The Participation Declaration
A reflection of conflicting notions of citizenship between national policies and
the local field
I hereby state that I have read, understood and will respect the above information about values of Dutch society. I also state that I will make an active contribution towards Dutch society and will be given the space to do so by my fellow citizens” (Participation Declaration, Rijksoverheid, 2018).
S.C. Kuijper
University of Amsterdam 07/19 Amsterdam 10399682
Msc Sociology: General track First supervisor: A. Kanas Second supervisor: S. Fransen
1
Minister Asscher, Dutch minister of Social Affairs and Employment, was in 2017 responsible for the legislative proposal of the new integration act. In the proposal Asscher stated “with
the Participation Declaration migrants become acquainted with the non-negotiable rights and obligations and the fundamental values of Dutch society. For us, these rules are obvious, for newcomers these are often not. It is therefore important that we are very clear about this
2
Abstract
Processes of globalization, migration and the presence of ethnic minorities promote enhanced Dutch nationalism and transform the perceptions of citizenship. Increasing integration policies are implemented by the Dutch government in order to integrate new migrants in society and familiarize them with Dutch norms and values. Since 2017 the Participation Declaration became a mandatory part of the integration requirements for non-EU migrants. The Participation Declaration states fundamental norms and values of Dutch society and by signing the declaration migrants confirm to understand and respect these core values. Previous and extensive research explores general integration policies and trajectories. However, the Participation Declaration is a relatively new policy and only scarce research has been conducted. This research explores how both local migrant professionals and migrants perceive the declaration and how this structures their participation in the trajectories. According to previous research local migrant professionals oppose dominant nationalistic and citizenship discourses which would oppose the ideological assumption of the declaration. This research explores how these conflicting notions of citizenship impacts both the
participation of local migrant professionals and migrants. By doing so this research seeks to contribute to the literature and theory surrounding ideological stances of local migrant professionals, migrants, citizenship and integration courses. The research draws upon 20 semi-structured interviews with both local migrant professionals and migrants. Empirical evidence is found which firstly substantiates contemporary literature and secondly makes a theoretical contribution by conceptualizing the responses which the ideological discrepancy evokes. Furthermore, this research exposes the shortcomings and good practices of the different Participation Declaration trajectories. Based on these findings, several (policy) recommendations are discussed.
3 Table of contents Page number: Introduction p. 4 Research focus p. 5 Theoretical relevance p. 6 Social relevance p. 8 Research questions p. 8 Theoretical framework p. 9
The Participation Declaration trajectories p. 9
Perceptions about the nation state p. 10
Transformation of citizenship p. 11
Conceptualization of culturalization of citizenship p. 13 State agents and the implementation of the trajectories p. 15 The Participation Declaration: Citizenship ritual p. 16
Migrants perceptions p. 19
Preliminary theoretical model p. 21
Methodology p. 22 Research sample p. 22 Research setting p. 24 Interviews p. 25 Data analyses p. 28 Ethics p. 27 Results p. 30 Notions of citizenship p. 30
Participation Declaration: restorative trajectory p. 34 The implementation of the Participation Declaration trajectories p. 37
Various actions by the state agents p. 41
The role of the municipalities p. 47
How state agents value the trajectories p. 50
Model of main findings p. 53
Migrants p. 54
Conclusion and Discussion p. 61
Conclusion p. 61 Discussion p. 64 Afterword p. 67 Bibliography p. 69 Appendix 1 p. 71 Appendix 2 p. 72
4
Introduction
On the 23th of June 2017 the Dutch government adjusted the civic integration act with the addition of the Participation Declaration (Participatieverklaring) (Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 285, 2017). Since the adjustment of the civic integration act, non-EU migrants are obliged to participate in the Participation Declaration trajectories and to sign the declaration (Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 285, 2017).
The Participation Declaration is a formal contract which states the fundamental norms and values of Dutch society. The trajectories are compulsory for all non-EU migrants who are obliged to fulfil the integration obligation (Rijksoverheid, 2019). Expats or high potential migrants are differentiated and are not obliged to participate in civic integration courses (van Houdt et al. 2015) and therefore not obliged to sign the Participation Declaration. The
declaration informs non-EU migrants about the rule of law, Dutch democracy and core values. These core values are the freedom of expression, prohibition of discrimination, right to self-determination and several social rights and obligations (Staatsblad, Koninkrijk der
Nederlanden 286, 2017). With the Participation Declaration, migrants learn about what is important in the Netherlands and how people threat each other. The declaration states that everyone can choose their own partner, their own believes, go to school and say what they think as long as it does not discriminate others. It is important to take care of ourselves, but also of each other (Rijksoverheid, 2019).
This research explores how local professionals, who work with migrants, and migrants experience the Participation Declaration and elaborates how these actors give meaning to the implementation of the trajectories. In this research local (migrant) professionals are
conceptualised as state agents. This is based on the work of Suvarierol & Kirk (2015).
According to them, local professionals who work with migrants should be understood as state agents who are expected to adhere to national policies. However, The Participation
Declaration might be at odds with the state agents own stances and believes, which could have consequences for the implementation of the trajectories. Thus, the state agents in this research are people working for social organisations in the field of migration.
Citizenship courses and integration courses, such as the Participation Declaration, are often described as citizenship rituals (Verkaaik 2010; Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015). The state agents and migrants are the main actors for the performance of these rituals. They find themselves in
5
the key position for the implementation of integration policies hence it is important to explore how both actors experience the Participation Declaration.
Research focus
This thesis research focuses on local professionals and migrants in different municipalities concerning the implementation of the Participation Declaration trajectories. Based on the work of Suvarierol & Kirk (2015), local professionals are conceptualized as state agents. First, this thesis explores how state agents experience notions of citizenship and the
Participation Declaration. The perceptions of citizenship could structure the participation and therefore the implementation of the trajectories. Verkaaik (2010) argues that most state agents who work in the field of migration empathize with migrants and are in favor of greater
multiculturalism. He argues that this is because state agents work directly with migrants and their personal relationships shape their ideological stances, which are often already left-orientated. He explains how state agents are often disturbed by changing policies and
restrictive integration requirements. This would result in a difficult relationship between state agents, national politicians and the government concerning migration and integration matters (Verkaaik, 2010). State agents are thus expected to develop and participate in the trajectories, but their perception of national policies might influence their level of commitment. Moreover, also Suvarierol and Kirk (2015) describe how state agents are often caught between national ideologies, policies and the implementation in practice. State agents are expected to adhere to the ideology of the government, even if it opposes their own believes. This thesis explores the ideological stances of state agents and how these believes structures the performances in the Participation Declaration trajectories.
In addition, it is aimed to understand how migrants experience the trajectories and declaration. It can be expected that the experiences of migrant are influenced by the stances and
experiences of state agents. The migrants and state agents together are the most important actors for the implementation of the trajectories. Therefore, the experiences and motivations of migrants to participate in the trajectory partly structures the implementation and outcomes of the declaration. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the declaration, the experiences of migrants are utmost important.
With integration policies the government aims to achieve a well-integrated society (van Houdt et al. 2015). However, these policies are often challenged, and earlier described processes could complicate the intended effects. Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) argue how the explicit goal
6
of the government is to improve the integration of new migrants. However, “the implicit goals of these efforts [civic integration courses] have been qualified as reducing immigration and appeasing the native populations wary of migrants. However, whether the introduced measures contribute to integration is highly contingent on how the adopted policy tools are translated into practice in particular national contexts” (Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015 p. 1). This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Participation Declaration in the local context. The introduction of new migration policies requires extensive time, effort and resources. This research aims to substantiate how the Participation Declaration contributes to the integration of new migrants.
Theoretical relevance
The implementation of the Participation Declaration can be explored through the lens of changing notions of citizenship. The transformation of how citizenship in western nation states is understood, is conceptualized as the culturalization of citizenship (Verkaaik, 2010; Hurenkamp et al., 2012; van Houdt el al., 2015; Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015).
Culturalization of citizenship implies that citizenship criteria are less based on political- and social rights and duties, and more grounded in adaption to the dominant culture in the concerning society (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015). Citizenship criteria thus changed from formal to moral requirements. Migrants are expected to integrate into the society, which is often perceived as a homogeneous nation (Schinkel, 2017). In this perception migrants are responsible for their integration and are stimulated to actively engage to acquire the desired citizenship (Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015).
Dominant discourses, in both public and political domain, are increasingly centered around these notions of citizenship (Hurenkamp et al., 2012). It can be argued that the Participation Declaration stems from these perceptions. While at the same time, other literature stresses how state agents oppose these notions of culturalization of citizenship. Therefore, it is important to explore how the state agents who implement the declaration perceive these notions of citizenship and how this shapes their actions and participation. Hurenkamp et al. (2012) differentiate restorative and constructive notions of culturalization of citizenship. Restorative notions of citizenship culture is perceived as static and given, which migrants actively need to learn and have to adopt to. They describe how these notions of restorative culturalization of citizenship shape national policies, such as the Participation Declaration. However, it is suggested that state agents working with migrants adhere to more constructive notions of culturalization of citizenship. This approach perceives culture more as dynamic and
7
integration as a two-sides process. This thesis explores how state agents who work with the Participation Declaration reflect on these perceptions of citizenship, and how this influences their participation in the trajectories. This is important because it demonstrates how this structures the implementation of the trajectories.
Based on the literature (Verkaaik, 2010; Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015) I argue that the
Participation Declaration trajectories should be understood as a meaning-making ritual of citizenship. Citizenships rituals are formal performances in which abstract themes are
addressed and secured (Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015). The key actors in the declaration rituals are state agents and migrants. The way in which these actors give meaning and participate in the ritual, partly structures the actual implementation and outcomes of the trajectories. Earlier research by Verkaaik (2010) describes how state agents approach civic integration rituals in several ways. In his research most state agents participated in the rituals without conforming to the ideological motives, and therefore distanced themselves from the content. Other state agents participated without being (ideological) bothered and some state agents refused to participate. This thesis makes a contribution by illustrating how ideological stances interact with the participation of state agents in the Participation Declaration trajectories or rituals. The experiences of migrants in the trajectories could also depend on the level of commitment of the concerning state agents. If the ideological stances of state agents indeed influence the implementation of the trajectories, it would also imply that it structures the desired outcomes and experiences of migrants. Therefore, the perceptions of state agents concerning
culturalized notions of citizenship could shape how migrants experience the Participation Declaration. This could potentially structure the participation of migrants in the trajectories. Furthermore, migrants are, due to sanctions, implicitly forced to sign the declaration. Participating migrants need to sign the declaration within a year after settlement in the municipality and trajectories are mainly taught in Dutch (Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 285, 2017). However, it is questionable if the Dutch language level of migrants is sufficient to understand the declaration. This raises questions about their motives for participation and to what extent migrants actually are able to understand the content
discussed. Their level of comprehension and the forced character of the declaration potentially structure the ways in which migrants participate in citizenship rituals (Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015).
8
Social relevance
The Participation Declaration is highly criticized since the introduction. For example, the public professional association of advocacy in the Netherlands (NOvA) raised objections about the Participation Declaration. According to NOvA, the declaration is in conflict with freedom of thought, conscience, religion and the freedom of Expression (NOvA, 2018). They argue that this is caused by the fact that the declaration provides insufficient clarity and explanations of presumed core-values of Dutch society. NOvA criticizes the Dutch government for undermining their own fundamental values by imposing others to subject themselves to the Dutch core values (NOvA, 2018).
The municipalities are made responsible for the implementation of the Participation
Declaration (Staatsblad, Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 286, 2017). The implementation of the Participation Declaration requires extensive time and effort. Therefore, the municipalities receive 2,370 euros per migrant from the government. With this amount the municipalities are expected to cover the costs of the trajectories (Ministerie Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, 2018). Over the past three years, the Netherlands experienced relatively high numbers of immigrants. Most refugees originated from Syria and to a lesser extent from Eritrea, Iraq and Afghanistan (CBS, 2018). In light of the increased influx of refugees and related family reunification, the costs of the Participation Declaration trajectories can be evaluated as considerable and significant. Therefore, it is important to evaluate how this new policy is implemented on the local level. The implementation of the declaration has many effects for the state agents and migrants and it requires extensive time and resources. However, the effects and effectiveness of this policy are fairly unknown.
Research question
The ideological stances of the state agents implementing and participating in the Participation Declaration are unknown, but utmost important for the implementation and outcomes of this new national policy. These stances could influence how state agents and migrants participate in the trajectories, how the declaration is evaluated and the effectiveness of the policy. The way in which these state agents experience the Participation Declaration might be essential for the implementation of the trajectories. Furthermore, it is unknown how migrants experience the trajectories and how this is associated with the perceptions of state agents. This leads me to the following research questions:
9
This thesis starts with a discussion concerning the contemporary literature about citizenship and integration rituals. Literature shows how citizenship criteria has changed in recent years, and how culturalization of citizenship can be operationalized. Furthermore, the role of rituals and participation of both state agents and migrants are discussed. Then the research methods are discussed, followed by an extensive analysis of the results. Finally, the conclusion and discussion are presented in which the effectiveness, policy recommendations and theoretical contributions are discussed.
Theoretical framework
The Participation Declaration trajectories
The implementation of the Participation Declaration is decentralized which makes the municipalities are responsible for the organisation of the trajectories (Staatsblad, Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 286, 2017). At their turn, the municipalities have the option to outsource the trajectories to a social organization, or to develop their own trajectories. Since 2017,
participation in the trajectory is a compulsory component of the integration obligation (Regioplan, 2018). The Participation Declaration trajectories should at least consist of an introduction about the Dutch core values and the actual signing of the declaration. The mandatory requirement is to organize at least one workshop before signing the declaration (Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 286, 2017). Although the government set the requirements for the trajectories with at least one contact moment, it stimulates more
extensive trajectories.
Municipalities are relatively free to decide how they shape the trajectories, in addition to the formal requirements (Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 286, 2017). The introduction workshops should contain at least one interactive element to stimulate active participation. Furthermore, the trajectories should at least address the values stated in the Participation Declaration, namely freedom, equality, solidarity and participation (Staatsblad
10
van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 286, 2017). The government provided the municipalities with an exemplary informative workshop about the Dutch core values and how they are translated into daily life (Regioplan, 2018). This workshop can be downloaded from the government’s website. The municipalities have the option to perform this workshop, which takes about three hours. The brochure and the workshop together form the basis content of what should at least be covered in order to sign the Participation Declaration (Regioplan, 2018).
Perceptions of the national society
The introduction of the Participation Declaration seems to be in line with emerging and reinforced discourses about Dutch nationalism (Verkaaik, 2010; van Houdt et al., 2015). Cultural essentialism and cultural othering increasingly become normalized in Dutch society (Mepschen & Duyvendak, 2012). On the other hand, several contemporary literature are emphasizing the ideological discrepancy between national discourses, policies and the local context in which local state agents work and engage with migrants (Verkaaik, 2010,
Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015). As the demands and expectations of migrants have changed over time, citizenship has become more culturalized (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015). It is argued that state agents oppose these culturalized notions of citizenship (Verkaaik, 2010). However, it is unknown whether this ideological discrepancy can be taken for granted or that the prevailing discourses also shaped the stances and believes of local state agents.
Verkaaik (2010) emphasizes how Dutch nationalism is becoming more present in dominant public and political discourses. He argues that there is great pressure on how ethnic Dutch understand the national culture and perceive cultural differences with ethnic minorities. This enhanced nationalism in western nation-states is often understood as a reaction to processes of globalisation (Castles, 1997, Verkaaik, 2010). Castles (1997) argues how migration and globalization shape national cultures, identities and how we generally understand notions of citizenship. Processes of globalisation, multiculturalism and the presence of ethnic minorities are often seen as a threat to the national identity and therefore social cohesion (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015). Moreover, the recent influx of refugees in Europe is generally perceived as a great crisis. The recent influx of migrants is often framed as a ‘refugee crisis’ (Holmes & Castaneda, 2016). This made among others migration one of the most important political themes in the Netherlands (Schinkel, 2017). Van Houdt et al. (2015) describe how these processes and discourses shape new citizenship criteria, which are characterised with an emphasis on shared norms and values and the national community.
11
Slootman & Duyvendak (2015) describe how, in western nation-states and in the Netherlands, other cultures and migrants are increasingly seen as irreconcilable with the national culture. They argue that in the Netherlands, minorities and migrants are framed as undermining the Dutch culture. The cultures that these migrants have are perceived as fundamentally different and portrayed as a threat to society (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015). This mainly concerns Muslim cultures and therefore promotes islamophobia (Hurenkamp et al. 2012). The recent events of the refugee crisis and processes of securitization (Holmes & Castaneda, 2016) seemed to increase claims of a shared belonging and cultural othering.
Schinkel (2017) describes how in Western countries debates rage about who belong to the society and who does not. There is an increasing emphasis on the contradistinction between the national society and migrants who need to integrate in society. Schinkel (2015) also argues how this perceived homogeneity is a social imagination of the real social life. He emphasizes how perceived internal homogeneous political communities, are a delusion of the concrete social world and the society in nation-states. Schinkel (2015) argues that we use this kind of social imaginaries to understand our own social and national identity. These
imaginaries also make it possible to differentiate who belong to the national identity and who do not (Schinkel, 2015). According to Schinkel (2017), the idea of talking about integration is exemplary for the underlying assumptions. As the concept integration presumes boundaries and internal homogeneity and therefore identifies who does not belong to society. The interesting point which Schinkel (2017) raises is that this conception assumes that migrants are outside society, while they actually are a concrete part of the social processes in society. “Immigrants present in the nation-state are considered as still “outside society,” just like imprisoned criminals are said to eventually “return to society,” as if prison were not a constitutive part of society” (Schinkel, 2017 p. 3). The introduction of the Participation Declaration can be seen as a concrete policy to ‘integrate’ migrants in the dominant national society. It seems to be a measure to secure the threatened national unity.
Transformation of citizenship
The above described processes contributed to the transformation of how citizenship generally is understood in Western nation-states. This is conceptualised as the culturalization of
citizenship (Verkaaik, 2010; van Houdt el al., 2015; Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015). The culturalization of citizenship implies a differentiation of formal and moral citizenship (Schinkel, 2017). Formal citizenship is based on legal rights and duties, while moral citizenship refers to the norms and values of the national society (Schinkel, 2017).
12
Culturalization of citizenship means that “citizenship is less about political, social rights and duties, and more about norms and values of a culturally defined community” (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015 p. 148). The expectations and demands of citizenship are becoming less based on formal rights and duties, and more about conforming to the dominant cultural community and adopting norms and prevailing norms and values. The conformation to dominant cultural norms and values increasingly shape citizenships claims (Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015).
Also Mepschen & Duyvendak (2012) emphasize how in western societies increasing importance is attached to the dominant national culture, the homogeneity of the political community and how this relates to notions of citizenship. The process of culturalization implies that there are internally homogeneous cultural groups which are threatened by categories of other cultures (Mepschen & Duyvendak, 2012). The main requirement of migrants is to integrate into the established homogeneous society (Schinkel, 2017)
An important characteristic of this transformation of citizenship is the responsibilization of the migrants, or outsiders, to integrate in society. Migrants are expected to actively participate to become integrated and it is their responsibility to do so (Schinkel, 2017). The
culturalization of citizenship is thus characterized by a transformation from a status with entitlements to a more earned citizenship (Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015). Van Houdt et al. (2015) conceptualises this as the contractualization of citizenship. The contractualization of
citizenship means that “citizenship is presented and wrapped up as a form of contract
between the prospective citizen and the state. According to this contract, the applicant accepts the responsibilities that need to be undertaken in order to acquire the citizenship in question” (van Houdt et al., 2015 p. 412). The adjustment of citizenship criteria implies that migrants need to actively earn their citizenship by integrating in the dominant culture. The active participation of migrant proves the investment and integration of future citizens in society. A conformation to the citizenship ideal in the country of settlement is expected and validates citizenship claims (Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015).
Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) argue that civic integration courses constitute the most important part of the expected investment of migrants. These integration courses can be understood as a one-way process in which states subject migrants to conform to their citizenship ideal
(Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015). This one-way process and expectations are also present in the Participation Declaration, where it is explicitly stated that migrants must submit to the
13
prevailing norms and values in the Netherlands and actively participate in society. There is no further commitment from the government or other citizens.
Conceptualisation of culturalized citizenship
The culturalization of citizenship is conceptualised by Hurenkamp, Tonkens and Duyvendak (2012). Hurenkamp et al. (2012) distinguish restorative and constructive culturalization of citizenship. Restorative culturalization of citizenship assumes that culture is a static
phenomenon. Society consists of given custom, norms, values and traditions which are shared in the national unity (Hurenkamp et al., 2012). Therefore, migrants need to learn and adapt to the existing culture in order to integrate. This is in line with the described processes of
emphasizing the national society as an internally homogeneous community in which migrants are made responsible to achieve citizenship. Hurenkamp et al. (2012) argue that dominant political and public discourses are centred on restorative notions of citizenship.
On the contrary, constructive forms of citizenship perceive culture as a dynamic process which arises through- and in social interaction. It assumes that culture gains meaning through the arrival of migrants and it is stressed that integration is a two-sided process (Hurenkamp et al., 2012). This is important because this opposes the expectations of migrants adapting to the existing culture. In this approach, culture is being created together, and together we form a new national unity. The distinction between constructive and restorative notions of citizenship are in line with ideas of assimilation and multiculturalism. Assimilation is an incorporation model and a one-way process in which migrants are expected to become part of the majority population. The multiculturalist model is a two-way process in which migrants are
encouraged to retain their own characteristics (Schinkel, 2013). In line with Mepschen & Duyvendak (2012), Hurenkamp et al. (2012) argue that dominant discourses in the Netherlands are centred on restorative notions of citizenship.
The second distinction which Hurenkamp et al. (2012) emphasize are the practical and emotional aspects of citizenship. Practical cultural citizenship refers to “concrete practices, such as speaking Dutch in public and at home, or knowledge of the country’s history and traditions” (Hurenkamp et al. 2012 p. 91). But it also refers to practical knowledge such as understanding of public institutions, rule of law and local healthcare systems. Emotional cultural citizenship refers to the more implicit rules of society. They describe this as “the implicit rules societies prescribe about how people should feel in given situations” (Hurenkamp et al. 2012 p. 91). It relates to the understanding of showing and feeling the
14
correct emotions in the applicable moments. For example, the emotions on a wedding, funeral and a national holiday. They reflect a common identity and how the country should feel in certain moments (Hurenkamp et al. 2012).
The two types of culturalization of citizenship are shown in the following figure:
Restorative Constructive
Types One-way model, assimilation.
Homogeneous society in which migrants need to integrate.
Two-way model,
multiculturalism. Culture is dynamic and created in social interaction, also with migrants Practical Teaching of dominant culture,
to become part of the given culture
Core norms and rules exist, but culture mix and meets. Which creates new communities Emotional Feelings of loyalty and
belonging to the given culture Feelings of belonging to our shared society
Figure 1. Conceptualisation of citizenship (Hurenkamp, Tonkens, Duyvendak, 2012 p. 91) The restorative and emotional culturalization of citizenship approach expects citizens to show loyalty to the nation-state. Migrants should show commitment and loyalty to the Dutch culture in order to achieve citizenship. In this approach culture is a timeless and closed phenomenon which is shared by people who are connected through common believes, norms, values and traditions. Migrants are expected to conform to the dominant culture and show loyalty. Therefore, expressing contrary cultural believes, such as wearing headscarves or transnationalism undermines their Dutch citizenship. (Hurenkamp et al. 2012). The restorative and practical culturalization of citizenship is emphasizing the teaching of the dominant culture to migrants. The institutions, norms and believes are fixed and need to be imposed to citizens (Hurenkamp et al. 2012). This implies that we need to teach migrants about the existing culture in order for them to become part of the existing culture.
The constructive, emotional view about citizenship also focuses on the feelings of belonging and loyalty in society. However, this view holds that culture is something which is created collectively. Therefore, the feelings of belonging are a two-way process and disagreement can be handled more easily (Hurenkamp et al. 2012). Constructive citizenship recognizes cultural differences, discusses them and questions the motives and experiences of others. In this view, it is more important that people show solidarity among each other and show belonging in a community which is created together. Cultures merge and together people make up new cultures and communities.
15
The Participation Declaration can be seen as a one-sided contract in which migrants are expected to conform to Dutch core values. Therefore it can be argued that, derived from the literature, the Participation Declaration is grounded in restorative notions of culturalization of citizenship. This research will explore whether the state agents see this in the same way.
State agents and the implementation of the trajectory
Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) discuss the discrepancy between national policies and the
implementation in the municipalities. They raise questions about how restrictive policies are translated into specific local national contexts. According to Verkaaik (2010), state agents experience constraining integration courses and examinations as patronizing and to some level as a burden. He describes how most state agents have multicultural sympathies, but are
expected to implement nationalist integration policies. These state agents are critical of enhanced rhetoric’s of Dutch nationalism, they oppose the ideas of cultural essentialism and the perceived threats of non-European cultures and religions (Verkaaik, 2010). The
naturalization rituals are in line with discourses about integration and cultural differences with which they often disagree (Verkaaik, 2010). This indicates that state agents adhere more to constructive notion of culturalization of citizenship.
However, Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) also emphasize how the key actors in the implementation of integration policies are by no means a homogeneous group. They argue how state agents do not always share the same perspective on civic integration. State agents originate from
different backgrounds and might have different motivations to work with migrants. According to the literature, the state agents do not appear to be receptive to prevailing discourses and believes about nationalism and migration. While notions of nationalism, cultural othering and culturalization of citizenship are becoming more normalized in society (Slootman &
Duyvendak, 2015). Hurenkamp et al. (2012) argue how dominant discourses increasingly perceive cultural differences as problematic. They describe how this enhances the polarization of culturalization of citizenship. Since there is little research available about this new policy, it is unknown how state agents working with the Participation Declaration perceive processes of nationalism and culturalization of citizenship.
Dominant discourses about integration are grounded in notions of restorative culturalization of citizenship (Hurenkamp et al., 2012) and the Participation Declaration is a practical and concrete policy which is grounded in these notions of citizenship. The possible deviation or adherence of state agents to this form of citizenship may have implications for their
16
participation in the trajectories. This thesis aims to understand how involved state agents relate to the typology of Hurenkamp et al. (2012). State agents are embedded in a national ideological framework which is shaped by restorative notions of citizenship. However, the state agents believes about citizenship might shape their participation and experiences in the trajectories.
From the literature (Hurenkamp et al., 2012), the assumption arises that dominant discourses are grounded in restorative notions of citizenship, while state agents are likely to oppose these discourses. Verkaaik (2010) and Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) emphasize how state agents are in favor of multiculturalism, which is in line with constructive notions of citizenship. This raises the question if the state agents in this research adhere to constructive notions of culturalization of citizenship. Therefore, this research aimed to explore the ideological discrepancy of state agents working with the Participation Declaration. Based on the available literature I expect the state agents to adhere to constructive notions of citizenship. This leads me to the first sub question:
(1) Which type of culturalization of citizenship do state agents adhere to?
The Participation Declaration: citizenship ritual
It is argued that citizenship arises and is partly constructed through citizenship rituals. “As all political and cultural constructs, citizenship is also given meaning through rituals”
(Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015 p. 251). Both Verkaaik (2010) and Suvarierol & Kirk (2015)
approach civic integration courses as citizenship rituals. The Participation Declaration is since 2017 an addition to the civic integration trajectories for non-EU migrants and should therefore be approached as a citizenship ritual. These rituals have the ability to convert abstract
discourses of citizenship in everyday practices (Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015). Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) argue that the practice of these rituals explicitly reveals how the state wants to shape migrants to the citizenship ideal. They argue that these rituals are a simplification of the real world and the ideology of the state. An ideological discrepancy between national policies and how state agents perceive citizenship can therefore complicate the implementation of the trajectories. Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) evaluate the civic integration courses as a key ritual in defining citizenship. I argue that the Participation Declaration is an even more explicit tool of the government to define and enforce their citizenship ideals to migrants. Apparently previous programs were not sufficient. Therefore, the Participation Declaration can be understood as an
17
additional ritual in the process of earning and obtaining the desired citizenship which the government shaped.
Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) emphasize that the local professionals should be conceptualized as agents of the state. The government expects these agents to adhere to their policies and ideology. The state agents are thus expected to actively promote the culturalization of citizenship and the citizenship ideology. Although that the citizenship ideology of the government is grounded in restorative conceptions of citizenship (Hurenkamp et al., 2012), Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) argue, the state agents tend to create their own strategies to deal with the state expectations and requirements. “In order to meet government targets, state agents invent their own rituals, which do not necessarily meet government targets”
(Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015 p. 262). State agents seem to be caught between national policies and their own meaning making rituals in practice. It is reasonable to suggest that the
ideological stances of state agents influence their conceptions of the Participation Declaration and therefore the performances in the ritual.
This research aims to understand how state agents reflect on prevailing ideologies and different types of culturalization of citizenship. More specifically this research explores how the different views of citizenship are related to the implementation and participation of state agents in the Participation Declaration trajectories. Verkaaik (2010) argues that a conflict of ideology might arise when state agents are expected to implement nationalistic national policies such as the civic integration courses or in this case the Participation Declaration. He emphasizes how state agents are given a certain form of agency with the implementation of national policies. Verkaaik (2010) describes how different state agents perform the civic integration rituals and argued that it was accompanied with different emotions and coping mechanisms. He distinguishes three ways in which state agents approach civic integration rituals. He firstly describes how many state agents are involved in the rituals, but ideological distance themselves from the ritual. Irony and embarrassment accompanied the performance of these state agents. However, Verkaaik (2010) also concludes that several state agents participated in the rituals without being bothered. These state agents seem to be less reserved and enact more committed during the rituals. Another small group of state agents refused to participate and organize the rituals.
18
From the article of Verkaaik (2010) the following typology is derived:
Figure 2. Typology of state agents participation, derived from Verkaaik (2010)
The ideological stances and perceptions of culturalization of citizenship by state agents, might influence how state agents participate in the ritual. State agents who adhere to restorative notions of citizenship may have less resistance when performing in the ritual and state agents who adhere to constructive notions of citizenship, might either refuse or participate in the ritual, but this could be accompanied with feelings of aversion. This research aims to understand how the two types of culturalization of citizenship relate to the typology derived from the article of Verkaaik (2010). The two types of culturalization of citizenship might influence the stances and participation of state agents in the trajectories. This leads me to the following sub-question:
(2) How do the perceptions of culturalization of citizenship influence the participation of state agents in the Participation Declaration?
Verkaaik (2010) describes how state agents are given a certain form of agency when implementing national policies. This is also the case in the Participation Declaration
trajectories. However, the ideological stances of state agents might influence how they give substance to the ritual. The state agents are expected to adhere to the ideology of the state, but it is unclear how this relates to their own believes. In the research of Verkaaik (2010) state agents “Have accepted the ceremony and gave it their own twist” (Verkaaik, 2010 p. 70). Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) argue how local state agents give meaning to citizenship rituals and in this process tend to create their own rituals. If the expected ideological discrepancy indeed arises, this would have consequences for the participation and substance of the rituals. State agents are expected to adhere to the ideology of the government, but they are also given the agency to substance the ritual. If state agents would adhere to opposing notions of citizenship, it would raise questions about how the trajectories are structured and meet the desired
outcomes of the government. The extent to which state agents are able to shape the ritual, led by their own believes, might influence their participation in the trajectories. This seems to be
19
an important factor for the participation, the content and the valuation of the trajectories. Therefore, I formulated the following sub question:
(2a) To what extent are state agents able to shape the rituals to their own believes, and how does their agency influence their participation in the trajectory? And what does this say about the content of the trajectories?
Migrant perceptions
Migrants are, together with the state agents, the key actors for the implementation of the Participation Declaration trajectories. However, it is fairly unknown how migrants experience the declaration and the concerning trajectories. The declaration is a relatively new policy and there is no literature available about the experiences of migrants. Expectations are therefore mostly speculative. It could be that migrants perceive the declaration as an additional obstacle in their integration obligation, or as patronizing. As some state agents indicate to experience integration policies as additional obstacles (Verkaaik, 2010). But perhaps migrants experience the trajectories positive and as a potential opportunity to familiarize themselves with the Dutch culture. As gaining cultural capital is a key condition for equal citizenship and to utilize opportunities in society (Hurenkamp et al. 2012).
The experiences of migrants might be influenced by the implementation of the trajectories by the state agents. At the same time the implementation of the trajectories are at least partly structured by the ideological stances of the state agents. The perceptions of culturalization of citizenship implies varying ways of participation of state agents. When the ideological stances of state agents influence their participation in the trajectories, this would also mean that it influences the experiences of migrants. Therefore, the way in which state agents give substance to the workshops might influence the experiences and participation of migrants in the trajectories. As committed state agents could shape other trajectories than state agents who are less committed. I expect that this could result in varying trajectories which might be evaluated differently by migrants. Well substantiated trajectories could be perceived as beneficial or at least not as a hindrance. When less committed state agents perform the ritual with more aversion, this could lead to less substantial trajectories. Which might influence the evaluation and experiences of migrants.
This research focuses on the interaction between the perceptions of state agents concerning the culturalization of citizenship and their participation in the Participation Declaration. However, the experiences of state agents might also structure the implementation of the
20
trajectories. Therefore they might also influence the perceptions and participation of migrants. Thereby I formulated the following sub question:
(3) How do migrants experience the Participation Declaration trajectories and how does the implementation of the state agents influence their participation?
The Participation Declaration is compulsory for non-EU migrants, which makes it a repressive condition for obtaining citizenship. Migrants, who are obliged to meet the
integration requirements, are implicitly forced to sign and acknowledge the declaration. They are fined when not signing the declaration and ultimately jeopardize their right of residence (Staatsblad, Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 286, 2017). This implies that migrants are forced to sign the declaration whether or not they personally agree with the content. This raises
questions about why and how they perform the ritual. For migrants who agree with the content, the declaration seems of no use. As they already agree with the Dutch core values. Migrant who disagree might sign the declaration reluctantly to avoid financial and residential consequences. In addition, the government requires migrants to sign the declaration within a year (Staatsblad, Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 286, 2017). This implies that there is a
considerable chance that migrants are not able to fully understand the declaration which they need to sign. The Participation Declaration is thus imposed on the migrants and how they experience the trajectories partly constitutes the implementation of the policy and ritual. Suvarierol & Kirk (2015) envision both the state agents and migrants as key actors who constitute the meaning-making of citizenship rituals. The repressive features and set time frame in which migrants need to complete the trajectories, raises questions about the motivations and experiences of migrants concerning the declaration.
Therefore, I formulated the following question:
(3a) What are the motivations for migrants to participate in the trajectory and what is their understanding of the content of the Participation Declaration?
21
Preliminary theoretical model
From the literature I derived the following preliminary theoretical model:
Figure 3. Preliminary theoretical model
In several literature processes of nationalism and the transformation of citizenship are discussed (Verkaaik, 2010; Mepschen & Duyvendak, 2012; van Houdt et al., 2015). The changing perceptions of citizenship is conceptualized as the culturalization of citizenship (Hurenkamp et al., 2012; Suvarierol & Kirk, 2015). The Participation Declaration can be seen as a concrete example of new national policies which are grounded in culturalized notions of citizenship. Hurenkamp et al. (2012) describe two types of culturalization of citizenship. This
22
is where the expected ideological discrepancy arises between national policies (restorative) and state agents (constructive). Sub question 1 concerns to which type of culturalization state agents and migrants adhere to. Sub question 2 links the types of culturalization of citizenship to the participation of state agents and migrants in the trajectories or ritual. The
operationalization of the participation in the rituals is based on a typology derived from the article of Verkaaik (2010). Furthermore, the literature suggests that state agents have the agency to transform the rituals, which might change their participation and valuation of the trajectories. This is in line with the argumentation of Suvarierol & Kirk (2015). There is no literature about how migrants experience the Participation Declaration. In this model I apply the typology derived from Verkaaik (2010) to the experiences of migrants. I aim to explore how migrants experience and participate in the trajectories and how this relates to the ideological stances of state agents. Finally, the obligatory character of participation raises questions about to what extend migrants understand the intended meaning of the trajectories and how sanctions structure their motivations. Which might influence migrants participation in the ritual.
Methodology
This thesis is based on qualitative research methods. The usage of qualitative research gave me the opportunity to explore how state agents perceive culturalized notions of citizenship and how this structures the implementation of the Participation Declaration. The goal of the interviews is to examine the experiences of state agents and migrants, which are highly subjective. Therefore, qualitative research is very suitable.
Research sample
The state agents of interest are local professionals working with the Participation Declaration. In order to get an overview of how national policy is implemented in the local context, it is chosen to interview state agents from several municipalities. I hereby made use of purposive sampling to recruit respondents. The aim of this approach is to strategically sample the respondents relating to the topic and research question (Bryman, 2012). I used to work as a social worker with migrants, which provided me access to the field. The respondents from my own network brought me in contact with other respondents from several other municipalities. This is conceptualised as snowball sampling (Bryman, 2012).
23
The state agents in this data sample are shown in the following figure:
Respondents Municipality Position Number of relevant years’ experience
Gender Direct
involvement PD
Respondent 1 Hilversum Coordinator social work refugees
5 Female Yes
Respondent 2 Houten Coordinator social work refugees
26 Female Yes
Respondent 3 Houten Project officer Participation Declaration
22 Female Yes
Respondent 4 Houten Participation
coach refugees 5 Female Yes
Respondent 5 Nieuwegein Coordinator social work refugees
14 Male Yes
Respondent 6 Amersfoort
(+7) Project officer Participation Declaration
32 Female Yes
Respondent 7 Breukelen (+1) Coordinator social work refugees
7 Female Yes
Respondent 8 Woerden (+1) Employee social work refugees
7 Female Yes
Figure 4. Respondents: state agents
The state agents in this research all work directly with the Participation Declaration. The number of relevant years’ work experience vary between five to thirty-two years. Relevant work experience means work experience in the field of migration. In the sample contains of seven female respondents and one male respondent. This is not targeted, but possibly inherent to the field of social work. Four respondents work at the migrants department as coordinators for the concerning organizations. Two of the respondents are the project officers for the Participation Declaration trajectories. One respondent is a participation coach for migrants and one is an employee of a migrant foundation. Most respondents in this research hold managerial positions, which gives them a good overview of the field and trajectories. Furthermore, these respondents both give, organize and implement the trajectories.
The migrants in this research are non-EU migrants, and are or were obliged to participate in the Participation Declaration trajectory. The Participation Declaration is mandatory for migrants who are required to integrate on or after 1 October 2017 (Staatsblad van het
Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 286, 2017). The Participation Declaration trajectory is targeting migrants from the age of 18 to the retirement age of 67 (Staatsblad, Koninkrijk der
24
Nederlanden 286, 2017). Therefore migrants between the age of 18 and 67 are sampled. This research started with interviewing the state agents. This provided insights which structured the data sample of migrants. From this research it became clear that the trajectories vary between the municipalities. For example, in total duration and content. Therefore, both migrants who participate in the relatively limited trajectories and migrants who participate in the extended trajectories are targeted. This provides the opportunity to explore how the participation and implementation by state agents influences the experiences of migrants. Four respondents who participated in a more limited trajectory are interviewed. This is the municipality of Houten. And eight respondents who participate in the trajectory of Amersfoort, which is a more extensive trajectory. The recruiting of migrant respondents was rather difficult. It was aimed to sample at least four respondents of each trajectory. However, the sampling of migrants in Amersfoort turned out to be more accessible, which resulted in eight respondents, while there are only four respondents from Houten. I would have preferred to also interview eight
respondents from Houten. However, due to limited resources and available time, the following respondents are interviewed:
Migrants Gender Age Municipality Trajectory approach
Respondent 9 Female 32 Amersfoort Strong constructive
Respondent 10 Female 34 Amersfoort Strong constructive
Respondent 11 Female 28 Amersfoort Strong constructive
Respondent 12 Male 38 Amersfoort Strong constructive
Respondent 13 Male 54 Amersfoort Strong constructive
Respondent 14 Male 35 Amersfoort Strong constructive
Respondent 15 Male 26 Amersfoort Strong constructive
Respondent 16 Male 64 Amersfoort Strong constructive
Respondent 17 Female 26 Houten Weaker constructive
Respondent 18 Female 23 Houten Weaker constructive
Respondent 19 Female 27 Houten Weaker constructive
Respondent 20 Female 34 Houten Weaker constructive
Figure 5. Respondents: migrants
Research setting
The research settings are several local organisations working with migrants and receive tenders for the social support and integration programs. The Dutch integration programs are decentralized and municipalities are made responsible for the implementation of the
declaration. The concerning municipalities outsource the work to several social organisation. The local professionals of these organisations are the people in the data sample, working directly with migrants. The municipalities in this research vary in size and the number of migrants which are accommodated. Some organisations in this research organize the
25
Participation Declaration trajectories in several municipalities. In total, this research covers 16 municipalities. This provides me with a diverse insight about how the trajectories are
implemented in the local context. I have spoken to employees of the following organisations: ‘van Houten&co’ in Houten, welfare organisation
Vluchtelingenwerk in Hilversum, Dutch council for refugees Steunpunt Vluchtelingen in Nieuwegein, refugee foundation Steunpunt Vluchtelingen in Stichtse Vecht, welfare organisation Vluchtelingen Steunpunt, refugee foundation Woerden
NVA Centre for integration and participation, refugee foundation Amersfoort These organisations were assigned to implement the Participation Declaration. The
organisations developed their own workshops and programs concerning the declaration. Some organisations used components of the prepared workshop of the government, but most content is created by the organisations themselves. The migrants in the research are accommodated in the concerning municipalities. Both the social support programs and the Participation
Declaration trajectories are offered by these organisations.
Given the fact that the Participation Declaration is a relatively new policy, most organisations are still developing their trajectories, while being operational. Some organisations participated in pilots and in other precursors of the declaration. This data sample is relatively small and provides a useful insight in the perceptions of respondents and the current implementations of the trajectories. However, the data sample is insufficient to make generalizable claims.
Rather, the research makes a contribution by exploring the concerning themes and uncovering important processes.
The migrants who are interviewed are accommodated in two different municipalities. Based on the results of the interviews with state agents, it is decided to interview migrants from both the most extensive and least extensive trajectories. This allowed me to explore how migrants experience both trajectories and how their experiences relate to the implementation of the state agents.
Interviews
In order to analyse the experiences of both these actors, I conducted semi-structured
interviews. The usage of open-ended questions stimulates respondents to answer according to their own interpretation, which provides new and in-depth insights (Bryman, 2012). The
26
interviews must be open, but centred on the experiences concerning the Participation
Declaration. Therefore, the most suitable approach is semi-structured interviews. Making use of an interview guide will structure the interview. While at the same time, the level of
openness allows the respondents to lead the interviews to subjects that they perceive as relevant (Bryman, 2012).
The aim of this study is to understand how state agents and migrants participate and evaluate the trajectories. More specifically it tries to understand how state agents ideological stances structure the participation. Furthermore, culturalization of citizenship is a sensitive concept. Talking about perceptions about integration and citizenship might be difficult for respondents. The respondents are asked about how they perceive integration. Their answers are categorized as a specific type of culturalization of citizenship, by following the main indicators in the literature. These indicators are elaborated in the results section.
A topic list which included several open-ended questions guided the interviews. This gave the respondents the possibility to answer the questions in their own words and from their own perspective (Bryman, 2012). This led to interesting and new themes which emerged from the data. The state agents are all Dutch native speakers, so the interviews were held in Dutch and later translated in English. This implies some difficulties, because some expressions or concepts can be lost during the translation. However, I tried to stay close to the data and translated the data as accurate as possible. The length of the interview varied between 30 to 60 minutes.
The Dutch language levels of the interviewed migrants are very limited and most of them do not speak English. Migrants are expected to participate in the trajectories within a year after settlement in the municipality. Therefore, it was hard to find migrants who speak Dutch on an accessible level. I have overcome this obstacle by the usage of interpreters. This is not
desirable, but appeared necessary. During the interviews with migrants in Amersfoort, the trainer, a certified interpreter, helped me to translate the interviews. This might have complicated the way in which the respondent answered the questions. The personal relationship between the respondents and the trainer could have influenced the level of socially acceptable answers given by the respondent. During my interviews in Houten I made use of interpreters from the network of the respondent. These were either their partners, who are in the Netherlands a bit longer, or friends. The respondents in Houten are sampled from my own network, which might also have evoked socially acceptable answers. As a researcher,
27
I am aware of this problem, and I tackled this by being reflexive and to be aware of the context. The other migrant respondents are sampled based on snowball sampling. The state agent in Amersfoort gave me the opportunity to interview participating migrants.
Data analysis
The analysis started while transcribing the interviews. Bird (2005) defines transcribing as a key phase during the data analysis in qualitative research. Bird (2005) argues that transcribing helps to make sense of the data. Therefore, I used the phase of transcribing the interviews to familiarise myself with the data. Transcribing interviews offers the opportunity to work with close attention and interpretive thinking which is needed to make sense of the data (Bird, 2005). After the transcriptions I started the first phase of coding, namely initial coding (Charmaz, 2014). I decided not to make use of any software analysis program. The data sample is relatively small and I believe that manually coding the data will enhance the
familiarization with the data. Charmaz (2014) argues that the researcher must attempt to code the data with words that stay close to the action and code as open as possible. Following Charmaz (2014) I coded the data making use of line-by-line coding, which resulted in lists of initial codes. With these lists of initial codes I moved on to the second major phase in coding, namely focussed coding (Charmaz, 2014).
In the process of focused coding, the researcher enters a more selective phase (Charmaz, 2014). In focussed coding, the researcher looks for themes and patterns that arise from the data. These themes can be captured with more conceptual codes. This resulted in larger, overarching conceptual categories (Charmaz, 2014). These categories have become the most important topics in the results section.
Ethics
This research is sometimes critical about the Participation Declaration trajectories in the concerning municipalities. As a researcher this is sometimes difficult. During the fieldwork I experienced how the state agents are greatly committed to their work and the wellbeing of migrants. The state agents work in a difficult field and carry out huge amounts of work in order to help others. Therefore, I want to stress that this research aims to improve the reception of migrants, illustrate the sometimes debatable expectations that we have from migrants and to share ‘good practices’. Hereby I want to emphasize that the concerning state agents are fully committed, often with limited resources, to support migrants during their integration in the Netherlands.
28
Bourdieu (1990) argues that the academic embeddedness creates a bias for researchers that potentially influences social presuppositions and stances. As a researcher I must be critical about my own point of view. Hence, my position as a researcher is also complicated because of my, to some degree, insiders position. I have worked for one of the organisations which implies that I bring some personal experiences and relations into the research. The research focuses on two groups of respondents. Concerning the state agents, my position as both a researcher and insider could influence how I approach the research and data. Carling et al. (2014) discuss how positionality in qualitative research influences the research process. They argue that positionality structures both the data collection and interpretation. Therefore, I tried to be reflexive and avoided to impede my own stances to the respondents.
The position of migrants in this research is more vulnerable than the position of the state agents. During the interviews with the migrants I needed to be even more aware of important ethical principles. Beauchamp & Childress (2001) emphasise four guiding ethical principles. The first principle they describe is non-maleficence and relates to not harming the research group. According to Bourdieu (1999) the research relationship is above all a social
relationship. Researchers must be aware of exerting any form of symbolic violence which would distort the relationship (Bourdieu, 1999). Bourdieu (1999) argues that preferably there must be cultural proximity, knowledge about the context and structural embeddedness of the respondent and understanding of the respondent’s life history. As an interviewer I had
considerable cultural distance to the migrant respondents. Therefore it is likely that the data is somehow distorted. While there is seemingly more cultural proximity with the state agents, I also must be aware of reducing the level of symbolic violence. According to Bourdieu (1999) the interviewer should strive for a relationship of active and methodological listening. By doing so, the interviewer is more aware of reducing subjective reasoning to objective causes (Bourdieu, 1999).
The second ethical principle is beneficence (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001), which refers to if respondents benefit from being involved. This research is aimed to understand how the
Participation Declaration is implemented, to show the limitations and good practices of this new policies. The results of this research could contribute to more appropriate policies and support and reception of migrants. The interviews are anonymous, which will exclude risks and harm for the participants. In accordance with the respondents, it is chosen not to
anonymise the municipalities. The differences between the organisations are objective and addressing the different municipalities enhances the readability of the research. The third
29
ethical principle is respect for autonomy (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001). This relates to the level of agency of respondents and whether it is clear that respondents can stop participating whenever they decide to do so. I informed all the respondents about the aim of my interview and whether they agreed to participate. The final ethical principle is justice and is relevant for the entire research sample. This principle refers to the consideration to what ends the research could be used. This research focuses on the implementation of new policy. This research could be used to reconsider chosen policies and priorities concerning migration, which might benefit involved actors. It by no means implies that concerning state agents are actively counteracting national policies. Hence, state agents are positioned in a difficult role in which they need to engage.
The interviews with four migrants in one trajectory, in which there were no certified interpreters available, were highly difficult. The language barrier turned out to be much greater than expected. It was difficult to gather useful data, because the respondents were not able to answer the questions in depth. As a researcher I struggled to formulate questions which the respondents fully understood. But even more important is the level of socially acceptable answers given by the respondents. This relates to both groups. Before the start of the interviews I explained the purpose of the research, the anonymity, the agency to stop the interview and measures that would limit the risks of harm for the respondents. However, it is illustrative how one respondent expressed concerns about the audio recording after the interview. The respondent asked if I would post it online or on social media. She explained how she and the community feared press and interviews. The respondent explained that Eritrean refugees in the Netherlands can be punished by the Eritrean government for being critical about the Eritrean regime. She elaborated about various incidents and her own flight experiences. This also happened when speaking to another migrant, who spoke extensively about his flight experiences and terrors he experienced. These people probably have
difficulties to express themselves critically and are probably to some degree reserved to give their opinions.
