The central focus of my research is integration of refugees and asylum seekers and how effective current policies are in facilitating integration, so I can ultimately analyze the role of humanization. Therefore, my dependent variable is integration rates, which have various indicators of measurement. A study conducted by professors in the UK and Netherlands, demonstrated one approach for operationalizing integration by using social networks and health as indicators, through state-implemented national refugee integration surveys (1). The surveys used ordinal levels of measurement with a 1-5 scale; for example, to measure general health, they used a scale of 1 very bad to 5 very good (2). Then, for social networks, split social networks into two groups: personal social network and ethno-religious network, measuring the interactions on a scale of 1 every day to 5 never. (3). In applying this approach to my research, I could find similar integration surveys conducted by other states to measure social networks and health which would indicate levels of integration.
The authors argue that most of integration emphasizes economic factors such as wage equivalence and participation in the labor market. I could use these indicators for my research by compiling data collected from various countries who conduct refugee and asylum integration surveys, or I could take the opposite path of this research and use economic indicators. One drawback to the social network and health approach is that it ignores the economic effects of integration. Also, refugees and asylum seekers may report different answers when responding to a state survey whereas if the survey came from an international organization or NGO. Finally, this study includes very few cases, analyzing only the integration policy of the UK and the Netherlands. A large-N case study will include at least fifteen case studies, so finding similar refugee and asylum policies across many states will be important before applying this approach to my research.
(1) Linda Bakker, Sin Yi Cheung, and Jenny Phillimore, “The Asylum-Integration Paradox: Comparing Asylum Support Systems and Refugee Integration in the Netherlands and the Uk,” International Migration 54, no. 4 (2016), 119.
(2) Ebid., 125.
(3) Ebid., 126.
Bibliography:
Bakker, Linda, Sin Yi Cheung, and Jenny Phillimore. “The Asylum-Integration Paradox: Comparing Asylum Support Systems and Refugee Integration in the Netherlands and the Uk.” International Migration 54, no. 4 (2016): 118-32.
October 30, 2017 at 10:57 pm
A good discussion, Gwen, of both the data sources that you’ve found as well as of some of the difficulties that you face concerning data coverage and operationalization. Keep thinking about these questions! What about data that would indicate language learning among refugees/migrants, or data that indicates rates of participation in civil society organizations?