.
Given the recentness of the pandemic, we used extensive media sources to document developments related to our subject. We also made use of a wide range of government reports and information sources, including from public bodies such as Statistics Canada, academic and think tank-based studies, numerous webinars and online conference materials, and grey literature from the community sector and civil society. This report is centred on reporting on and documenting the many ways COVID-19 and the reactions to it has impacted migration, immigrants and settlement in Canada. Having gathered and assessed this considerable range and volume of material we offer a critical assessment of what this means for migrants and immigration in Canada. We draw on the concept of social resilience to help frame an understanding of these developments. We highlight the resilience shown by many migrants and the institutions that support immigration and settlement that have responded creatively during this crisis and, in many cases, are helping to mitigate the most negative effects of the pandemic on migrant populations.
Social resilience speaks to how social structures and institutions work to support society to overcome significant obstacles and crises by drawing on collective social resources. In Canada, on the domestic front, the response by public authorities to the pandemic has been a strong marshalling of an array of programs and the utilization of existing institutions to support different segments of the population, the economy, health systems, local governments under financial strain, and much more. Along with giving support to the public to enhance its own resilience to navigate COVID-19, the response has demonstrated the resilience of our health and socio-economic institutions and our political system more generally, including the settlement and immigration system. There has been the adoption of evidence-informed pragmatic approaches to policies rather than overly politicized and ideologically led responses. Nevertheless, the impacts of COVID-19 and access to protections and benefits have been uneven among different categories of immigrants and migrants. Too many have been excluded from supports even though immigrant and migrant populations confront higher unemployment and are generally more financially insecure due to the pandemic. Immigrants face greater risks of COVID-19 because of the types of jobs they work in, many rely on public transit, and they often reside in overcrowded housing. Immigrants confront the unequal burden of COVID-19, demonstrating the precarious position of many within Canada.
In terms of borders and the international movement of migrants, Canadian actions have at various levels been problematic. The closing of borders, of course, has been very disruptive to economies that are now deeply and globally linked. Closures have stemmed the flow of international travel and other population movements, including labour mobility between countries. This has been particularly detrimental to the most vulnerable populations fleeing danger zones for safe havens or entrapped in refugee camps facing grave health and safety dangers. In response to the pandemic, the landing of most immigrants, refugees and international students in Canada has halted. More problematically, Canada has closed its border to asylum seekers crossing from the U.S., returning all such cases to U.S. authorities where they face potential deportation to their countries of origin. The rights of the most vulnerable – refugees and asylum seekers – which have been downgraded in this pandemic, needs to be restored and built into resilient migration policies and emergency responses grounded in social justice. The case of temporary farm workers reveals the dependence of advanced economies, like Canada, on cheap t foreign labour. The vulnerability of these farm workers to COVID-19 once in Canada indicates that the conditions of work, a long-standing problem, have not been adequately addressed. Again, the burden of risk from COVID-19 has fallen on the most vulnerable, temporary farm workers.
Border closure, with notable exceptions for workers deemed ‘essential’, has been justified as a protection against virus spread. Restrictions, however, have gone much further, in many cases becoming xenophobic nationalist reactions to ‘the dangerous other’ with calls for more securitization of migration. This response is consistent with government appeals for limited neoliberal forms of resilience and right-wing populist positions t that blame immigrants and other vulnerable populations, dividing society into ‘winners and losers’ or ‘insiders and outsiders’. It calls for sacrifice in the pursuit of ‘possessive individualism’ ignoring the differential impacts of COVID-19, and without offering the rewards of solidarity, sharing and mutual accomplishment that can emerge in the context of collective struggle. Neoliberalism seeks to forge paths forward by dividing and polarizing, searching for those who are to be blamed and punished. In fact, such governments’ own shortcomings are projected on to others in blame shifting exercises. Their heavy focus on borders is designed to shift attention away from other areas where government resources to address COVID-19 and post-pandemic rebuilding are greatly lacking.
Even for governments that have pursued more proactive and supportive approaches to COVID-19, the question arises whether the post-pandemic period will include a return to austerity and more neoliberal resilience strategies, as happened after the 2008-09 recession. Or alternatively, does this moment represent a progressive opening that embraces social resilience and addresses precarity and the structural inequities made so evident by COVID-19? Social resilience responses from governments will require an activist state. The pandemic has caused widespread economic dislocation that will not be quickly and easily reversed. Times of crises can open policy windows that provide pathways forward for sweeping structural reforms as happened with the rise of the modern welfare state in the aftermath of the Great Depression and the Second World War.
The importance of advocacy rises to the fore in the post-pandemic period. There will be struggle regarding the shape of the future. However, it is important that migrant rights groups, settlement agencies and their umbrella support organizations, and other progressive forces, engage in vigorous public advocacy for policies and programs that support open multicultural societies, anti-racism, protection of the most vulnerable migrants, and robust social programs that address structural inequality. The burden of risk must be shifted away from the individual and, through public policy and institutions, placed more squarely within the collective. These are responses centred in solidarity and social resilience.”
Related publications:
Overview
“It is clear that the field of migration studies has grown significantly over the past decades. What is less known is how this growth has taken place. This article combines bibliometric metadata with expert interviews to analyse the institutionalisation of the field in terms of self-referentiality, internationalisation, and epistemic communities. Self-referentiality in migration studies has gradually increased as the field has grown, until recently. The field has internationalised in terms of international co-authorships but has done so unevenly. Finally, we find that epistemic communities in migration studies, based largely on disciplines, increasingly refer to one another and are increasingly interdisciplinary...
We know that the field of migration studies has grown significantly over the past decades. This is manifest in the increase of the number of publications, journals, research institutes and undergraduate programs. This development in size says something on the relevance as well as the popularity of migration studies.What is less known is how this growth of migration studies has taken place. Does this growth involve an institutionalisation of migration research field as a research field?Or has growth come with a growing fragmentation of studies on migration? Our aim in this article is to provide empirical reflections on this process. There are studies that look at specific aspects of this process, for instance in terms of interdisciplinarity, theoretical and methodological developments, but research with a holistic approach is lacking. Our research question, therefore, is how has migration studies institutionalised in the past four decades?"
Discussion and conclusions: fragmentation and institutionalisation in the field of migration studies
“This article provides an empirical analysis of the growth of migration studies. It asks whether the proliferation of migration studies over the last four decades involved a gradual institutionalisation as a research field, or whether growth came with fragmentation. Our analysis helps migration studies to reach beyond relatively simplistic understandings of growth as a sign of institutionalisation in itself; it shifts attention from the fact that migration studies has grown to how it is has grown.
We have taken self-referentiality, internationalisation and the development of co-citation networks (epistemic communities) as indicators of institutionalisation. If migration studies has institutionalised as a research field, we expected an increase in self-referentiality, an increase of internationalisation and the evolution of a coherent set of co-citation networks. In contrast, if growth comes with fragmentation, this would be visible in declining self-referentiality, stagnating internationalisation and the absence of coherent co-citation networks.
Our analysis confirms that the growth of migration studies has involved institutionalisation as a research field. Self-referentiality has strongly increased since the 1970s, although the data since the late 2000s suggest that this is not a linear trend. Even when controlling for the immense increase of publication outlets (and hence referencing opportunities), the intensity of citation links increased, especially between 1975 and 2008. Since 2008 there appears to be a stagnation, for which there is no clear interpretation available. This could be down to lag effect in referencing, but it could also be an indication that, since 2008, migration studies is increasingly embedded in other fields, and develops less as a discrete research field.
In addition, we found a clear absolute and relative increase in international co-authorships. This is a clear indication of the internationalisation of the field. Whether this indeed means that migration scholars have reached beyond the critiques of methodological nationalism requires further research. Also when compared to internationalisation in other fields, this internationalisation is also likely a consequence of digitisation and the increase of opportunities for collaboration. However, we also found this internationalisation to be uneven; a disproportionate share of international co-authorships involves collaborations in (and not necessarily between) Europe and North-America, casting a shadow on the globalisation of the research field.
Furthermore, we found that in terms of co-citation networks, there is also a growing coherency in the field of migration studies. Our analysis of co-citation networks shows that whereas in the 1970s migration studies involved distinct and also very separate co-citation clusters, in the 2010s there was a clearly enhanced coherency between these clusters. Although migration studies, as any research field, consists of distinct epistemic communities that refer to that refer to themselves primarily, they also increasingly refer to one and another. Many of the epistemic communities that we found also clearly relate to specific disciplinary backgrounds, such as economic sociologists, or demographers. Therefore, our findings suggest that migration studies evolved from a multi-disciplinary field (with various but very distinct disciplines) to a more interdisciplinary field (with various and linked disciplines).
Finally, we found distinct developments within the epistemic communities that make up the field of migration studies. We found that migration studies does not come from the shadows of ethnic/race relations studies alone, but rather developed from a combination of demographic studies, socio-psychological studies, race/ethnic relation studies, labour/economic integration studies, refugee studies, transnationalism and development studies. Furthermore, we see that recent migration studies show a proliferation of specific epistemic communities, including that on ethnic/race relations and on global systems theory. Furthermore, new communities have emerged, such as most notably on race, migration and health.”
Related Publications:
Immigration & Immigration Policy/Migration Studies
Overview
This study found that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) owned by immigrants were more likely than similar enterprises owned by Canadian-born individuals to implement a product or process innovation. Data from the 2011, 2014 and 2017 versions of the Survey on Financing and Growth of Small and Medium Enterprises were used to determine whether the immigration status of a firm's owner affected the likelihood of the firm implementing an innovation or holding intellectual property. The study is part of a broader research effort to understand determinants of innovation, and the relationship between innovation and success in Canadian firms. This effort takes on new significance in light of the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic and its extensive impact on SMEs.
The results, adjusted for differences in the characteristics of firms owned by immigrants and Canadian-born individuals, showed that immigrant-owned firms were 8.6% more likely to implement a product innovation (goods and services) and 20.1% more likely to implement a process innovation (production processes or methods). Immigrant ownership also had a positive effect on the incidence of marketing innovations (new ways of selling). In terms of the likelihood of implementing an organizational innovation, there was no statistically significant difference between immigrant-owned firms and firms owned by Canadian-born individuals.
The effect of immigrant ownership was positive and statistically significant for only one of the five intellectual property types (registered industrial designs) when results were adjusted for firm and owner characteristics. Overall, the evidence suggests that immigrant-owned SMEs and SMEs owned by Canadian-born individuals were largely similar in their use of intellectual property.
The study offers several possible explanations for the results related to product and process innovations. Immigrants in Canada are more likely than Canadian-born individuals to be university-educated, and university-educated immigrants are twice as likely as Canadian-born university graduates to be educated in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Immigrant firm owners may be more likely to implement product and process innovations not because they are immigrants, but because a larger share of them are educated in STEM fields. Although the results were adjusted for the differences in the educational attainment between immigrant and Canadian-born owners, the difference in the share of STEM-educated owners could not be controlled for because field of study information was not available.
Related resources:
Please take this short survey to help improve the KM4S web site. The survey is anonymous. Thank you for your feedback! (click on the screen anywhere (or on the x in the top right corner) to remove this pop-up)