Bridging the gap : analyzing the relationship between Dutch sheltering facilities and the process of integration by investigating the experiences of a group of Syrian refugees

(1)

Bridging the gap

Analyzing the relationship between Dutch sheltering facilities and the

process of integration by investigating the experiences of a group of Syrian

refugees.

Vince de Jong 10204342 Date: 3-8-2016 University of Amsterdam Faculty of Social Sciences

Master Thesis Sociology Under supervision of: Danielle Chevalier Second Reader: Don Weenink

(2)

Preface

The thesis that lies in front of you is the final product of my graduation project. It marks the end of my educational career, at least for now, and I have tried to put all of the knowledge that I have acquired from my Masters in sociology and Bachelors in general social sciences into this research. Whilst investigating and writing this thesis I furthermore received support from a lot of people, but I wish to take the opportunity to thank some individuals in particular here. First of all I want to thank my thesis supervisor Danielle Chevalier who supported me during the entire project. Her experience and expertise contributed a lot in steering me in the right direction, especially when I convinced myself that I was stuck, or when I was taking turn after turn. She helped a lot in getting me back on track. Secondly, I want to thank fellow researcher Maria Rast, as her help with the interviews and interpretation of the data was indispensable. Thirdly, I would like to thank Maurice Boyer for providing me with the beautiful pictures that give this thesis an important visual experience. Furthermore, I would like to thank Lian Priemus and the people from Gastvrij Oost for having given me the opportunity to investigate the HOOST Mauritskade project. Without their approval and openness this research could have never succeeded. Last, but definitely not least, I want to thank all my respondents for their cooperation in the interviews; they are the last important actors that contributed to the realization of this final product. The help from these people enabled me to present you with this master thesis of which I am very proud.

Vince de Jong

(3)

Abstract

In this research I followed the journey of a group of recently arrived Syrian refugees in order to investigate the relationship between Dutch sheltering facilities and the process of integration. In order to do so I interviewed the residents of the initiative HOOST Mauritskade, a privately-organized small-scale refugee shelter in the East of Amsterdam. This initiative embodies a unique set of features compared to state-centered emergency shelters; in which these residents previously have spent time. By investigating and interpreting the experiences of this group of refugees, thereby letting them self-evaluate the different facilities, I strived to find out to what extent the contextual conditions – the place, the policy and the people – of different sheltering facilities affected their ability to become part of (different areas of) society. The question guiding this research is therefore:

To what extent do the contextual conditions of different sheltering facilities affect the integration process of (a group of Syrian) refugees? To answer this question I first investigated and explained the

contextual conditions of each of the facilities by interpreting the experiences of the refugees, after which they were linked to different dimensions of the process of integration. I discovered that the extent to which refugees “have access to, participate in, benefit from and feel a sense of belonging to a given area of society” varied drastically between the shelters, which had enormous repercussions for the integration process of the refugees and was for an important part caused by the differences in the contextual conditions (Castles, Stephen, Korac, Vasta & Vertovec, 2002: 115).

(6)

2

1. Introduction

Immigration is, and has always been, a hot topic, but recently it seems even more heated as the outbreak of the civil war in Syria in 2011 has forced more than 10.9 million people, or over half of the country’s pre-war population, to flee their homes (GRID, 2016). Although most people in Syria have fled to other parts of the country (6.6 million internally displaced people), a lot of people have fled their home-country as well. Turkey has now an estimated 2.7 million registered Syrian refugees (UNHCR, 2016). At the end of 2015 over 800,000 Syrian refugees had made it to Europe and approximately 19,000 applied for asylum in the Netherlands (UNHCR, 2016). Although most Syrians have not fled to Europe, the issue has already put tremendous pressure on European policy. Many European countries have reinitiated border controls, thereby violating the Schengen Agreement, which proposed abolition of border checks driven by the idea of free movement across countries (Chen, 2015). Also in the Netherlands the debate involving the sheltering of refugees has been – or at least portrayed – as a constant struggle. The allocation of refugees over asylum centers seems to be a difficult process, in which inhabitants of small municipalities sometimes feel unjustly disadvantaged, as is illustrated by demonstrations against the arrival of asylum centers in for example Heesch and Geldermalsen.

In order to cope with the flow of refugees seeking asylum in the Netherlands, at the end of September 2015, the central institution for the sheltering of asylum seekers (COA) designed the largest emergency shelter in the woods nearby Nijmegen. ‘Heumensoord’ – based on the name of the nature reserve in which the shelter is located – became heavenly criticized due to its conditions. According to the report of the Netherlands institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens & de Nationale Ombudsman, 2016), the lack of privacy, rest, information, daily activity and money to live on harms the physical and mental health of the residents. Large-scale sheltering, long asylum procedures, the inability for refugees to participate in Dutch society while awaiting the start of their procedure and ‘isolation’ that is caused by the distribution of refugees to remote areas are all features that seem applicable to the case of Heumensoord. These features exemplify a policy that seems to discourage integration, possibly to control immigration. However, recently also alternative initiatives are bubbling up, often organized by civilians who are discontent with current policy or politics; civilians who have a rather different perspective on the settlement and reception of refugees. ‘HOOST Mauritskade’, a small-scale shelter in Amsterdam realized by a community of residents and local entrepreneurs, is one of the first visible examples of such an initiative.

(7)

3 HOOST is a project that focuses on creating a warm and welcoming atmosphere for those who arrived in Amsterdam after fleeing from their home country1. This resulted in a residential facility in Amsterdam-East for 31 Syrian refugees awaiting judgment on their legal status. While participation in societal activities in most asylum seeker centers and refugee shelters is low, this initiative seems not only concerned with the process of sheltering, but also strives to facilitate the integration process by already stimulating participation and making the refugees feel at home. With this project, the initiators also want to illustrate that small-scale sheltering can – with the support of society – be a good, affordable and achievable alternative to current policy2. By investigating the journey and accompanied experiences of this group of Syrian residents, I strive to find out how the contextual conditions (place, policy, and people) of HOOST and previous sheltering facilities affected their integration process. To what extent are these places successful in bridging the gap between refugees and society in this early stage of adaptation?

1_{http://gastvrijoost.amsterdam/huisvesting/} 2

(8)

4

2. Societal and scientific relevance

Integration starts at the moment a refugee arrives in the host country (Ghorashi, 2005). This means that the length of asylum procedures and the integration process are intrinsically linked. “How long a person awaits status acknowledgement and what he or she does during that period has enormous repercussions for the integration process” (Castles et al., 2002: 124). The amount of integration services that the refugee is excluded from during asylum procedures is proven to diminish chances of long-term integration. The longer the period of inactivity and exclusion from mainstream activities, the more difficult it subsequently becomes to learn new skills (Morrice, 2007). “The point is that the first years for refugees in exile are potentially the most essential for future success” (Ghorashi, 2005: 182).

However, in the Netherlands, immigration policy has gradually become more restricted resulting in a strategy that excludes asylum seekers from the process of integration until they obtain legal refugee status and a residence permit (Morrice, 2007; Ghorashi, 2005). Work, either paid or voluntary, language courses and education are only available to those possessing a residence permit. This discourages integration in order to control immigration; for the newcomers it means a long waiting period of uncertainty, isolation and dependence of the state, which can take up to several years. With the recent flow of mostly Syrian refugees this ‘waiting period’ has become even longer. At the end of 2015, the number and scale of asylum seeker centers and emergency shelters grew, as the COA (Centraal Orgaan opvang Asielzoekers) was struggling with capacity problems. Many refugees spend months in emergency shelters before their procedure even begins and asylum seeker centers are full of refugees that do have received their residence permit and legal status, but are unable to move out because of the shortage in social housing (Hanhof: NOS, 2015).

To cope with the large number of refugees, the COA has designed more large-scale emergency shelters in which Heumensoord was the largest. This facility hosted 2960 refugees for over five months and was criticized by different organizations, stating that its conditions damaged the physical and mental health of its residents (College van de Rechten van de Mens & de Nationale Ombudsman, 2016). Previous research on Dutch asylum seeker centers also illustrated negative consequences for long-term integration (Korac, 2003; Ghorashi, 2005; Morrice 2007). The asylum procedure was – by most participants – described as a “waste of time”, because of the limited access to any kind of language training or education and further exclusion from mainstream societal activities (Morrice, 2007, p. 158). Especially the physical and psychological isolation from the outside world was often described as humiliating (Korac, 2003: 5). By researching the experiences of a group of newly arrived Syrian refugees it becomes possible to assess, extend and possibly invigorate previous research on

(9)

5 Dutch immigration policy. This research is relevant because previous literature describe the significant relationship between the first years in exile and the long-term integration process, while research in The Netherlands illustrate generally negative experiences from the perspective of the refugees and disturbing long-term integration developments. Engbersen et al. (2015: 12) conclude that only a third of the refugees with a residence permit in the Netherlands have paid jobs.

However, with the emergence of the HOOST initiative, a community of residents strives to counter existing immigration and integration policy by providing a temporarily small-scale emergency shelter located in the East of Amsterdam. With this alternative they are actively trying to bridge the gap between refugee and society. They want to illustrate that small-scale sheltering can be a good and achievable alternative3. This shelter, located on the Mauritskade, embodies a set of unique features and research about voluntary civilians-organized sheltering facilities for refugees is not available yet. It thus becomes relevant and, for the first time possible, to investigate this potentially successful alternative. Especially in light of the recent flow of migrants – which opened up a lively debate around the immigration and integration policy – it becomes relevant to investigate how this new initiative operates, what kind of features it embodies, how it relates to other shelters and to what extent it affects the integration process of the residents.

When it comes to government policy, the focus has mostly been on functional integration and has to a lesser extent been linked and explored in relation to other important aspects of integration such as the importance of networks, wider societal interaction and participation in socio-cultural spheres (Korac, 2003). Also subjective aspects such as the well-being and feelings about one’s own situation or achievements have mostly been neglected (Castles et al., 2002). There is still little research that tries to understand integration from the perspective of the refugees, while it is proven that how refugees feel about their experiences is as important an indicator of integration as are the objective, structural and organizational aspects of adaptation such as employment and income (Korac, 2003). In evaluating government policies, the ‘voices’ and experiences of refugees are often let out of the analysis or measured by the social mapping of numerical data and statistical methods (Castles et al., 2002). However, the experiences of refugees are critical in contributing to the scientific and lively societal debate around the sheltering and integration of refugees. This lack of focus on a refugee’s perspective is what inspired me to make their experiences my central focus in this research. Qualitatively investigating and interpreting the experiences of residents from the HOOST initiative allows me to investigate, evaluate and compare different sheltering facilities. Linking the contextual conditions – for example the location, the policy or the involved actors – to the integration process of

3

(10)

6 the refugees could shed new light on an everlasting heated political, societal and scientific discussion about the immigration and integration policy.

(11)

7

3. Goals and research question

The residents of the HOOST initiative are still in a relatively early phase of adaptation to Dutch society, all of them being in the country for less than a year. Before HOOST, all of the Syrian residents have spent a considerable amount of time in emergency shelter Heumensoord nearby Nijmegen and different sheltering facilities in Amsterdam. As previous research discovered the early stage of adaptation to be essential for the long-term process of integration (Ghorashi, 2005: 182), I will follow their course of stay and investigate how they experienced their time and stay in these different sheltering facilities. By letting the refugees themselves evaluate the course of their stay in the Netherlands I strive to find out how their experience changed over time and to what extent this can be contributed to the contextual conditions of the different facilities. Then, by interpreting these experiences and linking them to the process of integration, I eventually strive to discover how the contextual conditions of these places affected the refugees’ opportunities to become part of Dutch society.

To what extent do the contextual conditions of different sheltering facilities affect the integration process of (a group of Syrian) refugees?

In order to answer this question the research is structured into three phases that chronologically link to the journey of these refugees. Phase one relates to the refugees’ arrival in Amsterdam. How did they experience the time they spent in the different sheltering facilities in Amsterdam? In order to find out, I will investigate what these facilities meant to them, what obstacles and opportunities they faced and how they handled and used these. By investigating and interpreting these experiences, I than strive to discover the importance of the relationship between the contextual conditions and the process of integration. After Amsterdam, the refugees were transferred to Heumensoord in which they spent a considerable amount of time. In this second phase, I will again link the contextual conditions to different aspects of the process of integration. How did the conditions and experiences change? Previous findings on the experiences of refugees suggest that asylum seeker centers are considered to be a waste of time and result in physical and psychological isolation. Does Heumensoord fit this description? What about the shelters in Amsterdam?

After approximately 6 months in Heumensoord, a large-scale state-centered emergency shelter, the group of Syrian refugees now resides at a small-scale civilians-organized shelter for again a period of 6 months. The largest part of the research is about this third and final phase; in which they became participants in the HOOST initiative. While the initiative seems to be a rather contradictory example in the context of refugee settlement yet research is still unavailable, it becomes necessary to find out

(12)

8 exactly how the projects operates, what features this initiative embodies and especially to what extent they are unique and thus differ from other sheltering facilities. By means of ethnographic research, the features, policy and actors within the HOOST initiative will be investigated to discover the contextual conditions, which will provide us with the data necessary to understand exactly how this initiative works. Again, by exploring and interpreting the refugees’ experiences, I then strive to discover what this facility mean to them, what obstacles and opportunities they face and how they handle and use them. This can provide the necessary data to discover how the HOOST context changed and affected their experience, to what extent this was caused by the contextual conditions and finally, to what extent these conditions affected their opportunities to become a part of Dutch society. After evaluating and comparing the different facilities it then becomes possible to elaborate on, and provide an answer to, the research question.

(13)

9

4. Literature

The relationship between refugees and society has of course something to do with the concept of integration. So far I have mostly tried to avoid explaining this term as it is a vague ‘chaotic’ concept (Korac, 2003, p. 52). In fact there is no single, generally accepted definition, theory or model of integration. It involves different interrelated processes and is used in a wide range of academic disciplines and governmental and societal practices (Castles et al., 2002). Public debate and policy development are thus threatened by the fact that the concept of integration is used with widely differing meanings which will affect and determine the possible trajectories and outcomes (Ager & Strang, 2008). Therefore in the following chapter I will describe and discuss some of the appropriate literature involving this concept and also provide a definition. In the second chapter I will give a more detailed overview of the concept of social capital as it is argued that within an early stage of adaptation – wherein refugees are unable to work or follow education – especially their ability to become socially connected will affect their long-term integration (Morrice, 2007; Ager & Strang, 2008). In the third chapter I will zoom in on the subjective experiences of refugees. This taps into the emotions and feelings of refugees which are considered to be as important an indicator for integration as objective aspects of adaptation such as work and education (Korac, 2003). The fourth chapter goes into theory about intergroup contact and interpersonal relations, which are conceived to be important means for integration (Pettigrew, 1998). In the last section I will discuss the concept of self-organization, as it plays an important role in the establishment of the HOOST initiative, and bring theory back to our research question.

4.1. Integration as a two-way process

As I mentioned earlier popular attitudes and policies often seem to be based on the assumption that integration is a one-way process. Migrants and refugees are expected to integrate into the existing culture without any reciprocal accommodation. Integration is often understood as a one-way process, as a medication that refugees take in order to ‘fit in’ (Korac, 2003). “The skills, knowledge and understanding considered by the Government as necessary to become a good, active citizen are imparted from the top down” (Morrice, 2007: 158). However, this explanation seems to be more closely related to the concept of assimilation in which immigrants are expected to discard their culture, traditions and language (Castles et al., 2002). The first problem with this concept is that it devalues the cultures of minority groups, and thus contradicts democratic principles of diversity and free choice. Secondly, it also pre-supposes that a receiving society is willing and able to offer equality of rights and opportunities to immigrants who are willing and able to discard their own culture (Castles et al., 2002). There exist little reference to the expertise which many refugees bring, and the

(14)

10 kind of support which facilitate access to appropriate learning and employment opportunities (Morrice 2007: 158). Knudsen’s argues that settlement programs are often “founded upon unequal power and authority rather than on integration and equal worth”, in which refugees have to be “re-educated” in order to be integrated (Korac, 2003: 54).

However, in order for integration to be successful, the host society has to adapt as well; for example by providing access to jobs and services and acceptance of immigrants and refugees in social and political participation. Integration should therefore be considered as a two-way process: “it affects both the established community and the new arrival, requiring their mutual adjustment and participation” (Korac, 2003: 52). Integration cannot be seen as “a medication that refugees take in order to ‘fit in’” (Korac, 2003: 54). This means that integration should rather be seen as one possible outcome of a more general process of adaptation which occurs when a group maintains its identity but also interacts with society as a whole (Kuhlman, 1991). As adaptation takes place in different areas of society and this research is concerned with the experience of refugees, integration in this research is defined as the extent to which: “refugees have access to, use, participate in, benefit from and feel a sense of belonging to a given area of society” (Castles et al., 2002: 115).

To what extent refugees and immigrants are integrated first depends on the opportunities that are given to the individual who migrates. Especially political scientists and sociologists tend to focus on these challenges and opportunities by researching how nation states respond to immigration. Governments design institutions and policy narratives which define immigrants and refugees’ amount of access to society. Sarah Scuzzarello (2012: 5) refers to this environment as the ‘political opportunity structure’ which can facilitate or hinder the inclusion of migrants. As described earlier, within the context of settlement policies, we have recently seen Dutch policy becoming more restricted resulting in physical isolation of refugees through the introduction of asylum seeker centers, in which they also become psychologically isolated due to the inability to participate in Dutch society in any way until they obtain legal status and receive a residence permit (Morrice, 2007). This political opportunity structure is not only important for understanding the mobilization of actors, but also for understanding the extent to which change at the micro-level of social interaction can be stimulated or constrained. Limited opportunities to socially connect or participate in any area of society in early stages of adaptation, will create and maintain social distance which can hinder long-term integration (Ghorashi, 2005).

Many policy recommendations and researchers have stressed that in order to establish a new life in the host society it is crucial for refugees to be able to participate in societal practices as soon as possible. Establishing strong social networks and intergroup relations will affect long-term

(15)

11 integration (Scuzzarello, 2012; Martinovic et al., 2009). “Loizos’ long term follow-up study into refugees found that it was refugees’ characteristics as ‘social capitalists which facilitated their longer-term adjustment in the host society” (Morrice, 2007: 166). This relates to the concept of social capital which received a great deal of attention in the sociological field. Social capital is defined as “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition“ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 119). Although contested and used in varying research areas, within integration literature it is widely conceived that social capital plays an important role in the integration process of refugees (Morrice, 2007; Martinovic et al., 2009; Korac, 2003).

4.2. Bonding and bridging social capital: ‘getting by’ and ‘getting ahead’

However, to presume ‘the more social capital the better’ is too short-sighted. Guided by Putnam’s theory of social capital, Morrice (2007: 162) distinguishes bridging social capital, as in ties which exist between more distant acquaintance from other circles, groups or social capital, and bonding social capital, as in strong ties to people who are similar in terms of their demographic characteristics. She argues these two concepts are interrelated and affect and depend on refugees’ participation within the host society and thereby influence the integration process. Bridging social capital gives rise to broader identities and wider reciprocity which is important for ‘getting ahead’ while bonding social capital is good for ‘getting by’ (Morrice, 2007: 162). Although people’s networks and engagement will shape their attitude towards participation in formal education and training, it also provides powerful and effective opportunities for informal learning, and may therefore create substitutes for more conventional forms of human capital investment. “For many purposes, information acquired informally through connections, and skills picked up from workmates and family, can be far more effective in certain circumstances than those transmitted by formal educational institutions” (Morrice, 2007: 162). Social capital can be considered a valuable resource, that is – in some circumstances – able to substitute human capital: “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know” (Morrice, 2007: 162).

“Social networks of every type, including friendships and marriage, are partially guided by people’s preference for interaction with similar others” (Martinovic et al., 2009: 272). It comes as no surprise that in most literature, researchers discovered that refugees, who are relatively new in the country, possess a considerable amount of bonding social capital; strong ties to people with a similar background such as family members, friends and other refugees (Morrice, 2007; Ager & Strang, 2008). Bonding social capital will provide refugees with access to information and knowledge within the immediate group. Especially in early stages of adaptation refugees often face feelings of

(16)

12 loneliness, homesickness, and experience a culture shock (Keyes & Kane, 2004). Material, emotional and capacity building resources are gained by the establishment of social bonds (Morrice, 2007; Ager & Strang, 2008: 597). Bonding social capital is important for refugees to ‘get by’; it can increase their self-esteem, confidence and emotional support and plays a large part in them feeling ‘settled’ (Losi & Strang, 2008). Informal networks of family, friends and other refugees can also be important as substitute for economic and human capital. However, these networks are also more ‘exclusive’ as they tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups. They also limit access to skills and information that is not readily available within the group (Morrice, 2007: 162). “Certain kinds of knowledge and information, for example how to write a personal statement for a university course or who to talk to find out about a particular career path might not be available within these networks” (Morrice, 2007: 164).

This often tacit knowledge about how particular systems work is crucial, especially for refugees who wish to participate in educational systems or enter the labour market at more than unskilled or semi-skilled positions (Morrice, 2007). Bridging social capital, as in ties which exist between more distant acquaintances from other circles, groups or social classes can provide ways of gaining access to these mainly tacit understandings of the rules, norms, expectations and traditions associated with the systems in the Netherlands (Morrice, 2007: 162-164). Through social interaction and contact with natives, refugees could get access to the social capital of natives, which help them tap into other benefits as it could facilitate their economic and cultural integration (Martinovic et al., 2003; 871). Via these bridges refugees can for example more easily find employment on a wider job market or learn the language of the host society (Martinovic et al., 2009: 870; Chiswick and Miller, 2001). Networks and relations with natives therefore provide them with information and skills to ‘get ahead’: such ties can facilitate their economic and cultural integration (Morrice, 2007: 163). Again: “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know” (Morrice, 2007: 162).

Integration depends on social bonds as well as social bridges. ‘Getting by’ and ‘getting ahead’ are both essential in the achievement of long-term integration. Both relate to the social integration of refugees within Dutch society. “Social capital is a powerful form of learning as it provides us with a range of social settings in which we can observe, practice and develop the skills necessary to grasp the rules, norms and social etiquette of an unfamiliar society” (Morrice, 2007: 167). Although social networks are partially guided by people’s preference for interaction with similar others (Martinovic et al., 2009: 872), they are also partially guided by the opportunities for intergroup interaction to take place. The consequence of the tendencies for containing and isolating refugees in asylum seeker centers results in a spatial separation from natives. Especially this seclusion limits the amount of access to develop important social bridges. Refugees are often dispersed to remote areas and

(17)

13 transferred multiple times which furthermore breaks up the existing social bonds and bridges (Ghorashi, 2015). However, I argue that it is not only that refugees and asylum seekers might not have access to social bridges which provides them with opportunities to become part of Dutch society. The opportunity to foster and develop these wider engagements crucially depends on – and gets affected by – refugees’ own feelings of belonging to a certain area of society.

4.3. A sense of belonging

To participate in social activities – necessary to establish and foster meaningful social bonds and bridges – refugees need to feel a certain level of safety, stability and familiarity with one’s physical and socio-cultural environment (Eijberts, 2013: 273). They first of all need to feel a basic sense of ‘being settled’, to ensure a sense of security and self-confidence, which are necessary to facilitate their engagement in social activities. The engagement in societal practices will in return stimulate the emotions that shape the feeling of being settled and create a basic sense of belonging (Eijberts, 2013: 272). Other emotions and feelings that have been associated with a basic sense of belonging are rootedness, feeling accepted, feeling understood and feeling autonomous or free (Eijberts, 2013: 273). Especially for refugees, who are new in the country and often have to deal with traumas from the past, this means that it is important to be active during the first years of their stay. Not only to distance themselves from the past, but also because by building a new life they can feel useful and appreciated (Ghorashi, 2015: 189). “Living in a room for years without the possibility of having meaningful activities means that refugees are left alone with one’s memories” (Ghorashi, 2015: 190). Spending years living as dependents of the state will furthermore result in a loss of motivation and a loss of self-image as independent and active person. Feelings of worthlessness, combined with painful experiences in the early years, makes them feel unwelcome in the new society: “I feel worthless, like a disposable object” (Geuijen 2003: 326; Ghorashi, 2015: 191).

These quotes not only illustrate how social conditions can hamper the emotions that shape ‘a sense of belonging’, it also reveals the two-sided character of integration. Integration requires a basic level of familiarity with one’s physical and socio-cultural environment from the part of refugees, but it also requires recognition by society that one belongs here. In a previous research by Agerty & Strang (2004) on experiences of non-refugees and refugees in a small town, they discovered that the experience of feeling themselves to be an integral part of the community was by members of both groups considered to be an important indicator for integration. In order for this sense of belonging to transcend into integration, committed friendships between people from both groups and empathy and reciprocity among friends from the host community were considered to be essential (Keyes & Kane, 2004: 819). This means that the incorporation of refugees in local communities (school, neighborhood, village, associations) could provide refugees with friendships and, consequently,

(18)

14 feelings that shape a sense of belonging which together are important integration facilitators. ”Local activities should encourage participation in which attention should be focused on producing unified activities that require the energy of diverse people to reach a shared goal and these projects should address community conditions, such as housing, education and recreation” (Castles et al., 2002: 136). This means that participation within local communities assures intergroup contact to take place more from the bottom-up, in which situations are more likely to be marked by equal group status; common goals and intergroup cooperation (Pettigrew, 1998). Following Pettigrew (1998), I argue that these conditions can facilitate optimal intergroup contact which not only increases positive attitudes towards each other, but can thereby also positively influence refugees’ feelings of belonging due to an increase in feeling accepted.

4.4. Intergroup contact

It is widely recognized that intergroup contact and interpersonal relations are conceived to be important means for integration (Miller & Brewer, 1984; Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Gaertner et al., 1993). Intergroup contact has been theorized since World War II and especially Allport’s contact hypothesis has received a great deal of attention. Its theoretical status and policy importance has made it very influential. The premise of his theory is that interpersonal and intergroup contact is one of the most effective ways to reduce hostility and prejudice between majority and minority group members, but only if situations are marked by: equal group status within the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of authorities, law, or custom (Allport, 1954). Allport’s hypothesis has been used and revised many times, from which the addition of a fifth condition – friendship potential – has been of great importance (Pettigrew, 1998).

Equal group status: Members of the contact situation should not have an unequal hierarchical

relationship.

Common goals: Contact requires an active, goal-oriented effort. For example, research on interracial

sport teams has illustrated that goal attainment was important for reducing prejudice and improving further interracial attitudes (Pettigrew, 1998).

Intergroup cooperation: The previous condition of common goals must be an interdependent effort

without intergroup completion. Especially within the educational field most research has illustrated that techniques designed to improve intergroup cooperation has led to positive results for most groups (Pettigrew, 1998).

Support of authorities, law or custom: With the likelihood of social sanction, intergroup contact is

more readily accepted and has more positive effects. Authority support establishes norms of acceptance (Pettigrew, 1998)(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

(19)

15

Friendship potential: Previous research found that it appears that contact is likely to be most optimal

when the contact represents a strong affective tie (Wright et al., 1997).

Within this field of work, researchers have mainly been focusing on understanding existing conflict situations. Focusing on concepts as prejudice or anxiety, most attention was paid to understand how the majority group coped with the presence of (new) minority groups by investigating direct intergroup contact. However, I argue that this framework can also be used within the context of refugee settlement. The ability to establish and foster meaningful social bridges depends on the situation in which intergroup contact takes place which. This means that the amount and quality of contact and relations between refugees and natives are both inherently linked to the contextual conditions within refugee shelters. As I described earlier, Dutch policies and resources seem to be targeted at the instrumental level and essentially approach integration as a top-down and one-way assisted process. Refugees often felt treated as policy objects or helpless victims rather than a vital resource in the integration process (Korac, 2003: 56). Social interaction within this context creates a hierarchical relationship, which already seem to violate the assumption of equal group status. Not accepting refugees as a vital resource in the integration process furthermore threatens the conditions of a common goal and effective intergroup cooperation.

4.5. Self-organization

Previous research has illustrated that former refugees “experienced the Dutch system of integration as the state control over their lives by imposing on them demands to conform to various policy measures” (Korac, 2003: 58). In a policy recommendation entitled Changing relations, the general message was that “attention must focus on participation and membership, on opportunities to pursue shared concrete tasks and on building organizations in local neighborhoods” (Castles et al., 136). They conclude that “grass-roots" organizing is a useful approach in promoting opportunities for interaction among groups at the local level. Bottom-up processes often work better than top-down” (Castles et al., 136).

Networked communities (bottom-up) rather than hierarchical states (top-down) as valuable source in the integration process connects to the idea of self-organization. Following Uitermark (2015) and Hajer (2003), I argue that more than before, solutions for pressing problems cannot be found within the boundaries of sovereign politics. Actors sometimes feel excluded from decision-making processes and Hajer (2003) argues that we can observe that there are important policy problems for which political action either takes place next to or across such orders, thus challenging the rules and norms of existing power structures. He continues by stating that new political spaces open up which refer to “unstable practices that emerge in the struggle to address problems that the established institutions

(20)

16 are unable to resolve in a manner that is perceived to be both legitimate and effective” (Hajer, 2003: 176). Due to a variety of developments, among other thing the rise of neoliberal policy-making, the declining capacities of welfare states and a growing distance between citizens and their governments, communities have increasingly started to self-organize (de Wilde, 2014).

The idea of self-organization is that networked communities rather than hierarchical states are the source of welfare, prosperity and happiness; a society wherein people are not directed by central authorities but cooperate voluntarily in communities and for the public good (Uitermark, 2015: 2302). These kind of initiatives are nowadays visible everywhere, we can see communities that organize their own child care facilities, farm their own food or generate their own electricity. A widely felt discontent with state-delivered services which are believed to have alienated people by considering them as customers or target groups rather than constituents, have insured the emergence of all kinds of bottom-up organized participation projects (Uitermark, 2015)(de Wilde, 2014). The ongoing cuts in Dutch city and municipality policy budgets have even converted government officials to the faith in community power as they increasingly embrace and support self-organization. “The idea that state interventions should primarily be aimed at strengthening civil society rather than the state has become a mainstay of international development” (Uitermark, 2015: 2302). However, previous research also found that successful self-organized initiatives are actually rare. Taking a broad look, you will find that self-organization is unevenly distributed and seem to emerge in neighborhoods where strong institutional issue exists (Uitermark, 2015).

The emergence of the HOOST initiative illustrates such a bottom-up self-organized participation project. Its origins and features illustrate the way in which this civil society initiative actively challenges existing institutionalized top-down immigration and integration policy. Unhappy with – and in response to COA’s top-down policy of sheltering refugees, a number of entrepreneurs and residents started to self-organize a small-scale shelter for refugees. It is one of the first known examples of a self-organized small-scale shelter for refugees in the Netherlands. With this bottom-up initiative the organizers are actively striving to bridge the gap between refugees and society thereby trying to stimulate the access to, participation in and sense of belonging to different areas of society. With the initiative, the organizers want to illustrate that small-scale sheltering can, with the support of the local community, be a good and achievable alternative. By analyzing and interpreting the experiences of the residents, and by comparing them with previous experienced shelters, I strive to discover to what extent HOOST changes and affect the ability of refugees to participate in areas of the host country as well as refugees’ own sense of belonging to the host society. The HOOST initiative will capture a large and important part of the results as it is a crucial part of the research question, in which I investigate the following:

(21)

17

(22)

18

5. Methods

5.1. Concepts

This research is concerned with the relationship between the contextual conditions of refugee shelters and the integration process of its residents. This means that the ‘contextual conditions’ is the first important concept and is divided in three dimensions; the place, the policy and the people. The place first of all relates to the physical conditions of the shelters. What did the shelter actually look like? The room, the food and other facilities such as the showers, toilets etcetera are all important indicators for the physical conditions of the place. Also the scale is investigated. How many refugees lived in the shelter, how many in each room, in the restaurant etcetera? Lastly, it is important to ask about the location, to find more about the importance of (the absence of) the neighborhood and city in which the shelters are located. The next dimension of the contextual conditions is policy. What did a typical day or week looked like or what did they do during the day are questions by which I tried to find out what role the policy in the shelters played in their daily lives. Other important questions relating to this dimension are: what were the rules in the shelter and what freedom did the respondents have? What activities were organized? The last dimension of the contextual conditions is ‘the people’. What actors were involved in the different shelters? Who did they meet, how did contact evolve? I argue that the dimensions of the contextual conditions are interrelated as the location of the shelter and its policy could for example affect the actors that are involved.

As in this research I strive to discover how the conceptual conditions affect the integration process, it also becomes necessary to explain how the concept of integration will be measured. The integration process relates to the participation of refugees in different areas of society and is divided in three dimensions that relate to the earlier described definition of integration: “the extent to which a refugee has access to, use, participate in, benefit from and feel a sense of belonging to a given area of society (Castles et al., 2002: 115)”.

The first dimension therefore relates to refugees’ access and opportunities to participate in a given area of society. Special attention is focused on (intergroup) contact, (interpersonal) relations and social networks; the ability to establish strong social bonds and/or social bridges. However, also provision of activities such as language courses and access to societal practices and more functional indicators of integration such as work and income are investigated. The second dimension relates to feeling a sense of belonging to a given area of society which connects to the feelings and emotions of refugees; feeling accepted by the local community, feeling autonomous or free, rootedness, safety and stability are some of the indicators to which I pay attention. The third and final dimension relates

(23)

19 to the actual participation which, in turn, relates to engagement in a whole range of activities in a whole range of areas of society which overlap with the activities and areas described in the first dimension. I can then discover the way refugees used and/or benefited from interaction with natives, participation in everyday life activities such as cooking and cleaning, community participation such as engagement in associations, but also participation in areas such as work and education which are considered more objective indicators of adaptation (Korac, 2003: 53). These dimensions overlap and are interrelated as I already illustrated how a sense of belonging for example can facilitate social interaction and engagement in social practices which will in return stimulate the emotions that shape their sense of belonging (Eijberts, 2013: 272).

Lastly, in order to find out how the contextual context of the HOOST initiative and previous shelters affect the integration process of the respondents, I explore and interpret the ‘experiences’ of the refugees. General questions were posed to explore and examine this relationship. How does this place make you feel? What were the most opportunities and obstacles and how did they use and handle them? Can you describe what a day or week in the shelter looked like? The concept of experiences thus relates to actual experiences such as the people they met and the contact they made, as well as subjective experiences such as how they experienced this contact; what this contact meant to them. Experiences form the bridge between the contextual conditions and the integration process. With the exploration and interpretation of these experiences I strive to discover the importance and relevance of this relationship.

5.2. Strategy and design

This research is concerned with the integration process of refugees. However, “there exist few researches that try to understand integration from the perspective of the refugees” (Korac, 2003: 53). In order to understand these subjective experiences a qualitative research strategy is most valuable (Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen Guest & Namey, qualitative research methods). Statistical methods and social mapping strategies will be unable to analyze underlying meanings and profound emotions of refugees as they suffer from its tendency to focus of quantification (Bryman, 2008: 22). For example, I wish to discover the number of friends or the size of the social network of refugees, but it is more important to understand how these networks and relations were established, what they mean to them and how they could contribute to their integration process. Investigating and interpreting the underlying meanings and profound experiences of refugees relates to an epistemology of interpretivism. By approaching integration from the perspective of refugees, I presume that people construct their own reality on the basis of what they experience, which relates to a social-constructivist research approach (Bryman, 2008).

(24)

20 The appropriate strategy for analyzing such experiences is a qualitative approach, which is a form of interpretative research in which empirical data is gathered, analyzed and reported in an iterative manner. This means that different research phases – theoretical framework, problem definition, formulating research questions, data gathering and data analysis – intermingle (Bryman, 2008). It is exactly this iterative character, in which the strength of qualitative research lies. Starting with a relatively global research question and open-minded view, I can react flexibly to the things I empirically observe (Mack et al., 2011). The extent to which the contextual conditions change and affect the integration process of refugees from their own point of view can tap into different dimensions of integration which makes it important to run back and forth through the research cycle to find out what specific combination of interrelated aspects of integration is applicable to the context and contributes to their own perception of successful integration (Bryman, 2008).

My goal is to cover the contextual conditions of different sheltering facilities and find out how they affect the access to, feelings of a sense of belonging to, and participation in different areas of society. This means that multiple cases are being examined in order to investigate and compare the different contexts and resulting experiences within each case. This closely relates to the multiple-case study design as it becomes possible to analyze within each setting and across settings (Baxter & Jack, 2008). However, I argue this to be a single case-study as I do not physically investigate the context of Heumensoord and the shelters in Amsterdam; all of the research takes place within the HOOST initiative. The contextual conditions of Heumensoord and other facilities will be investigated in retrospect, on the basis of the experiences of refugees in combination with secondary data. These contexts are moreover used to emphasize the possibly unique context of the HOOST initiative and resulting experiences. The focus is on the latter, not the former.

5.3. Methods

In order to answer our research question I focus on the interpretation of the way in which refugees experience their early stage of adaptation. In order to do so, a variety of research methods is used, from which a multiplicity of data arose. Our main source of information is gathered by conducting semi-structured in-depth interviews with the residents of HOOST Mauritskade. The interviews were open-ended, both in the sense that the questions were semi-structured and that I probed what people told me (Massengill, writing sociology: 33). Within a chronologic time-span, the respondents were asked to tell about their experience in the Netherlands so far. Chronologically going through the different stages of adaptation and different sheltering facilities will allow the respondents to easily reflect on their previous experiences and has the potential of letting them self-evaluate the different sheltering facilities. By following up on what they say, asking especially about its meaning and its importance, I strive to discover what the contextual conditions meant to them, what

(25)

21 opportunities and challenges they faced and how they handled or used them (Massengill, writing sociology: 33). On the one hand I allow the respondents to tell the story from their experience and thereby letting ‘them’ pinpoint the relevance and importance of a specific context. And on the other hand I can follow-up on answers in which more information seems hidden or ask more about topics that did not come up. In appendix 1 the topic list/interview scheme for the residents is added. It is important to remember that, due to the open-ended style of interviewing, questions could from the scheme.

Investigating and interpreting the experience of refugees within different sheltering experiences, means that an important part of this research is to cover the contextual conditions in which the experiences take place. For the context of Heumensoord and other previous shelters I will mainly focus on the interviews with- and experiences of- the refugees. Within the context of HOOST I will also conduct interviews with different volunteers involved in the project. This is especially important as up until this moment there is few secondary data available on bottom-up self-organized refugee shelters. Depending on the role of the volunteer, questions were asked that relate to the contextual conditions: the policy, the place and the people. Also questions were posed that relate more to their own role within the project, mostly questions concerning obstacles, opportunities, motivation, and personal (intergroup) contact. These interviews cannot only provide the insights that are necessary to find out exactly how this initiative works, it can also serve as a fact-checking and comparative device in relation to the residents’ experience of this initiative (Bryman, 2008). In appendix 2 the interview scheme for the semi-structured interviews with volunteers is added.

Furthermore, to investigate the contextual environment and resulting experiences another qualitative research method will be used. I argue that in order to fully understand the way in which this initiative works, the researcher will have to be embedded within the environment. For this reason participant observation is added to the research methods. Within the six months during project, which took place from the 1st of February until the 1st of August, I have been voluntarily working and researching within this initiative for a period of three months (April, May, June). Two days a week, I was the main contact in the building, helping the residents to familiarize with different bureaucratic aspects of Dutch society, practical issues and helping them to organize further re-housing as the municipality of Amsterdam is responsible in appointing permanent re-housing. This engagement in the residents’ daily-lives was especially important for establishing the social connections that enabled me to gain their trust and thereby their approval for conducting interviews. Matching my observations to the information gathered from the interviews with the residents and volunteers will moreover provide me with a thorough overview of the situation. Multiple sources of information are used to gather, analyze and interpret data, which increase the validity of my results

(26)

22 (Bryman, 2008). The observations can be found in appendix 3 where I included an ethnographic diary.

5.4. Setting & Population

As already mentioned, in this research semi-structured interviews are conducted with the residents and volunteers of the HOOST Mauritskade initiative. Especially the residents are a valuable source of information concerning integration issues, as they have all been the object of different reception- and sheltering policies. They have spent time in emergency and crisis-emergency shelters in Amsterdam, spent time in Heumensoord, which was the largest state-centered asylum seeker center in the Netherlands located in a forest behind Nijmegen, after which they transferred to the Mauritskade, which is the smallest and first known example of a civilians self-organized refugee shelter, located in a urban city neighborhood in the east of Amsterdam. The research, for the most part, takes place in the building where the residents live. This former office building at the Mauritskade, which was previously occupied by students, is refurbished in the beginning of 2016 in order to host 31 Syrian refugees for a period of 6 months. Although the exact contextual conditions will be part of the empirical results of this research, I can already mention that its location within an urban dense city neighborhood is only one of the many features which seem rather contradictive to state-centered asylum seeker centers.

In order to learn more about the contextual conditions and experiences of refugees, we conducted in-depth interviews with a third of the residents. Although all residents are Syrian refugees, they cannot be considered a homogenous group of people. The internal composition of the shelter varied widely; there are two families living in the shelter with a total of 5 children, one single mother, two couples, a bigger group of married and single men and a couple of teenagers. Furthermore, we found differences in religion, culture, education, socio-economic status and legal status. However, similarities also became visible. All residents fled from the civil war in Syria that started in the spring of 2011. They all arrived approximately at the same time in the Netherlands – which was at the end of September – and all of them stayed in Heumensoord before they transferred to the Mauritskade, Amsterdam. About 80 percent of the residents speak English fairly well, especially the younger men. Because of this, and to avoid the problem of interpretation bias with the use of a translator, we conducted most interviews with English speaking residents.

I mention ‘we’ because in the data gathering process I received help from another researcher who was also conducting research within the HOOST initiative. Maria Rast, student and researcher at the

Vrije Universiteit (VU), investigates the resilience of refugees in different sheltering facilities in the

(27)

23 resilience in the context of refugee settlement (resilience of neighborhood, resilience of policy). Together with Maria, I conducted 10 in-depth interviews with residents which will be analyzed by different researchers and used and transgressed to different refugee settlement contexts. In order to improve our interview techniques, in the first interview Peer Smets, assistant professor at the VU, observed and evaluated our interview techniques which was very helpful and increased the quality of the data gathered by interviews. The transcripts of the interviews are included in appendix four. We strived to make a representative sample of the residents, by taking into account the differences in composition. Not because we thought it would make a representative sample for all Syrian refugees, but because the individual characteristics could affect their experiences. In order to do so, we made use of quota sampling, in which you select people non-randomly according to some fixed quota (Bryman, 2008). In fact, we used non-proportional quota sampling which is less restrictive. We accounted for age, gender and family situation resulting in a lot of interviews with single- and married men of different ages, two members of a cohabiting family (from which one woman by the use of a translator) and one single mother. This way, we assured that smaller groups are adequately represented in our sample which makes it possible to analyze and interpret possible differences and similarities between groups within the population (Bryman, 2008). Also three of the four ‘founding fathers’ of this initiative were interviewed. These volunteers form part of the core of the initiative and were, as mentioned earlier, asked about their role in the initiative, and depending on this role, their knowledge and experience about the features, policy, and overall functioning of the project.

5.5. Data-gathering en data analysis

All interviews except for one were recorded with a mobile phone, for which permission was asked beforehand. Interviews with the refugees have all been anonymized and transcribed. For the clarity of the reader, in the results I will refer to our respondents as either refugee or volunteer. To analyze and interpret the information gathered from my observations as active participant in the initiative I made notes after which I made a diary wherein the information can be traced back to the specific date and situation. As earlier described, the explorative nature of the research makes it relevant to use an iterative approach. “Data collection, analysis and eventual theory stand in close relationship to one another, repeatedly referring back to each other” (Bryman, 2008: 441). This approach actually refers to ‘grounded theory’, which means that theory is derived from data rather than the other way around. Although I did not make use of a coding scheme, I investigated recurrent themes and phenomena and constantly compared them to the prescribed theory, concepts and indicators, thereby adjusting them in the process (Bryman, 2008). After the interview schemes and ethnographic diary in appendix 4, the interview transcripts are included.

(28)

24

5.6 Ethical considerations

While doing research I was actively involved in the daily lives of the respondents. To inform the residents of my intentions and role in the initiative, I first introduced myself over dinner and also posted a message on the communication platform of the residents on Facebook. After a couple of weeks I knew all the residents, and they all knew me. Prior to the interviews Maria and I gave a more detailed but still general description of the goal and content of both researches. We explained the respondents that they remained anonymous and information would not be shared with others in the initiative. Also, we explained that if they felt uncomfortable and did not want to answer a specific question or even stop the interview, this was possible at any time. As the respondents have previously been in a lot of uncomfortable hearings with the IND and COA, we tried to make the interviews informal and comfortable by letting them choose the setting and interviewing the respondents in an unstructured manner; letting them tell the story.

However, as I was so involved in the initiative it also meant that I constantly had to switch roles; between guest (in their house), volunteer, friend and researcher. This could have affected the answers as I was in some ways related to other residents and volunteers in the project which could lead them to believe that anonymity was not guaranteed. Also my role and characteristic as Dutch native volunteer presumes, in some way, an unequal relationship which could affect the results as respondents for example could cooperate out of the feeling of ‘doing me a favor’ or the feeling of gaining something by cooperating, although I do not think this was the case. These ethical difficulties could lead to withholding information about for example conflicts between residents or generate socially desirable answers. Also interpretation biases could emerge due to a lack of proper English skills and cultural differences. These implications could all harm the reliability of the research. However, these possible implications seemed inevitable and in the research process I especially paid attention to the main ethical principles in social research. Not in any way was there a question of harm to participants, lack of informed consent and invasion of privacy or involvement of deception (Bryman, 2008).

(29)

25

6. Results

To understand to what extent the contextual conditions of sheltering facilities affect the integration process of this group of refugees, I actually followed the journey of the residents of the Mauritskade by asking them about their experiences of the course of stay from the moment they entered the Netherlands. I was therefore able to chronologically describe the contextual conditions of, and corresponding experiences from, each of the shelters in which they stayed, and directly link them to different dimensions of the integration process. This results in three separate parts and begins with the arrival of the refugees in Amsterdam, where they stayed for two weeks in different emergency- and crisis emergency shelters. After their experiences of the time they spent in Amsterdam, the respondents were transferred to Heumensoord where they almost all spent 5 to 6 months. The contextual conditions changed drastically and the amount of time spent was considerably longer. Therefore in this second part of the results I will describe their experiences of the contextual conditions, compare them with the previous shelters and again connect them to different

dimensions of the process of integration. After Heumensoord, the respondents transferred back to Amsterdam, and the contextual conditions again changed drastically. In the last part, which is by far the largest, I will elaborate on the contextual conditions of the HOOST initiative in which they stayed for a period of 6 months, illustrate the differences with previous shelters and furthermore clarify the complex interrelated way in which the conditions affected the integration process of its residents.

6.1. Arrival in Amsterdam

All respondents, except for one, arrived in Amsterdam and stayed in different emergency- and crisis emergency shelters in the capital before being transferred to Heumensoord. Also, almost all

respondents arrived in Amsterdam together roughly at the same time. Not all of them remembered the exact date, and internal differences became clear, but I can say that almost all respondents arrived at Amsterdam Central Station at the end of September 2015. They were furthermore one of the first groups (although not forming one at that time) of Syrian refugees that arrived at

Amsterdam-CS. After their arrival, they were transferred to different emergency and

crisis-emergency shelters in Amsterdam. These facilities were created to cope with the high flow of mainly Syrian refugees as the COA and the Immigration and Naturalization service (IND) were both under a tremendous pressure to provide all refugees with proper asylum and asylum procedures.

6.1.1. Place, policy and the people

Crisis-emergency shelters resemble the locations that civilians also use in case of a crisis. Caland Sport Center in the West of Amsterdam and Wethouder Verheijhal in the East were both, within a