On integration goals and deceptive autonomy : an assessment of Syrian refugees' scope of self-determination in The Hague and Amsterdam

Master’s in Sociology

Graduate School of Social Sciences

Migration and Ethnic Studies

On Integration Goals and Deceptive Autonomy:

An Assessment of Syrian Refugees’ Scope of

Self-Determination in The Hague and Amsterdam

Supervised by:

Dr. Sonja Fransen (First Supervisor) Prof. Dr. Hein de Haas (Second Reader)

Written by:

Janine Bannwart Student ID: 11201460 E-Mail: janine.bannwart@gmx.ch

July 2017

نوكأ نأ يل نوديري لا امك نوكأ نأ :يتيرح

My freedom: is to be what they don’t want me to be.

Plagiarism Declaration

“I hereby declare that this thesis meets the rules and regulations for fraud and plagiarism as set out by the Examination Committee of the MSc Migration and Ethnic Studies at the University of

Amsterdam. This thesis is entirely my own original work and all sources have been properly acknowledged.”

Glossary

Refugee A person fleeing an armed conflict or persecution due to race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political union. Refugees are defined and protected in international law (UN General Assembly, 1951).

Asylum seeker A person whose request for sanctuary has yet to be processed (UN General Assembly, 1951).

Permit holder A person with a legal residence permit.

Prejudice Prejudice is ‘‘an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization’’ (Allport,

1954, p. 10). Prejudice includes a) negative feelings and emotions toward another person or group; and b) stereotypes which are unfounded or poorly beliefs about a person or a group (Byrd, 2011).

Discrimination Discrimination is a practice of preferential or prejudicial treatment of people based upon ostensible differences such as gender, age, culture, colour of skin, racial affinities. It can involve violence and direct threats, unequal opportunities in the labour market and services; and stereotyping and negative attitudes towards ethnic groups and individuals (Mölsä, et al., 2016).

Perceived Discrimination

What people perceive and describe as discrimination; regardless whether they suffer from actual disadvantages or not (Andriessen, et al., 2012).

Racism Racism is the overarching system of oppression based on racial classifications (Castles, 1996). Racism reflects a system of inferiority and superiority of perceived cultural/biological differences and is maintained through social policies and practices (Weiner, 2014)

New Realism The categorization of ethnic minorities on the basis of cultural markers such as religion, ethnicity or nationality, which are used to disadvantage certain groups (Vasta, 2007).

Racial

Discrimination

Racial discrimination is a process “whereby social groups categorize other groups as different or inferior, on the basis of phenotypical characteristics, cultural markers or national origin” (Castles, 1996, p. 31).

Institutional Discrimination

Policies and practices favourable to a dominant group and unfavourable to another group that are systematically embedded in the form of norms in the existing structure of society (Bell, 2017).

Institutional racism

Institutional racism refers to structural relations of subordination and oppression between social groups with unequal access to power (Castles, et al., 1992). The state and its institutions reproduce social exclusion of immigrants or ethnic minorities and sustain its dominance through its structures and institutions including laws, policies, administrative practices, education and housing (Essed, 2002).

Structural Discrimination

Structural discrimination primarily relates to the ways in which common behaviour and equal legislation and norms for everybody can affect, and obscure, discriminatory intent. Structural discrimination refers to rules, norms, routines, patterns of attitudes and behaviour in institutions and other societal structures that represent obstacles to groups or individuals in achieving the same rights and opportunities that are available to the majority of the population (Essed, 2002).

Integration Paradox

The phenomenon of the more highly educated and structurally integrated immigrants who turn away from the host society, rather than becoming more oriented toward it (Verkuyten, 2016).

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Sonja Fransen and my second reader Prof. Dr. Hein de Haas. Without their assistance and dedicated involvement in every step throughout the process, this thesis would have never been accomplished. I would like to thank you very much for your unwavering support, mentorship and encouragement!

I owe my deepest gratitude to the 18 Syrian informants who shared their personal stories with me. This thesis would not have been possible without their willingness to openly share their experiences with me. Thank you for your trust! روكشم

Finally, getting through this thesis required more than academic support. I owe my deepest gratitude to my life partner, Mohammed Taha, who offered me encouragement and unconditional love throughout the process (and beyond). يتايح تنإ

Abstract

This thesis examines self-determination outcomes of Syrian refugees in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, refugees have to comply with pre-defined mandatory integration requirements that are formulated at the national level. Municipalities have considerable autonomy to translate and tailor refugee integration policies to their inhabitants needs in a number of socio-economic areas including access and quality of housing, education, welfare and employment. The question was asked how integration approaches in The Hague and Amsterdam, structural factors and reactions of the receiving society towards refugees affect Syrian refugees’ integration goals and experience of determination. In order to assess refugees’ integration goals, this study draws on the self-determination theory (SDT) that identifies three basic human needs: competence, relatedness and

autonomy. In SDT, none of these three needs can be thwarted or neglected without negative

consequences on human integrity, personal growth and mental well-being. This self-determination analysis is based on the experience of 18 Syrian refugees who live in The Hague and Amsterdam respectively and four employees that work in the field of refugee integration. It found that refugees do have, despite mandatory integration requirements, autonomy to define intrinsic integration goals. Contrarily to SDT, it was found that despite intrinsically motivated goal pursuits, genuine autonomy is deceptive if refugees lack the experience of competence; competence is decisive for genuine autonomy. This study concludes that refugee integration must be understood as a two-way process that needs mutual engagement of both the receiving society and refugees to pave the way for a self-determined life for all residence of the Netherlands. Symmetric integration policies that a) tackle the disadvantaged position of refugees in society; and b) involve and target the receiving society and its reactions to refugees are essential to pace the way for a self-determined, healthy life of refugees. This study offers important new insights on refugee integration policies, service provision and self-determination outcomes of refugees during the integration process by putting refugee and their voices into the centre of analysis.

Keywords: Integration policies, self-determination, integration goals, Syrian refugees, the

Table of Content

Chapter 1 | Integration Policies in the European Union ... 4

Chapter 2 | Theoretical Framework ... 8

The Self-Determination Theory ... 8

Competence, Relatedness and Autonomy ... 8

Regulatory Modes and Goal-directed Behaviour ... 9

Embeddedness of Goal-directed Behaviour ... 10

Research Question and Sub-Questions ... 11

Chapter 3 | Case Study: The Netherlands ... 13

Immigrant Integration Policies at the National Level ... 13

Immigrant Integration Policies at the Municipal Level ... 15

Syrian Refugees in the Netherlands ... 18

Chapter 4 | Methodology ... 20

Operationalization ... 20

Research Techniques and Sampling ... 20

Sample Description ... 21

Ethical Considerations ... 23

Chapter 5 | Goal Contents and Goal-directed Behaviour ... 24

Dutch Language Proficiency ... 24

Integration Modules ... 25

Labour Market Participation ... 27

The Experience of Superimposed Professional Incompetence ... 29

Lack of Tailored Counselling Sessions and Professional Opportunities ... 30

Academic Training ... 32

State of Disorientation ... 33

Admission Requirements ... 33

Housing ... 33

External Pressure to Work ... 34

Social Participation ... 35

Housing ... 36

Perceived Discrimination and Racism ... 39

Chapter 6 | Discussion ... 42

Basic Human Needs Satisfaction Outcomes ... 42

Competence ... 42

Relatedness ... 45

Autonomy ... 46

Limitations ... 49

Chapter 7 | Summary and Conclusion ... 52

Policy Recommendations ... 55

Bibliography ... 57

Appendix ... 63

Appendix I Interview Guide English ... 63

Appendix II Interview Guide Arabic ... 66

Table of Tables

Table 2 Highest Educational Attainments in Syria ... 22

Table 3 Educational or Professional Attainments upon Departure from Syria ... 22

Table 4 Overview of Integration Goal Contents in The Hague and Amsterdam ... 24

Table of Figures

Figure 2 The three Pillars of Self-Determination ... 9

Figure 3 Intrinsically and Extrinsically Motivated Goals ... 10

Figure 4 Conceptualisation ... 20

Figure 5 Dutch Language Learning ... 24

Figure 6 Integration Goal: Labour Participation ... 27

Figure 7 Active Social Participation ... 35

Figure 8 Accommodation in The Hague and Amsterdam ... 37

Figure 9 Perceived Discrimination and Racism ... 39

Figure 10 Perceived Autonomy in Syria vs. the Netherlands ... 47

Introduction

In 2015, the number of asylum applicants in the European Union (EU28) reached a historical peak (Eurostat, 2016): 1.2 million humanitarian migrants applied in the European Union for asylum, more than double compared to 2014. Even though Germany received the largest number of asylum applicants, other EU member states such as Sweden, Belgium, Austria and the Netherlands also reported that their number of first time asylum applications in 2015 more than doubled compared to 2014 (ibid.). It therefore goes without saying that refugee integration and how to address it has become a prominent issue in policy debates in many EU member states (Eurofund, 2016).

As part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) established by the European Union, member states must offer refugees equal treatment with nationals by facilitating settlement and enabling access to all available services (Eurostat, 2016). Strategies of how to approach refugee settlement and integration vary across EU countries. Policy models differ not only in the extent to which they foster inclusion or lead to exclusion (Penninx, 2005) but also to what extent policy measures are decentralized and municipal authorities provided with instruments and resources to address local challenges (Juzwiak, et al., 2014; Penninx, 2005). For instance, the UK does not have a national integration program which allows local authorities to address refugee settlement and participation (Bakker, et al., 2016; Bloch, 2007). In Sweden and the Netherlands, local governments devise frameworks within a greater national strategy to provide housing and jobs and access to education and welfare (Alexander, 2012; Penninx, 2005). While Sweden follows the principle of multiculturalism that allows for cultural diversity (Martín, et al., 2016), refugees in the Netherlands, Norway and Italy encounter assimilationist approaches that demand cultural adaptation and civic integration (Penninx, 2005; Cuttitta, 2016). From this it is evident that refugees ought to integrate not only into different cultural and socio-economic contexts, but encounter different political approaches across EU member states.

That said, integration policy measures that target refugees potentially tackle their disadvantaged position in society. The disadvantaged position of refugees stems from structural and institutional obstacles such as insufficient country specific language skills and knowledge of cultural norms, problems in having post-migration qualifications recognized and lacking social networks; of which all influence the socio-economic integration of refugees (Cheung & Phillimore, 2014; Damelang & Abraham, 2016; Bloch, 2002; Friedberg, 2000; Sulaiman-Hill & Thompson, 2011).

At the same time, integration programs should not be overestimated. A host of literature suggests that where immigrant integration policies aim to improve refugees’ position in society by providing housing assistance to refugees and facilitating access to key institutions (language schools, educational institutions, vocational training), they do not necessarily succeed in removing

all barriers to socio-economic participation (Healey, 2006; Valenta & Bunar, 2010; Ghorashi, 2005; Mestheneos & Ioannidi, 2002; Eurofund, 2016; Desiderio, 2016; Bloch, 2002; Healey, 2006). This is so because structural and institutional discrimination and racism against refugees are usually not tackled within integration policies but adversely affect integration outcomes (Valenta & Bunar, 2010; Desiderio, 2016). From this, it is evident that current integration policies cannot pave the way to successful integration.

In fact, research in the field of social justice, racism and discrimination has found that the receiving society, because of this superiority in power and resources, and how it reacts to refugees are decisive for integration outcomes (Ghorashi, 2014; Esser, 2004; Fekete, 2008; Vasta, 2007; Korac, 2003). While the EU define integration as a two-way process of mutual accommodation by both immigrant and residents of member states, integration policies in practice often target only refugees and it is mostly the host society that dictates integration goals and defines in what sense and to what extent immigrants ought to adapt (Rodríguez Maeso & Araújo, 2017; Al-Refai & Bagley, 2017). Even if their needs are not met, refugees are required to conform; their voices become obsolete (Korac, 2003).Little attention has been given to what refugees consider important integration goals and how they perceive integration programs that are designed to facilitate their settlement and integration. This is why this thesis makes it its aim to put refugees’ voices and their integration goals into the centre of analysis.

In order to assess refugees’ integration goals, I will draw on the self-determination theory (SDT). SDT argues that self-determination derives from the realization of three basic human needs: competence, relatedness and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In SDT, none of these three needs can be thwarted or neglected without negative consequences on human integrity, personal growth and mental well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The degree to which individuals experience satisfaction of these three basic needs differs across socio-cultural and political contexts and evolve out of the dialectic relationship between an individual and a given environment. Hence, the analysis of integration policy approaches, structural factors and the receiving society and its reactions to refugees are important to shed light on refugees’ scope of self-determination when defining and pursuing integration goals.

The Netherlands is my country case study. The Netherlands is an interesting case as the country has moved away from multicultural policies towards an integration policy with assimilationist traits. The Netherlands pioneered in introducing mandatory Civic Integration Exams as part of national integration measures (Cuttitta, 2016; Scholten, 2011). In the Netherlands, refugees must meet legal integration requirements. Although centralized integration policies define the framework of refugee integration, municipalities have autonomy to translate and tailor immigrant integration policies to their inhabitants’ needs. That said, municipal governments in the Netherlands have shown to be more pragmatic than the national government

and sometimes even steer integration into different directions that do not necessarily reflect the national approach (Penninx, 2009; Scholten, 2008). In line with Penninx (2009) who argues that although integration policies are steered by institutional rules established at the national levels, integration in this thesis is understood as a local matter (Scholten, 2012; Penninx, 2009; Penninx, 2005). Consequently, this research examines how municipal policy interventions correspond with the needs and integration goals of Syrian refugees. The Hague and Amsterdam are selected as local case studies not only because they are the two nation’s major cities and with that have received the largest number of refugees, but more importantly because of their different political orientations and socio-spatial structure: While Amsterdam is often perceived as “a progressive

and left-wing city” (Hoekstra, 2015, p. 1803), The Hague has been influenced by anti-immigrant

and right-wing populist parties (Hoekstra, 2015). The Hague is moreover largely segregated across income and ethnicity lines (Kruythoff & Premius, 2001). This is expected to affect refugees’ goal pursuits and maximizes opportunities to analyse and compare self-determination outcomes. This study aims to answer the following research question: How do refugee integration policies at the

city level and structural and societal factors both in Amsterdam and The Hague affect the scope self-determination of Syrian refugees in pursuing integration goals?

Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with (a) municipality and NGO employees and (b) Syrian refugees. Recent integration policy papers of both cities and interviews with municipality/NGO employees provide information on policy approaches applied by those cities and help to identify structural and institutional barriers that potentially influence refugees’ goal pursuits and basic human needs satisfaction. Semi-structured interviews with Syrian refugees are used to investigate (a) whether integration policy approaches correspond with refugees’ goals and (b) how refugees’ basic human needs and self-determination outcomes are affected.

With this study, I offer important new insights about policy designs, service provision and self-determination outcomes by analysing refugees’ experiences in settling and engaging in the post-migration environment. This thesis aims to address the unequal relation between refugees and the receiving society. Based on the CEAS agreement, the Netherlands must ensure equal treatment with nationals and access to services for refugees. Equality and freedom are not only fundamental pre-requisite for constructive social development and personal well-being but are important for positive integration outcomes in the long run (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Bakker, et al., 2016; Healey, 2006; Carter & El Hassan, 2003; Ghorashi, 2005; Silove, et al., 2000). There has been no study that analyses how integration policy approaches, structural factors and reactions of the receiving society towards newcomers in The Hague and Amsterdam affect Syrian refugees’ aspirations and self-determination outcomes. This thesis fills this gap by putting refugees and their voices in the centre of analysis.

Chapter 1 | Integration Policies in the European Union

Before discussing the self-determination theory and goal directed behaviour, it is important to understand how integration policies affect refugees’ engagement in a receiving society.

Since the influx of high numbers of asylum applicants in the European Union (EU) in 2015, refugee integration and how to address it has become a prominent issue in policy debates in many EU member states (Eurofund, 2016). At EU level, integration is defined as a two-way process of mutual accommodation by both immigrants and residents of member states (Fekete, 2008). According to the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) established by the European Union (EU), refugees in EU member states have the right to equal treatment with nationals including access to employment-related education, vocational and upgrading skills training, practical work experience, counselling services and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection (Eurostat, 2016).

On the one hand, a host of literature has repeatedly underlined that refugees are at a structural disadvantage in the receiving society which stems from the lack of host-country specific social and human capital including language skills, local work experience or training; and social networks (Desiderio, 2016; Bakker, et al., 2014; Bakker, et al., 2016; Friedberg, 2000; Valenta & Bunar, 2010). On the other hand, EU member states are not prepared to live up to the CEAS agreement and equalize refugees’ disadvantaged position with nationals. This can partly be explained by the fact that the provision of housing, language and vocational training, access to labour market and social services are costly particularly if they are tailored to refugees’ diverse needs and aspirations (European Parliament , 2016).

Consequently, refugee integration policies vary across EU member states: Sweden and the Netherlands implement well-structured integration programs initiated at the national level (Penninx, 2009). Italy is an example of the “South” where the recent influx of refugees led to drastic policy adjustments (Caneva, 2014): Failure in reaching a minimum level of integration results in deportation of immigrants; of which refugees are however excluded (Cuttitta, 2016). In contrast, in the UK there is no centralized refugee integration program which leaves local authorities with authority in addressing refugee settlement and participation (Bakker, et al., 2016). While integration in Sweden is somewhat voluntary, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Hungary, Austria, Luxembourg, Portugal and Italy all have introduced national, mandatory integration measures (Cuttitta, 2016; Eurostat, 2016).

In fact, previous research suggests that although integration mechanisms are, as for instance in Sweden and the Netherlands, steered by institutional rules, established at the national levels, immigrant integration ultimately takes places at the local level (Scholten, 2012; Penninx, 2009; Penninx, 2005). Within a greater national strategy, local governments devise frameworks to provide housing and jobs, access to educational and welfare (Alexander, 2012; Penninx, 2005). It

is also at the local level, usually in metropolitan areas, where immigrants and the receiving society interact. Yet, the extent to which integration policies are decentralized and municipal authorities are provided with instruments and resources to formulate and/or translate integration policies to their inhabitants’ needs, vary largely across EU member states (Juzwiak, et al., 2014). For instance, Sweden and the Netherlands have established comprehensive integration policies at the national level which serve as a guideline to address local challenges. In other EU countries including Germany, Austria and Switzerland, integration policies at the national level have been prolonged or absent and municipalities have adopted bottom-up models and developed their own strategies to address immigrant inflows (Alexander, 2012). Regardless of whether policies are top-down or bottom-up models, Gambetta et al. (2010) underlines that cooperation between state governments and municipal agencies is beneficial to create a cross-cutting and comprehensive integration approach. This means that refugees must not only integrate into different cultural and socio-economic contexts, but also encounter different integration policies across EU member states.

Despite the importance of comprehensive integration approaches, integration policies should not be overestimated. A host of literature suggests where immigrant integration policies aim to improve refugees’ position in society by providing housing and facilitating access to key institutions (language schools, educational institutions, vocational training), they do not necessarily succeed in removing all barriers to socio-economic participation (Healey, 2006; Valenta & Bunar, 2010; Ghorashi, 2005; Mestheneos & Ioannidi, 2002; Eurofund, 2016; Desiderio, 2016; Bloch, 2002; Healey, 2006). For instance, a study conducted in Sweden and Norway suggests that even where extensive services are provided to equalize immigrants’ inferior socio-economic position, discrimination and institutional racism are not tackled with these measures yet adversely affect labour market integration and social participation (Valenta & Bunar, 2010; Desiderio, 2016).

Research in the fields of race, discrimination and social justice even suggests that not only do integration policies often neglect the importance of discrimination and racism, but can even exacerbate racial stratification (Maeso & Araujo, 2017; Essed, 2002; Essed & Trienekens, 2008; Ghorashi, 2014). Immigrant integration policies inherently are forms of social engineering that aim to realign “ethnically marked people and institutions/organizations” (Rodríguez Maeso & Araújo, 2017, p. 40). Within integration policies, refugees are defined as the problem to be managed by the host society which is justified by their vulnerability and risk of exclusion. According to the CEAS agreement, it is the role of the state to facilitate refugees’ settlement, equalize refugees with nationals and ensure equal rights. In other words, it is the role of the state to give; and refugees’ role to receive. Consequently, “refugees become a category of people who

(Ghorashi, 2005, p. 185). And while the European Union defines integration as a two-way process of mutual accommodation by both immigrants and residents of member states, integration policies in practice target only refugees and refugees are familiarized with the host community, not vice versa (Rodríguez Maeso & Araújo, 2017). This is so because the two actors are “fundamentally

unequal in terms of power and resources” (Penninx, 2009, p. 5). It is consequently mostly the

“superior” host society that defines integration goals: They define in what sense and to what extent immigrants ought to adapt in order to become integrated and an accepted part of society (Rodríguez Maeso & Araújo, 2017; Al-Refai & Bagley, 2017). Refugees often find themselves in the position of being patronized and with that lack self-determination and control over their lives (Ghorashi, 2014). Rather than to exploit the full potential of refugees, integration in that sense seeks to suppress and subordinate refugees. Even if their needs are not met, refugees are required to conform; their voices become obsolete (Korac, 2003). Although liberal democracies of Western Europe do by law not allow for inequality and unequal rights, in practice immigrants do often not enjoy uniform rights due do structural discrimination and institutionalized racism (Penninx, 2005; Al-Refai & Bagley, 2017; Rodríguez Maeso & Araújo, 2017). The fundamental unequal power relation between refugees and the receiving society, structural discrimination and racist ideologies and practices are, though largely neglected in the integration discourse, clearly a barrier to successful integration of refugees (Al-Refai & Bagley, 2017).

From this, it is evident that integration policies alone cannot pave the way to successful integration. Ghorashi (2014) stresses that as long as the dominant culture is unquestioned in the integration discourse, racism and structural discrimination will not be acknowledged and cannot be accurately addressed (Ghorashi, 2014). This is particularly important as previous research revealed that poor access to services, feelings of exclusion and dependency as well as a lack of control over one’s own life all induce passivity, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder and other psychiatric symptoms (Silove, et al., 2000; Bakker, et al., 2016; Ghorashi, 2005; Healey, 2006; Carter & El Hassan, 2003). Perceived discrimination and feelings of exclusion have shown to adversely affect psychological adaptation and contribute to poorer sociocultural adaptation. This

R ef ugee s Po st -m igrat ion soc ie ty

Facilitate integration processes, include and assist immigrants in social interaction

Adapt to the post-migration society’s lifestyle Su p er io r in p o wer a n d r eso u rc es In fer io r in p o wer an d r eso u rce s

induces an adverse effect on the integration process as a whole (Vega, et al., 1995; Verkuyten & Nekuee, 1999).

I conclude by highlighting that previous research on refugee integration in Europe stresses the fact that refugees are social and political actors with diverse potentials and different needs. Previous studies have underlined that because of its superiority in power and resources, the role of the receiving society and how it reacts to newcomers, including levels of discrimination, are decisive for integration processes and outcomes. It is also evident that integration policies alone cannot pave the way to successful integration as long as discrimination and racism against refugees are ignored. However, little attention has been given to how refugees perceive integration programs that are designed to facilitate their settlement and integration, how policy approaches, structural factors and reactions of the receiving society affect integration goals and goal pursuits of refugees.

Chapter 2 | Theoretical Framework

The Self-Determination Theory

In order to assess how municipal policy approaches, structural factors and the receiving society and its reactions to newcomers affect refugees’ pursuit of integration goals, I draw on the self-determination theory (SDT). SDT is a theory of motivation and personality that was pioneered by the social psychologists Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. SDT is primarily concerned with the promotion of constructive social development and personal well-being as well as the processes that facilitate these conditions (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The metatheory is based on the premise that human beings are innately curious and interested, have a natural proactive tendency to engage in their physical and social environment and desire to internalize ambient customs, norms and values that surround them (see Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). SDT builds up on three psychological basic human needs that are considered essential for ongoing psychological growth, integrity and mental well-being: competence, relatedness and autonomy. These three needs must be considered when analysing (a) the content of goals and (b) the reason to pursue goals. In the following, I describe these three needs and how they relate to goal contents and goal pursuits.

Competence, Relatedness and Autonomy

Competence is one of the three basic human needs. In SDT, competence refers to the experience of efficiency and is considered as one of the basic psychological needs that is important to energize and activate people within a given environment. Competence is the motive to effectively engage in the physical and social world and to cause valuable outcomes (White, 1959) and is essential for psychological health in the long run (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, SDT does not account for the relativity of competence. Research in the field of human capital has shown that qualifications are

“imperfectly portable across countries” (Friedberg, 2000, p. 246). For the purposes of this thesis,

competence refers not only to skills and qualifications that a person acquires throughout his/her life but also to their recognition and validation.

Relatedness is the second basic human need that refers to the desire to feel genuinely connected to others; to feel loved and cared for as well as to love and to care. Relatedness means that a person is comfortable with his/her living situation, feels accepted in his/her neighbourhood and is socially engaged. Relatedness implies a sense of belonging, intimacy and security (Baumeister & Leavy, 1995).

Finally, autonomy means freedom from external control. Autonomy refers to the desire of self-organized experiences and behaviour that is in line with a person’s sense of self (Deci, 1980). Autonomy means that a person is able to choose the life he/she has reason to value. This includes not only choices regarding education or training but also in terms of residence, life style and participation. Autonomy is the tendency to strive for inner coherence and integration. It is the experience of freedom that is essential to healthy human functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000). It is important to note that SDT does not limit human needs to competence, relatedness and autonomy. However, the three needs are considered as universal and most essential for human well-being and integrity, regardless of cultural differences. The assessment of people’s basic need satisfaction, in immediate and past situations, is key to predict personal growth and human vitality. Numerous field studies have supported this argument in education settings (Deci, et al., 1981; Deci, et al., 1999) and work organizations (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Deci, et al., 1989).

This study analyses whether Syrian refugees in the Netherlands experience a satisfaction of these three basic needs with regards to integration goals. I analyse whether Syrian refugees experience a) autonomy in defining their integration goals, b) competence in pursuing these goals effectively; and c) relatedness in engaging in and being part of the receiving society. There is, to my best knowledge, no existing study that has applied the self-determination theory to the context of refugee integration.

Regulatory Modes and Goal-directed Behaviour

In order to elaborate on Syrian refugees’ integration goals and scope of self-determination it is important to understand that goal-directed behaviour derives from regulatory modes which initiate the behaviour in the first place.

SDT differentiates between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000): Intrinsic motivation causes autonomous behaviour that is inherently volitional (i.e. I play the piano because it gives me pleasure) and refers to the absence of external

Competence  Access to vocational and academic training  Acquisition of skills and qualifications  Recognition and validation of qualifications Autonomy  Freedom to decide about direction of life course  Self-organisation  Pursue goals out

of volition  Inner coherence Relatedness  Feelings of connectedness and belonging  Social-cultural bonding and acceptance  Comfortable with living situation  Security

The three Basic Needs in SDT

impetus (control, regulation, pressure, sanctions). Intrinsic motivation derives from the experience of autonomy and competence which is contrary to the self-efficacy theory that denies this significance of autonomy on intrinsic motivation (Bandura, 1989). In contrast, extrinsic motivation is initiated by pressure or force (i.e. I play the piano because my mother forced me) while autonomy is largely absent. In some cases, and only when a person experiences relatedness and competence with respect to a behaviour, external regulations are harmoniously incorporated into an individual’s value and norm system (see Gagné & Deci, 2005).

Consequently, different modes of regulations that initiate goal-directed behaviour bring about different amounts of basic human needs satisfaction. Research in education (Black & Deci, 2000), health (Zeldman, et al., 1999), environmental (Seguin, et al., 1998) and political (Koestner, et al., 1996) behaviour revealed that behaviour that is autonomously regulated leads to more effective performances and better psychological and physical health. This in turn has shown to enhance personal growth and integrity.

With regards to this study, I expect that Syrian refugees who pursue intrinsically motivated integration goals are more likely experience autonomy and competence while pursuing them. The opposite is expected for extrinsically motivated integration goals. Syrian refugees who pursue extrinsically motivated goals are expected to experience pressure and control and with that largely lack the experience of autonomy. In that case, self-determination is diminished.

Embeddedness of Goal-directed Behaviour

In SDT, the three basic human needs competence, relatedness and autonomy are considered universal human needs. None of these three needs can be thwarted or neglected without negative consequences. That doesn’t mean, however, that these needs are always met. The degree to which individuals experience need satisfaction differs across social, cultural and political contexts and evolves out of the dialectic relationship between an individual and a given environment. Previous research in the field of human behaviour has shown that aspirations must be understood as multi-dimensional, many-faceted; and socially, culturally and politically embedded (Ibrahim, 2011; Appadurai, 2004; Hart, 2016; Clark, 2009). What an individual wants is usually tied to general

Intrinsically motivated goals Extrinsically motivated goals Increased self-determination, integrity and personal growth More likely to experience autonomy and competence Decreased self-determination, integrity and personal growth Less likely to experience autonomy and competence

norms and cultural perceptions of a valuable life (Appadurai, 2004). “Individual aspirations are

born in social context, they do not exist in a vacuum” (Ray, 2003, p. 9). The socio-economic,

political and cultural context in which an individual is embedded is expected to influence an individual’s cognitive world and his/her idea of what is desirable and attainable (Ray, 2003). In SDT, basic human needs are adversely affected when an individual’s contexts is over-challenging, rejecting or controlling (see Ryan & Deci, 2000). Disadvantaged circumstances, oppression and hardship are expected to diminish the scope of what an individual perceives achievable. Clark (2009) calls this a downward adjustments of aspirations. In contrast, a supportive environment where people encounter new opportunities and conditions that facilitate effective engagement positively affect basic human needs satisfaction. New opportunities and empowering conditions increase the scope of what is attainable and with that result in an upward adjustment of aspirations (see Clark, 2009).

***********************

To conclude, in the previous chapter I have underlined that the role of the receiving society and its institutions, policies and reactions to refugees particularly at the local level are decisive for refugees’ integration goals and goal pursuits. In line with that, SDT suggests that structural, socio-cultural and political factors are likely to affect integration goals and goal pursuits. It is thus expected that if the Dutch authorities and the civil society use their instrumental power and lobbying force to provide supportive conditions that empower refugees, refugees will be encouraged to pursue intrinsically motivated goals and potentially adjust their aspirations upward. In contrast, if the structural, societal and political context is discouraging or even oppressive, Syrian refugees will experience a lack of autonomy over integration goals and goal pursuits. External pressure and control then adversely affect their experience of autonomy and aspirations are adjusted accordingly.

Research Question and Sub-Questions

Considering immigrant integration policies, structural and societal factors, I propose the following research question: How do refugee integration policies at the city level and structural and societal

factors both in Amsterdam and The Hague affect the scope self-determination of Syrian refugees in pursuing integration goals?

Relevant sub-questions are:

 What are Syrian refugees’ integration goals (personal, social, professional, academic) and what is the source of motivation (intrinsic, external) to pursue these goals?

 What are factors (socio-political, economic, socio-cultural, structural and institutional) that influence Syrian refugees’ (a) freedom to choose and (b) agency to effectively aspire their integration goals?

 How and to what extent do Syrian refugees experience autonomy, competence and relatedness and how does this affect their integration experience?

 In what way do refugee integration policies at the city level influence basic needs satisfaction and goal pursuits of Syrian refugees?

 How do racism and institutional discrimination affect basic needs satisfaction and goal pursuits of Syrian refugees?

 What are possible strategies to facilitate Syrian refugees’ goal pursuits and to increase basic human needs satisfaction?

Chapter 3 | Case Study: The Netherlands

Immigrant Integration Policies at the National Level

As mentioned earlier, this thesis focuses on the Netherlands as a case study. In the past four decades, there have been distinct immigrant integration frameworks that have involved different notions and perspectives on immigrant integration and diversity in the Netherlands (Scholten, 2011). This section will describe the evolution of the policy landscape on immigrant and refugee integration in the Netherlands since the 1980s.

Until the end of the 1970s, policies that targeted immigrants were rather ad hoc. Mainly Moroccan and Turkish “guest workers” immigrated to the Netherlands, who were not meant to stay but return to their home countries (Dukes & Musterd, 2012). In the 1980s and with the belief that those “guest workers” were going to stay, an actual immigrant integration policy was introduced (Entzinger, 2014). The mainstream “Minority Policy” in the 1980s was not designed for all immigrants but targeted only those who were categorized as being “problematic” and in need of “assistance”: Moroccans, Turks, Surinamese and Antilleans (Dukes & Musterd, 2012). It was assumed that these groups would need special attention and support including labour market and education programs but also voting rights and facilitated naturalization (Vasta, 2007) to socially and economically equalize with the native Dutch society; without being required to detach from their cultural background (Dukes & Musterd, 2012; Entzinger, 2014; Vasta, 2007).

However, in the 1990s the same targeted minority groups, particularly Turks and Moroccans, despite these efforts, were still found to lag socio-economically behind nationals (Entzinger, 2014). With that said, an “Integration Policy” was introduced that stressed active citizenship and socio-economic adaptation (Scholten, 2011). Yet, whereas the approach of the 1980s allowed for cultural distinctiveness, these exact cultural differences were blamed for immigrants’ disadvantaged position in society in the 1990s (Weiner, 2014). Culture, rather than race, was problematized and assumed to be inherent and essential. Minorities, particularly Muslims, were conceived as incompatible (Essed & Trienekens, 2008) and inherently deviant from Dutch norms (Ghorashi, 2014). Towards the end of the 1990s, a law on Naturalization of Newcomers came into effect that included free but mandatory language training, social and civic skills and labour market orientation courses for immigrants (Entzinger, 2014).

Since the millennium, a shift from “being mild and politically correct towards a situation

in which migrants were told to assimilate quickly, while meeting stringent adaptation requirements” (Dukes & Musterd, 2012, pp. 1982-83) happened. The “Integration Policy New

Style” stresses common citizenship, meaning unity in language and shared values and norms (Scholten, 2008), and particularly puts importance to the socio-cultural adaptation of immigrants.

Unlike in the 1990s, immigrants have had to complete the inburgering within three years for which they have to pay for themselves1. As part of the Civic Integration Act, immigrants must take part in mandatory language courses, socio-cultural classes and as of January 2015 also in Dutch labour market orientation courses (Immigration and Naturalization Service, n.d.). The implementation and enforcement is managed by the Education Executive Agency (DUO). Those who do not pass the exam pay a fine and become ineligible for naturalization (Hoekstra, 2015). More recently, the Dutch government has put more focus on limiting integration “by retrenching from the domain of

migrant integration” (Scholten, 2012, p. 223). Since 2007/08, integration has increasingly become

the responsibility of immigrants themselves (ibid). Municipalities do not have any legal obligation to facilitate integration for immigrants yet refugees are entitled to basic support (Martín, et al., 2016).

Over the last four decades, the “obsession” with cultural differences has grown (Essed & Trienekens, 2008). Particularly “Muslim-ness” has been and still is considered as not in line, even incompatible, with “Dutch-ness” (Ghorashi, 2014). It is then not surprising that particularly Muslims are targets for discrimination and racism: Van den Berg and Evers (2006) found in a study that more than 50 per cent of Turkish and Moroccan Dutch participants experienced discrimination at least once a year (as contrasted to only two per cent of the Dutch mainstreamers). This is so, although Article 1 of the Constitution and the Equal Treatment Act enforced in 1994 explicitly prohibits unequal treatment and discrimination on grounds of nationality, race and religion (see Government website2). Other studies stress that despite the anti-discrimination legislation, racism prevails among 10-50 percent of the Dutch population, particularly towards Muslims (Verkuyten, 2008; Weiner, 2015) and institutional racism in the professional and educational domain lead to stratified educational and occupational outcomes (Crul & Doomernik, 2003; Weiner, 2014; Siebers, 2010; Ghorashi & Van Tilburg, 2006).

To conclude, immigrant integration policies in the Netherlands have shifted from a multicultural approach towards an integration policy with assimilationist traits (Scholten, 2008; Brubaker, 2001). On the one hand, refugees in the Netherlands are obliged to fulfil pre-defined integration requirements based on the principle of common citizenship and on the other hand, they have increasingly become responsible for their own integration success while structural obstacles and discrimination are disregarded. In the following section, I discuss how municipalities address these refugee integration challenges at the local level.

1 _{They are given an amount of maximum €10.000 which turns into a loan if the integration exam is passed within} three years. If someone is not able to pass the Civic Integration Exam within three years, the loan must be paid back. 2 _{See website: <https://www.government.nl/topics/discrimination/contents/prohibition-of-discrimination>. Accessed} May 27, 2017.

Immigrant Integration Policies at the Municipal Level

Even though municipalities do not have authority over the legal status of refugees and devise their frameworks within a greater national strategy (i.e. the Civic Integration under the Civic Integration Act), municipal authorities have considerable autonomy to translate and tailor immigrant integration policies to their inhabitants’ needs in a number of socio-economic areas including access and quality of housing, social services, socio-cultural activities and healthcare. This is why Penninx (2009) argues that even though integration policies are formulated at the national level, it is at the local level and in very concrete contexts (i.e. schools, work place, public space, neighbourhoods) where they are implemented and where immigrants and the receiving society interact.

Previous studies have found that in the Netherlands, municipal integration policies are often more pragmatic and choose a more accommodative approach to immigrant groups than the national approach foresees (Penninx, 2009). Municipal governments may express different policy foci and with that gear integration into different directions and need not necessarily reflect (and may even deviate from) the national strategy of immigrant integration (Scholten, 2012; Penninx, 2009; Kirk, 2010; Hoekstra, 2015; Scholten, 2008). For instance, research on refugee integration policies have revealed that cities such as Utrecht and Amsterdam have experimented with new inclusive forms of refugee and immigrant integration and try to explicitly promote cultural diversity in a positive sense (see Kirk, 2010; Hoekstra, 2015). These cities have developed strategies and activities that do not reflect the national rationale of common citizenship. In comparison, other cities including Rotterdam and The Hague have witnessed a political shift towards anti-immigrant and populist parties (Hoekstra, 2015; Penninx, 2009; Scholten, 2008). Both cities have adopted the dominant national approach that postulates common citizenship as a pre-requisite for integration and stresses socio-economic participation and socio-cultural adaptation to Dutch values, norms and language (Scholten, 2008).

It concludes that although immigrant integration mechanisms are steered by institutional rules established at the national level, integration at the municipal level might not reflect the national rationale to immigrant integration. The Hague and Amsterdam are selected as local case studied. Below, refugee integration policies and socio-economic and spatial aspects of these two municipalities are compared and contrasted.

The Hague and Amsterdam

As described earlier, this research addresses Syrian refugees’ scope of self-determination in pursuing integration goals in The Hague and Amsterdam. This section presents key features of both cities and compares and contrasts their current approaches to refugee integration. This section is based on recent policy papers as well as on data available on the municipalities’ homepages.

With 813,5623 residents, Amsterdam is the capital and largest city in the Netherlands and characterized by a service oriented economy (Penninx 2013). The Hague is with a population of 515,7394 residents the second largest city and its urban economy is similar to Amsterdam almost completely based on service provision and the public sector (Kloosterman & Priemus, 2001). On their websites, both municipalities present themselves as international and multicultural cities: Amsterdam prides itself with a rich history, dynamic economy and a highly diverse population from over 180 different backgrounds5. The Hague is the seat of the national government and houses more than 160 international organizations including the International Court of Justice and the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration6.

However, there are notable differences with regard to political orientation and socio-spatial structure: Amsterdam has been historically dominated by the Labour Party (Scholten, 2012) and is therefore often perceived as “a progressive and left-wing city” (Hoekstra, 2015, p. 1803). In contrast, municipal politics in The Hague have been influenced by anti-immigrant and right-wing populist parties (Hoekstra, 2015). Moreover, The Hague is, compared to Amsterdam, largely segregated across income and ethnicity lines (Kruythoff & Premius, 2001).

With regards to the recent refugee influx in 2016, The Hague hosted 21507 refugees (Gemeente Den Haag, n.d.) while Amsterdam accommodated 2077 refugees in the same year (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). According to recently published policy papers, both cities adjusted their refugee integration approaches in 2016 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015; Gemeente Den Haag, n.d.). From this material, it is evident that both cities have two priorities: active social participation and financial independence. In order to facilitate active social participation and financial independence among refugees, both municipalities stress the need to implement “quick” and tailored policy measures.

In doing so, Amsterdam, compared to The Hague, appears to be more progressive: The municipality experiments with different initiatives and supports 16 programs designed for different target groups (Interview AM1 20.04.2017). Syrian refugees can moreover profit from a wide and lively range of socio-cultural activities8. For instance, a group of Syrian refugees founded an organisation called Stichting Syrische Vrijwilligers Nederland - SYVNL9 _{that aims to enhance} cross-cultural dialogues between the Dutch community and refugees. The municipality also cooperates closely with Stichtig voor Vluchteling-Studenten (UAF) and other educational

3 _{See <http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/amsterdam-population/>. Accessed May 29, 2017.} 4 _{The data refers to 2016, see <https://www.cbs.nl/>. Accessed June 10, 2017.}

5 _{See <http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/local/about-amsterdam/people-culture>. Accessed May 29, 2017.}

6 _{See <https://www.denhaag.nl/en/residents/international-the-hague/international-organisations.htm>. Accessed May} 29, 2017.

7 _{The Hague accommodated an extra 700 refugees who had a temporary residence permit in 2016, see: <} https://www.denhaag.nl/en/residents/to/Status-holders-in-The-Hague.htm>. Accessed May 29, 2017.

8 _{See i.e. Refugees Welcome: <https://www.facebook.com/refugeeswelcomeamsterdam/>. Accessed June 10, 2017.} 9 _{See their website: < http://www.syvnl.nl/index.php/en/home/>. Accessed June 15, 2017.}

institutions to support highly skilled refugees in resuming higher education or training. For instance, the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and the Free University of Amsterdam (VU) intensified their efforts to adjust bridging courses (schakelprogramma) and facilitating admission to university courses for refugees10. UvA created a “landing program” particularly for refugees that includes not only language training and study skills but also Dutch culture, history, art and constitutional law.11 The municipality also states that new training and education trajectories at the vocational level have been created, targeting lower skilled permit holders (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015).

As for The Hague, projects such as Impact City12 _{or The Hague Peace Projects}13 _offer activities that particularly target refugees. However, I found that socio-cultural events and activities are, compared to Amsterdam, less lively and less dense. In its policy paper, the municipality states that it designed fast-track language courses for those refugees aged between 18 to 27 years. Since 2016, the municipality cooperates with ROC Mondriaan and offers a bridging program for highly skilled permit holders, as a preparation to vocational and higher education. There are no special programs that target refugees older than 27 (Gemeenteraad den Haag, 2016; Gemeente Den Haag, n.d.; Oostrom, 2016).

During the settling process, The Hague offers more assistance to refugees than Amsterdam. The municipality works closely with Vluchtelingen Werk which assists all refugees during the first three to nine months. Moreover, The Hague municipality offers all core information, particularly during the first months, either in Dutch, English, Arabic or Tigrinya and employs interpreters that translate where necessary (Gemeente Den Haag, n.d.). Such services are not systematically available in Amsterdam for all refugees. In Amsterdam, Vluchtelingen Werk Amstel tot Zaan assists only the most vulnerable refugee groups which include, according to their definition, women, minors and LGBTs. Amsterdam offers a Language and Orientation Program (Taal- en orientatieprogramma, TOV) in which language and learning capacities are assessed and in which refugees are introduced to the neighbourhood they live in and the city and its facilities (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).

Based on the Civic Integration Act, refugees have to pass the Civic Integration Exam within three years. Both municipalities employ organizations to execute the mandatory integration modules. In The Hague, the task is executed by Vluchtelingen Werk and in Amsterdam by Implacement Projects BV (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015; Gemeente Den Haag, n.d.). In both

10 _{See: <}

http://www.uva.nl/onderwijs/master/soorten-masters-en- schakelprogrammas/schakelprogrammas/collegegeldtarieven-schakelprogrammas/collegegeldtarieven-schakelprogrammas.html>. Accessed May 29, 2017.

11 _{See: <https://www.uaf.nl/>. Accessed May 28, 2017.}

12 _{See their website: <http://impactcity.nl/>. Accessed May 28, 2017.} 13 _{See their website: <https://thehaguepeace.org/>. Accessed May 28, 2017.}

municipalities, language schools are commercial and regulated by the market (Interview AM1 20.04.2017).

In conclusion, refugees in both municipalities have to comply with pre-defined integration requirements. This is expected to diminish the experience of autonomy. Yet, both cities have adjusted their refugee integration approaches with the aim to tailor services to refugees needs and facilitate participation particularly in educational institutions and the labour market and with special focus on highly skilled refugees younger than 27. This is expected to enhance the experience of competence particularly for this refugee group. Refugees older than 27 and unskilled refugees, particularly in The Hague, are expected to experience less competence to efficiently engage in society because they do not enjoy access to services tailored to their needs. Although both cities largely depend on the service sector and employ an international workforce, Amsterdam’s dynamic economy is expected to increase refugees’ opportunities and foster autonomous and efficient goal pursuits, more than in The Hague. Previous research has repeatedly underlined that integration policies which disregard discrimination against refugees often do not lead the way to successful participation (Valenta & Bunar, 2010). None of the municipalities address discrimination and racism in their recent policy papers to refugee integration. Particularly refugees in The Hague, because of its segregated socio-spatial structure and right-wing, anti-immigrant political orientation, are expected to experience discrimination and racism which adversely affects participation in general and diminishes the experience of relatedness. Consequently, I expect that refugees in Amsterdam experience more basic human need satisfaction when defining and pursuing integration goals.

Syrian Refugees in the Netherlands

This research focuses on the Netherlands and the integration experience of Syrian refugees as a case study. Syrians currently make up the biggest refugee group in the Netherlands. Since 2014 and the war in Syria, the number of asylum applications steadily increased until it reached 55 000 asylum applications in 2015. A report by Vluchtelingen Werk (2016) revealed that in 2015, a total of 88 536 refugees and 28 051 asylum seekers were registered in the Netherlands of which around 70 per cent were male and 60 per cent were between 18 to 39 years old. According to Statistics Netherlands (2016), 44 thousand Syrian refugees and 8000 Eritrean were registered in Dutch municipalities whereas most of them arrived between 2014 and 201514.

In a previous section I have outlined obstacles to refugee integration in EU member states. As for the Netherlands, a host of literature has repeatedly underlined that refugees in the Netherlands face similar obstacles as refugees in other EU states including problems in getting

qualifications recognized, lacking country-specific human and social capital and discrimination and racism (Bakker, et al., 2016; Desiderio, 2016; Ghorashi & Van Tilburg, 2006; Engbersen, et al., 2015). Hence, it is expected that Syrian refugees in the Netherlands face these obstacles too. This study will analyse how current integration policies (including the mandatory integration requirements) in The Hague and Amsterdam support Syrian refugees in overcoming these obstacles, what role the receiving society and its reactions towards refugees including discrimination and racism play and how this affects the self-determination of refugees to define and pursue integration goals.

Chapter 4 | Methodology

This thesis analyses how refugee integration policies, structural settings and reactions of the receiving society affect refugees’ autonomy to aspire, integration goals they have reason to value and the agency to effectively pursuit these goals. The municipalities The Hague and Amsterdam are selected as local case studies.

Operationalization

Both, the self-determination theory and the literature review clearly paved the way for a deductive approach. The independent variables are:

 Refugee integration approaches at the city level  Institutional and structural context

 Receiving society’s reactions to newcomers including discrimination and racism

The dependent variables are a) integration goal contents and goal pursuits; and b) basic needs satisfaction outcomes. Whether refugees pursue goals they have reason to value and are effectively able to pursue them depends largely on the extent to which they are able to exercise autonomy and competence. Refugee integration approaches and institutional, structural factors and society’s reactions to newcomers are expected to affect the experience of autonomy, competence and relatedness.

Research Techniques and Sampling

This thesis focuses on The Hague and Amsterdam as local case studies. Case studies are particularly useful to learn about a complex instance or relationship of different elements and to gather a comprehensive understanding of that (Balbach, 1999; Morra & Friedlander, n.d.). Even though case studies do not allow for generalizations of results, good practices in policies and service provision and how they affect refugees’ experiences can be identified (Juzwiak, 2014).

Structural Setting Integration Approach

Receiving Society

Empowering and inclusive conditions foster autonomy and

competence Supressive and exclusive conditions diminish autonomy and competence Fosters intrinsically motivated goals & effective goal pursuits

Increaes basic human needs satisfaction

Increases the scope of self-determination

Fosters extrinsically motivated goals & reduces

effective goal pursuits Reduces basic human needs satisfaction

Decreases the scope of self-determination

In order to answer my main research question and its sub-questions, data was collected through semi-structured interviews with (a) municipality and NGO employees and (b) Syrian refugees.

As for the interviews with municipality and NGO employees, I sought out those informants who know about refugee integration policies and were willing to be reflective about it. In total, I interviewed two people in Amsterdam and The Hague respectively15 who work in the field of refugee integration. These interviews add valuable information about integration policies and help to identify structural and institutional barriers that potentially influence refugees’ goal pursuits and needs satisfaction.

The main weight in my thesis is given to semi-structured interviews with refugees. Semi-structured interviews are used to understand unique ways to experience the world. The object is not to standardize informants’ experiences but rather to gather a comprehensive understanding of refugees’ individual integration experience. I aim to provide refugees with voices and put their goals and integration experiences in the centre of my analysis. Sampling occurred in two phases: First, refugees were selected through purposive sampling with multi-entry points. I used multiple entry points to reduce selection bias (Sulaiman-Hill & Thompson, 2011) and to be able to reach a variety of Syrian refugees with different backgrounds. In a second phase, snowball sampling was used: each respondent was asked to indicate another relevant person for further contact. In total, I interviewed ten refugees in The Hague and eight refugees in Amsterdam. In order to reach a comparative result, I limited my target group to Syrian refugees aged between 20 and 35. This age group is the biggest group that entered the Netherlands since 2014. The interviews were held in Arabic or English and were recorded16. All interviews were transcribed and coded according to common, recurrent and emergent themes and contents (Balbach, 1999).

Sample Description

I conducted 18 interviews with Syrian refugees. The table below gives information on the sample in each city:

The Hague Amsterdam

Total number of interviews 10 8

Age (years) 20 - 35, average 28.1 22 - 33, average 27.5

Female interviewees (Nr.) 4 0

Male interviewees (Nr.) 6 8

Unmarried without children (Nr.) 9 8

Married with children 1 0

Waiting time to receive the residence

permit (months) 1-16 1.5-12

Waiting time in asylum centres (months) 3 - 18, average 8.4 0.5 - 16, average 9.3

15 _{One interview in The Hague was conducetd via email.}

Time of arrival in the municipality December 2015 – February 2017 April 2015 – November 2016 Shared accommodation 6 3 Single accommodation 4 5

Table 1 | Sample of Syrian Refugees in The Hague and Amsterdam

All of my informants come from various cities including Aleppo, Damascus, Latakia, Idlib, Homs, Al Bukamal and Raqaa. In The Hague, my informants were between 20 to 35 years old with an average of 28.1 years. Six in ten were male and four in ten female. My informants in Amsterdam were all male aged from 22 to 33 with an average age of 27.5 years. One female interviewee in The Hague was married with a child. 17 out of 18 interviewees are unmarried without children.

Informants in The Hague waited from one to 16 months to get the residence permit and spent three to 18 months in asylum centres. In Amsterdam, informants waited between 1.5 months to 12 months until they got the residence permit and stayed between 15 days and 16 months in asylum centres

As the table below illustrates, the sample in The Hague is more diverse in terms of the education level.

The Hague Amsterdam

Primary Education (Grade 1-9) 2 0

Secondary Education (Grade 10-12) 1 1

Technical/Vocational Education 3 0

Undergraduate Education 3 6

Post-graduate Education 1 1

Table 2 | Highest Educational Attainments in Syria

50 per cent of my informants in The Hague completed their (aspired) education and six were full-time employed before immigrating to the Netherlands. Occupations varied from hairdresser, decorator and teacher to head of a department. Four in ten informants in The Hague hadn’t completed their (aspired) education yet: One informant aimed to study at undergraduate level, one hadn’t finished Vocational Education and two couldn’t complete their undergraduate studies.

The sample of Amsterdam is slightly higher educated than the sample in The Hague. In Amsterdam, three informants finished their (aspired) education at tertiary level and had full-time jobs such as pharmacist, logistic specialist and TV presenter. One informant finished high-school and planned to study at the university. Three hadn’t completed their undergraduate studies. One informant received an undergraduate degree but aimed to continue education at post-graduate level.

Table 3 | Educational or Professional Attainments upon Departure from Syria

The Hague Amsterdam

Completed (aspired) education 6 3

Incomplete (aspired) education 4 5

Ethical Considerations

Refugees are a particular migrant group; they have been forced to flee and, more than other migrants, are likely to suffer from traumas and insecurities. It was my utmost priority to protect refugees from being further harmed. Thanks to my previous research and work experience with refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Eastern Europe, I am aware of the necessity to create a comfortable and trustworthy atmosphere while conducting interviews. Importantly, refugees’ anonymity and personal integrity must be secured at all times during the research process. Whilst the residence of my informants are published, further personal information stays undisclosed.

All interviewees partook on a complete voluntary basis. I made it my task to disclose the purpose of this research and my role as a researcher to all participants prior to all interviews.

Finally, my previous research and work experience as well as personal values biases my position in favour of refugees and their well-being. A thesis or research project however requires objectivity and transparency during all processes. My interview style and analysis remained impartial. It was and is not my aim to take sides but to identify best practices that enhance self-determination and personal growth of (eventually) all Dutch residents.