RQ 2: Why did the selected cities (not) opt for mainstreaming integration governance?
5. As an outsider who is not that familiar with the local structures in Gdańsk, could you tell me a little more about what structures immigrants can draw
on? And what opportunities there are for civic participation in Gdańsk?
● Which offers/structures can be accessed by immigrants?
● Are - and if so how - people from a variety of ethnic or cultural backgrounds encouraged to engage in community projects such as cultural events or for instance neighbourhood initiatives?
Note: Gdańsk stands respectively for Gdańsk, Hamburg, and Liverpool.
vi Annex III: Codebook - Qualitative Content Analysis
Research questions
How is mainstreaming - if at all - reflected in the integration governance of Gdańsk, Hamburg, and Liverpool? How and why do the understandings of, and approaches to, (mainstreaming) local integration governance differ?
Theoretical framework (TF)
(1) The linkage between mainstreaming governance and interculturalism as policy approach according to Zapata-Barrero, (2) Mainstreaming as discourse (see Collet and Petrovic),
(3) Mainstreaming understood as shift from specific towards generic policies, derived from the definition on mainstreaming integration governance by Maan, van Breugel and Scholten
(4) Mainstreaming governance implies an orientation at a pluralist society, derived from the definition on mainstreaming integration governance by Maan, van Breugel and Scholten
(5) Mainstreaming involves polycentric forms of governance, derived from the definition on mainstreaming integration governance by Maan, van Breugel and Scholten
Policy documents
G1: Gdańsk 2030 Plus Development Strategy G2: Gdańsk Immigrant Integration Model
H1: Green, inclusive, growing city by the water. Perspectives on Urban development in Hamburg H2: Hamburg Integration Concept
L1: INCLUSIVE GROWTH PLAN
L2: Equality and Diversity Policy Statement
L3: Refugee, People Seeking Asylum and Vulnerable Migrant Strategy
vii
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 TF Definition/Description Example
(a) Intended audience of the documents | Addressing of immigrants | City framing/City branding
Intended audience (4)
Framing of the intended audience by the gov. officials within the policy document/statements
“This concept is aimed at the entire city. In all areas of public life, be it state or civil society, business or public administration, political bodies or associations and organisations (…).” (H2, page 10)
Framing/Addressing of
Immigrants (4) Framing/Addressing of immigrants by
the gov. officials “The new citizens of Hamburg (…)” (H2, page 8) City framing | City branding
Cosmopolitan/international
city (1) Clear statement, that the city frames
itself as cosmopolitan/int. city
“Hamburg sees itself as a worldly, cosmopolitan city that has maintained and cultivated relationships throughout the world for centuries.” (H2, page 9)
Multicultural city (1) Clear statement, that the city frames itself as multicultural city
“By connecting to the city’s heritage, we can create a space for building Gdańsk’s modern, shared and multicultural identity” (G2, page21)
Intercultural city (1) Clear statement, that the city frames itself as intercultural city
“We, the city of Hamburg! Hamburg Integration Concept. Participation, intercultural opening and cohesion” (H2, title)
Diverse city (1) Clear statement, that the city frames itself as diverse city
“Liverpool is historically a diverse city (…)” (L2, page 3)
Inclusive city (1) Clear statement, that the city frames itself as inclusive city
“Liverpool an Inclusive City. We have developed the
‘Our Liverpool’ welcoming narrative for the city, trough the Inclusive Cities Programme.” (L3, page 15) (b) Framing of immigrant integration | Framing of immigration & diversity
Framing of immigrant integration (1)
Framing of immigrant integration governance. References made to immigrant integration.
“Integration is inherently connected with the concept of interculturalism, or the blending of different cultures, as opposed to the coexistence of cultures without any ties or links” (G2, page 19)
Framing of immigration and/or diversity (1)
Framing of immigration and/or (super-) diversity. References to these concepts.
“Liverpool City Council is committed to promoting equality of opportunity, celebrating and valuing diversity, eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimization.” (L2, page 5)
Resource/asset (1) Immigration and/or diversity is
framed as resource/ as an asset
“Over the centuries, we as a society have learnt that people from other countries can be an asset to all of us if we welcome them and give them the same opportunities as our children” (H2, page 5); “An Asset Based Approach” (L3, S. 16)
viii
Normality/normal state (1) Immigration and/or diversity is framed as normality/normal state
“It has always been natural for people from different countries and cultures to live side by side in Hamburg (…)” (H2, page 8)
Challenge (1) Immigration and/or diversity is
framed as a challenge
“Migration has now become a global challenge - one that needs to be addressed by all cities, including Gdańsk.”
(G2, page 2) (c) Mainstreaming as discourse | Mainstreaming narratives
Statement to mainstream (2)
Explicit statement that integration policies/equality and diversity/social cohesion polices will be
mainstreamed
“The Council is committed to integrating equality and diversity into mainstream service planning and budgetary allocation (…)” (L2, page 5)
Mainstreaming narratives (2) The underlying understanding of mainstreaming; the mainstreaming narratives used
Integrate equality considerations into all relevant areas of mainstream service planning, development, management and delivery and improve awareness and understanding of the needs of diverse groups in the city through inclusive, effective community profiling, consultation, liaison and involvement. (L2, page 5)
(d) Immigrant integration governance: aims, goals, expected benefits | approach and organization | responsibilities Immigrant integration governance - responsibilities
Integral political
responsibility (3)
Immigrant integration, equality, and diversity and/ or social cohesion is considered/framed as an integral political responsibility
“Integration, much like inclusion, does not fall specifically on administration but is an integral political responsibility. (H2, page 10)
Responsibility
distribution/Accountability (3), (5)
Detailed description on distribution of responsibilities and accountability for the implementation of defined responsibilities
The Social Development Department (WRS) should remain its leader, and work together with the other departments responsible for the implementation of the IIM, as well as municipal entities, non-governmental organisations, public institutions, and other stakeholders, including immigrants. (G2, page 73)
Power-sharing vertically (5)
Power-sharing, collaboration, and coordination between different government levels (supra-national, national, regional, local)
-
Power-sharing horizontally
gov. | gov. (5)
Power-sharing, collaboration, and coordination between different local governments, between different gov.
areas on the local level
The seven administrative districts of Hamburg are locally responsible for designing integration on site, in other words, in the different urban quarters or neighborhoods. (H2, page10)
Power-sharing horizontally
gov. | non-gov. (4)
Power-sharing, collaboration, and coordination between governmental actors and non-governmental actors
The team should be cross-sectoral (composed of members from the public, private, and non governmental sectors) and interdisciplinary, with a special focus on the following areas: education, social assistance, housing,