Perception of NGOs on the Social Integration of Refugee Children Evidence from Romania

(1)

Perception of NGOs on the Social Integration of Refugee

Children

Evidence from Romania

NOHA Master Thesis

By Ilinca Sinziana Costin

Supervisor: Dr. Saliha Metinsoy

2nd Supervisor: Dr. Gorka Urritia Asua

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

August 2020

This thesis is submitted for obtaining the Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action. By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from

his/her hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.

(2)

List of Abbreviations

AIDA Asylum Information Database ASC Asylum Seeker Centre

EU European Union

FCD Focus Group Discussions

GII General Inspectorate for Immigration

MINT Mentoring for Integration of Third Country National Affected by Migration

MIPEX Migrant Integration Policy Index MSG Movement, Games and Sport

NiCER Innovative Methods for Integration of Young Refugees NIEM National Integration Evaluation Mechanism

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation TEC Temporary Education Centre

Tdh Terre des hommes

TRAF Timișoara Refugee Festival

UNHCR United Nations Commissioner for Refugees

(3)

This study highlights how non-governmental organisations in Romania perceive their role in relation to the social integration of refugee children in the host society. As the social integration of refugee children in Romania is an understudied concept both in the national and international literature, this present thesis has attempted to cast light on this subject. A theoretical framework is provided on the concept of positive intergroup contact, and based on the research findings, the applicability of the contact theory in the context of integration is discussed. Four projects implemented by NGOs and one school are assessed, using document analysis as a research method. The results of this study show that NGOs have a tendency to implement projects aimed at promoting intergroup interaction. The main recurrent strategies discovered during the research process were: activities based on artistic expression, recreational and sporting activities, and the provision of Romanian language classes. Even though not all of the strategies are in line with the contact theory, it has been concluded that the mere existence of a safe,

welcoming and inclusive environment plays a great role in the social integration of refugee children, as it promotes an active intergroup dialogue, breaks intercultural barriers and reduces prejudice.

(5)

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

As a result of the global scale events that took place in the 20th century, immigration has drastically increased. The fall of communist regimes at the end of the century opened the way for better economic opportunities and determined people to leave their lives behind in hope for a more prosperous future. Similarly, the change of the status quo after the Second World War, as well as the creation and disintegration of certain countries as a result of it, led to the sharp increase of the number of people on the move. As a consequence, the rights and the definition of a “refugee” were stipulated during the Geneva Convention in 1951. The Convention defines a “refugee” as a person who has a “well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it” (Geneva Convention, 1951, p. 14).

Refugees face numerous risks both during their journeys (dangerous means of travel, smugglers) and after (unwelcoming host population, unprepared countries). For children on the move, the risks are even greater: they are swept away from their comfort zone and friends and, after undertaking dangerous journeys, they need to adapt to a new country. This whole process can have a great impact on their lives and it can leave them scared, traumatised and homesick. For these reasons, a successful integration in the host country is highly important. However, some states are unwilling and unprepared to welcome people on the move. General perceptions on refugees vary depending on the context, media portrayal and previous contact with refugees. At the same time, successful integration is a challenging two-way street, where refugees have different capacities to integrate and host communities have different abilities and willingness to absorb them. That is why perception and social attitudes of the host population are highly significant for integration dynamics. Unfortunately, media depictions of immigrants and refugees are usually negative, as they generally characterise them as cultural, economic and physical threats to their society (Atwell Seate & Mastro, 2016).

(6)

As Chouliaraki & Zaborowski argue, a refugee is tipically represented as an “ambigous figure suspended between victimhood and malevolence” (2017, p. 616). Moreover, research has shown that sustained exposure to these negative portrayals of refugees influences perceptions of the audience (Atwell Seate & Mastro, 2016).

Context Analysis

Romania is a country where immigration is much higher than emigration (MIPEX, n.d.). Moreover, it is seen by refugees rather as a transit country, a passage to the “more developed” states of the European Union. On the other hand, refugees who decide to settle in Romania, find it quite an unprepared and unwelcome country in terms of government policies. The case of refugee children does not look more promising: there is a lack of inclusive activities in schools, a lack of good quality Romanian language classes and a general disinterest towards their social integration.

In terms of statistics, the number of refugees in Romania increased significantly after 2015, when 1.260 people sought asylum (National Integration Evaluation

Mechanism, 2018). Two years later, in 2017, there were 4.815 requests for asylum, 265 of which were unaccompanied minors. (NIEM, 2018). Out of the total number of requests in 2017, 1.309 were approved and 1.485 people withdrew from the procedure (NIEM, 2018). When it comes to refugee children, more recent data shows that 465 children obtained a form of protection in 2017, 230 in 2018 and 220 in 2019 (General Inspectorate for Immigration, n.d.). The numbers of unaccompanied minors who applied for asylum decreased after 2017 to 130 in 2018 and 185 in 2019 (GII, n.d.). However, it is important to keep in mind that there are also undocumented

unaccompanied minors, yet their number cannot be estimated. The countries of origin of refugee children are: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, while some are stateless (GII, n.d.).

It is of high importance to mention in this section that there are multiple forms of international protection recognised in Romania, such as: refugees (a person who meets the conditions stipulated in the 1951 Geneva Convention); relocated refugees (refugees relocated through the UNHCR programme and not via the European

(7)

meet all the conditions stipulated by the 1951 Convention but who would be exposed to serious danger if returned back to their home countries); beneficiary of temporary protection (immediate protection offered in case of a massive influx of people on the move); beneficiary of humanitarian protection (this form of protection does not have an individual definition but is partially covered by the subsidiary protection) and tolerated people (a person who does not possess the Romanian citizenship, does not have legal of stay anymore but, due to various circumstances, cannot leave the country) (NIEM, 2018). However, this thesis will refer to all these categories as “refugees”, as some reports and official documents do not always specify their form of international protection, and use “refugee” as an umbrella term. Nonetheless, it is important to mention that the number of people who obtained the refugee status and those who obtained subsidiary protection was often quite similar (Asylum Information Database, 2018). For instance, in 2018, 305 people were granted refugee status and 290 subsidiary protection (AIDA, 2018). However, there are various differences in terms of legal rights: the duration of residence permits for refugees is 3 years whilst for subsidiary protection is only 2 (AIDA,2018). At the same time, for people who have the refugee status, the minimum residence period for obtaining citizenship is 4 years, compared to 8 years in the case of people who obtained subsidiary protection (AIDA, 2018).

Research Question

Even though refugees recognised by the Romanian authorities have in theory the same rights as the Romanian citizens, the situation is quite different in practice. The efforts undertaken by the government to integrate refugees are far from being

satisfactory. When it comes to refugee children, they are not being provided with good quality and inclusive education, and their social integration is not systematically encouraged. As a consequence, local, national and international non-governmental organisations implement various projects to fill the existent gaps. Social integration is a highly important aspect of the overall integration process, as it creates a sentiment of “belonging”, while promoting good relations between the local and refugee

communities. The concept of social integration was chosen for this thesis, as integration should go beyond “accepting” one’s asylum application and providing their basic needs.

(8)

Social integration should be an inherent part of the whole process, as children are often the ones who build bridges in the new community (Hieronymi, 2009).

Romania is a highly homogenous country, where the overwhelming majority identify themselves as Christian. In 2015, when Europe was divided between accepting or rejecting refugees, Romania positioned itself closer to skeptical countries such as Hungary, Slovakia or Czech Republic. Some politicians aggravated the anti-refugee debate by spreading xenophobic and racists messages in their political discourse. For instance, Traian Băsescu, former president of Romania, affirmed: “Dear Romanian State, I am begging you, no matter how hard the European bureaucrats would push you, and I am very familiar with their demagogy, do not accept Muslim refugees’ quotas […]. We have to be solidary with the EU states when it comes to intelligent measures, but we cannot accept unrealistic solutions. If we want a realistic solution, then closing the EU borders and expelling the migrants is the right solution“or “Romania is a Christian country. Receiving (the immigrants) does not mean ensuring their

accommodation. You have to give them the right to manifest their culture, we have to build mosques and schools in their own language […] We even quarrel with the Hungarian people, but these ones bomb themselves. We don’t do that. Conflicts might also occur between the Muslims. What Muslims hate most are the Christians. If there’s someone that both Shiites and Sunni want to die, those are the Christians” (Momoc, 2016). The anti-refugee discourse had a great influence on the public opinion of Romanians: if in August 2015, 65% of the Romanians agreed that their country should receive refugees, another study from September 2015 showed that 52% of the

Romanians were against refugees (Momoc, 2016). In another report, 52% of Romanians claimed that refugees should be placed in specially-designed camps, 20% in urban areas and 14% stated that they should be accommodated in less populated areas (Iacob et al., 2016). Thus, it can be observed that Romanians are reluctant and skeptical when it comes to receiving refugees. Negative media depictions, coupled with people’s sentiments of fear and uncertainty, leave little doubt that Romania can be a hostile environment for displaced people.

Moreover, even though refugees recognised by the Romanian authorities have in theory the same rights as the Romanian citizens, the situation is quite different in

(9)

being satisfactory. When it comes to refugee children, they are not being provided with good quality and inclusive education, and their social integration is not systematically encouraged. As a consequence, local, national and international non-governmental organisations implement various projects to fill the existent gaps. Social integration is a highly important aspect of the overall integration process, as it creates a sentiment of “belonging”, while promoting good relations between the local and refugee

communities.

Therefore, the thesis will take a look at how NGOs justify their response to the refugee “crisis”, by analysing some of the activities that contribute to the social integration of refugee children in the Romanian society. The research question is thus the following:

How do NGOs perceive their role in regards to the social integration of refugee children?

Aim and Relevance to Humanitarian Action

Literature tends to focus on the integration of displaced children either in Western European countries or on states that receive high numbers of refugees, such as Turkey or Lebanon. However, there are no international reports or documents assessing the situation of refugee children in Romania. There are some national reports that document this topic, but only a few include data about children, and they tend to focus on the educational aspect of integration. Moreover, no reports have been published so far aimed at presenting the situation of refugee children in Romania solely, and no reports focus on the social aspect of the integration process. Most of the literature focuses instead on EU policies on integration, leaving thus the role of NGOs

understudied. The role of non-governmental organisations is crucial in the process of integration of refugees and it should receive the attention it deserves. Therefore, the aim of the study is to open the way to this topic for further research and to analyse some of the projects implemented by NGOs, from the perspective of the intergroup contact theory. At the same time, there are no studies that assess the contact between locals and refugees in Romania. Therefore, this study can be used as a starting point for

researchers who want to elaborate on this topic, as contact theory has been proved to be successful in reducing prejudice against minority groups. Furthermore, this thesis will

(10)

include a set of recommendations intended to improve the future response of both the national government and NGOs. In order to support the population of refugee children and their successful integration in the Romanian society, it is important to recognise the main struggles they face, so that future humanitarian and development organisations can design projects based on their real needs.

Methodology

As the literature review will demonstrate, most of the research on integration of refugees is concentrated on the psychological effects of the journey and the integration in the educational systems, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This thesis will take a look at how NGOs perceive their role when it comes to the social integration of refugee children from the perspective of document analysis. Document analysis is a form of qualitative research in which documents are interpreted by the researcher in order to give meaning around an assessed subject (Bowen, 2009). This method of research is used as documents are an accessible and reliable source of data. Moreover, documents are “non-reactive” data sources, meaning that they can be read and analysed multiple times and remain unchanged by the researcher’s influence (Bowen, 2009). Finally, as this thesis will present and analyse good practices of NGOs in terms of the social integration of refugee children, it can open the way for a more in-depth research (especially in areas such as social psychology or sociology).

Thesis Outline

The thesis consists of five chapters. In the first chapter (Introduction), the aim and main topic of the study are introduced, and continues to describe the background information, research question and methodology. The second chapter (Literature review) sheds light on the existing debates on integration, by analysing two of the most researched theories that tackle this issue: social capital and the intergroup contact theory. After that, the second chapter reviews studies on the integration of children, narrowing its focus to the integration of refugee children in the Romanian society. Lastly, the literature review analyses how authors have theorised on the role education

(11)

as part of the integration process. Chapter three introduces the theoretical framework. The first part of the chapter reviews the definitions of integration and social integration and it elaborates more on the contact theory. The second part of the third chapter motivates why the contact theory was used as a conceptual basis for this thesis. It will also elaborate more on the national education system in Romania and its limitations, in terms of the social integration of refugee children. This chapter forms the theoretical basis from which data will be analysed. In the fourth chapter the research findings will be discussed. Firstly, the chapter motivates why the research method was used, while elaborating more on the process of data collection and its limitations. Secondly, the empirical chapter of this thesis will analyse four projects implemented by NGOs in Romania, in order to assess how organisations perceive their role when it comes to the social integration of refugee children. Moreover, the projects and their activities will be analysed using the contact theory as a conceptual basis. Lastly, in chapter five the conclusions of the study are discussed. A summary of the findings will be provided, answering thus the main research question. Lastly, a few recommendations will be given, based on the research results.

(12)

Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter surveys the literature on the integration of refugee children. It starts with an overview of the concept of integration, from a socio-cultural point of view. It analyses two of the most researched theories that tackle the issue of integration, namely the social capital and intergroup contact theories. It also provides substantial empirical research and debates in order to support the theories. Then, it reviews the most general studies conducted on the integration of refugee children with examples from other countries, and then narrows its focus to Romania. At the same time, it assesses how authors have theorised on the role of integration through education. It points to a gap in the literature in terms of studies looking at Central and Eastern European countries. Most existing studies discuss either Western European countries or Turkey, a major refugee recipient country after the 2015 refugee crisis. Furthermore, the literature discusses different shortcomings, as well as good practices in the integration of refugee children. Lastly, it is important to mention that the role of NGOs on the integration of refugees (and especially refugee children) is understudied, and therefore this chapter will focus mostly on the above-mentioned issues.

Conceptualisation of Integration

The concept of integration has been widely studied over time among researchers from various fields, such as sociology, international relations, social psychology etc. As the current thesis concentrates on the social dimension of integration, it will evaluate mostly articles from this domain, in order to not deviate from its primary scope. Even though numerous researchers attempted at conceptualising the issue of integration, there are still multiple definitions that tackle different aspects. Research on integration has been initiated by early founders of sociology such as Simmel (Penninx, 2007), who talked about the construction of the “other”, in relation to newcomers in a society. Then, Park and Burgess (1921) referred to integration as a process of assimilation. For them, integration was “a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitude of other persons and groups and, by

(13)

sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life” (Park & Burgess, 1921, p. 736). More recent studies have focused on the socio-cultural aspects of integration in order to evaluate both the refugees’ and host

community’s perspectives on this whole process.

One of the most researched theories that tackles social integration is Putnam’s social capital theory (2001). He argues that social networks have value and that the stock of social capital lays on the connections among the individuals and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them (Alencar & Vasiliki, 2019). Putnam (2001) also emphasises the positive role of the social capital, through three forms of social relationships: social bonds (family and co-ethnic, co-national, co-religious community), social bridges (other communities) and social links (with structures of the state). In other words, a successful social integration means being part of diverse communities, each of them having different purposes: social bonds for maintaining familiar patterns of relationships, social bridges and links for facilitating employment opportunities building networks (Ager and Strang, 2008).

However, authors have pointed out both the inclusive and exclusive character of social capital. For instance, Nawyn et al. (2012) also emphasise the positive role of social capital through language as a non-economic resource. For them, linguistic resources of communities are a key component of immigrant integration and they believe that the power of language consists not only of the ability to communicate but the ability to advocate (Nawyn et al., 2012). Moreover, they emphasise the importance of the weak ties (acquaintances, strangers) and they argue that refugees with few weak ties to English speakers are an economic disadvantage compared to the ones with access to weak ties outside their ethnic community (Nawyn et al., 2012). Another author who stresses the inclusion character of the social capital is Bankston. His idea is based on ethnicity as a social capital (Bankston, 2004). Bankston (2004) argues that children from various immigrant groups are successful in American schools because they come from families and communities with close, bonded networks. Alencar and Tsagkroni (2019) also emphasise the positive role of social media in helping refugees maintain connections with strong and weak ties.

(14)

Conversely, some authors emphasise the exclusive character of social capital. Morrice (2007) talks about social capital as a key factor in the social exclusion of refugees. She points out that integration policies have been largely limited to the perceived needs of the economy and that informal learning has been largely ignored (Morrice, 2007). For Morrice (2007), social capital is concerned with power. Thus, marginalised communities such as refugee and asylum-seeking communities who have less access to bridging and linking capital, have less opportunities. She is also referring to the difference between bonding and bridging social capital: families and friends can help refugees to “get by”, but outside their community they can find more relevant information about careers, schools or jobs (Morrice, 2007). Similarly, Kindler (2015) contends that in the first stage of integration, bonding social capital is useful in order to facilitate the settlement process. However, she claims that the establishment of groups in host countries can lead to exclusion, rather than inclusion, and therefore limit the bridging and linking capital that are considered necessary for a successful integration (Kindler, 2015).

Another popular theory that aims to tackle the issues of prejudice and intergroup interaction is Allport’s contact theory (1954). Allport (1954) argued that positive

contact between two groups (usually represented by majority and minority) can decrease prejudice. He also formulated four essential conditions that promote positive contact: equal status, common goal, cooperation and institutional support (Pettigrew, 1998). One of the most influential collections of studies in this area was compiled by Tropp and Pettigrew in 2006. They assembled 515 studies, from the 1940s to 2000s, that comprised more than 250.000 participants from 38 different countries (Paluck et al., 2018). Approximately half of the studies focused on racial divisions; the rest assessed prejudice against other groups such as disabled people, elderly, political partisans and gay people (Paluck et al., 2018). Therefore, it can be seen that the intergroup theory was not yet considered a popular method of reducing prejudice against immigrant or refugee people. The methodology of these studies varied from observational surveys, to

intervention measures and experimental research. The evidence showed that intergroup theory can indeed promote reductions in prejudice (Tip et al.,2018; Cameron et al., 2006; Paluck et al., 2018).

(15)

Intergroup contact has also been used to assess the relations between refugees and the host communities. However, it is important to mention that this area is not as researched as other minorities or groups of people. The reviewed articles focus on the United Kingdom mostly, Greece, The USA, Lebanon, Germany and The Netherlands. They study the effects of contact theory both on adults and children. Moreover, most of the studies were conducted after the refugee crisis in 2015. One important finding was that, in case of no actual contact between refugees and the host population, there is a tendency of the latter to dehumanise refugees and to view them as a homogenous group (Goff et al., 2008). For instance, Syrian refugees are seen as a homogenous group who are fleeing war, seeking refuge but also who pose a threat to the hosting countries (Koc & Anderson, 2018). On the same note, in a study conducted by Koc and Anderson (2018), they showed that reading a story that depicts refugees (vicarious contact) as individuals and that presents their daily lives might reduce their dehumanisation, and therefore reduce prejudice against them. Moreover, they argue that incorporating such stories in the curriculum as educational materials may help reduce social distance for children and young adults (Koc & Anderson, 2018).

Similar to the point discussed above, Cameron et al. (2006) created an

intervention aimed at decreasing prejudice against refugees in children 5-11 years old. They focused on the idea of “decategorisation”, which implies that the in-group judges the out-group based on category membership alone and thus, ignoring individuating information (Brewer & Miller, 1984). In the literature, the in-group is a social group to which a person identifies as being a member; an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. Thus, in order to minimise decategorisation, the

intervention should be structured in such a way that category memberships are de-emphasised so that members (in this case refugees) are not perceived as belonging to a homogenous group (Cameron et al., 2006). Just as Brewer and Miller (1984) argued, the decategorised contact will lead to generalisation of positive out-group attitudes. In their research, Cameron et al. (2006) based the intervention on the decategorisation model, as well as on the common in-group identity model (the replacement of old in-group

boundaries with new, more inclusive ones) and the dual identity model (emphasising the common in-group identity while keeping the subgroup membership). They concluded that their study (based on extended contact) was successful in reducing children’s negative out-group attitudes towards refugees (Cameron et al., 2006). Their

(16)

study was the first one to conclude that extended contact leads to prejudice reduction in young children under 13 years of age. Just as Koc and Anderson, (2018) the authors recommend introducing prejudice-reductions interventions in educational settings.

Another study, also conducted in the United Kingdom, had a positive short-term impact on children’s attitudes towards refugees. This limitation of the theory will be discussed and elaborated in the next chapter. Following the study, children were asked to rate their preference for either assimilation or integration. The results showed that children preferred integration, meaning that they were more likely to want refugees to have contact with the host community while maintaining ties to their culture of origin (Turner & Brown, 2008). It is interesting to observe that the effects of the intervention lasted weeks, but not months (Turner & Brown, 2008). The authors recommend that these projects should be integrated into the educational settings, rather than to be used for a short period of time (Turner & Brown, 2008).

Tip et al. (2019) focused in their study on the effects of intergroup contact on the well-being of refugees. They emphasise that there have been very few empirical

investigations on the effect of contact on minority group members or refugees (Tip et al., 2019). Moreover, is it significant to mention that this is the largest longitudinal study ever conducted with resettled refugees in the UK, over a period of 3 years. It is important to keep this in mind, as most of the other reviewed studies did not assess the longevity of the intervention. As it can be seen from the evidence presented above, the studies assess the effects of contact on the majority, or host community (in-group). Integration is not a one-way street, therefore both refugees and the receiving community need to make efforts and to reduce the prejudice against each other. As the authors claim in their study, one of the problems that refugees encounter when starting their lives in a new place is the lack of a supportive social network (Tip et al., 2019). Thus, they showed that the minority’s language proficiency is associated with more intergroup contact (Tip et al., 2019). Moreover, they concluded that more contact with the host community is associated with increased well-being among refugees (Tip et al., 2019). It is important to mention here that the findings are not true vice versa: more contact does not necessarily lead to language proficiency and the well-being of refugees does not motivate them into seeking contact with the receiving community. In order words, contact between the in-group and out-group has a positive effect on the latter’s

(17)

well-being if the majority is seeking contact with them. Perhaps this means that they would feel more welcomed into the new society. On the same note, the authors recommend projects that encourage and increase contact between these two groups, such as community events, sporting events, mentoring schemes, as well as language courses (Tip et al., 2019). They also stress that one barrier to positive contact is not speaking the majority’s language and they recommend governments to focus more on policies aimed at improving language skills in refugees (Tip et al, 2019). For instance, they found that in the US, finding employment is considered a higher priority than learning English; similarly, in the UK, minority language speakers no longer have access to fully funded English language classes once they are employed (Tip et al., 2019). Often, resettlement agencies assume that refugees will learn English on their own, or through contact with English natives (Chin & Villazor, 2015). These examples show that even destination countries for refugees do not have strong policies aimed at improving refugees’ language skills. In “transit” countries such as Romania, language classes lack quality and are generally poorly organised. More details will be given in the next chapter.

Lastly, another study conducted in The Netherlands, poses some interesting conclusions. Zorlu (2016) based his study on the attitudes of the host community towards refugees and ASCs (Asylum Seeker Centres). First, the study revealed that personal contacts with asylum seekers at work increase negative attitudes towards ASCs, while contacts in public space are associated with a higher chance of having positive attitudes (Zorlu, 2016). This finding is in line with the contact theory, as intergroup competition is supposed to strengthen prejudice. In contrast, contacts in public space have a higher likelihood to produce positive attitudes, since there is no competition. The study also showed that people who are concerned about European and global affairs display much more positive attitudes towards refugees (Zorlu, 2016). This finding is somewhat obvious but also needs further analysis. According to Pettigrew (1998), one of the four processes of change through intergroup contact is learning about the out-group. He argued that new information about an out-group can improve attitudes and reduce prejudice (Pettigrew, 1998). Similarly, Stephan and Stephan (1984)

contended that ignorance promotes prejudice. Based on the evidence presented above, it can be argued that, in order to increase positive attitudes among the host communities, there is a need to also strengthen the in-group’s knowledge on topics such as migration or forced displacement.

(18)

Thus, it can be observed that authors have different approaches when it comes to the issue of integration. While the social capital theory seems to apply mostly in the context of the second generation of migrants, the contact theory provides a more suitable conceptual framework for this thesis, as it applies to children as well. Moreover, it has to be mentioned here that the integration of children was rarely

mentioned in the reviewed articles on social capital. On the other hand, there have been multiple studies that tested the intergroup contact theory among children, but less studies on refugee children. One gap that can be found while assessing these articles is that they focus solely on countries that have higher numbers of refugees (such as Lebanon, Greece) or Western European countries (Germany, The Netherlands, The UK). Thus, none of the reviewed studies assessed the contact theory or social capital theory in the context of Romania or other Eastern European countries. There is a need for more studies on the integration of refugees in these states, especially as migration through the Western Balkan and Black Sea routes has greatly increased (Frontex, 2019).

Integration of Refugee Children

When it comes to studies written strictly on the integration of children refugees, the literature shows that they focus on specific case studies rather than on assessing the theoretical framework. These articles present case studies from various countries, such as Uganda (Bragin & Obiro, 2012), Turkey (Hos & Cinarbas, 2018; Sekler & Sirkeci, 2015; Celik & Icduygu, 2018; Celik & Erdogan, 2017), Lebanon (Greaves et al, 2019), Sweden (Lunneblad, 2017), Germany and The Netherlands (Crul et al, 2017). The research on Turkey is vast due to the high numbers of refugee children: it is estimated that half of the refugees living on its territory are children (Celik & Erdogan, 2017). It is important to mention here that some of the reviewed articles point out the lack of

research on this topic (Lunneblad, 2017; Celik & Icduygu, 2018; Graves et al, 2019; Crul et al, 2017).

The literature emphasises the important role of education in removing traces of trauma from past experiences (Greaves et al, 2019; Celik & Erdogan, 2017). Trauma is therefore a recurrent element that seems to be mentioned quite often in the literature. As a consequence, integration policies for refugee children should also refer to ways in

(19)

which potential trauma is addressed in the context of host countries, perhaps in the educational systems. Conversely, Taylor & Sidhu (2012) claim that researchers have focused too much on trauma and believe that the construction of the “traumatised” refugee child impede a real analysis of their background experiences. Moreover, they argue that refugee children were often seen as “problems”, rather than children having the potential to bring positive elements in the classroom (Taylor & Sindhu, 2012). Similarly, while some researchers focused on the vulnerability of children (Sekler & Sirkeci, 2015; Lunneblad, 2017), Hieronymi (2009) argues that despite the assumed scale of vulnerability, children are the first to build bridges, learn the languages, and open lines of communication with the surrounding world. The same idea was stressed by Ager and Strang (2008).

Similarly, education is a highly studied issue in the process of integration. Apart from removing traces of trauma and building resilience, authors argue that education is important for a number of reasons. First, they contend that education enables refugees to engage with the local community, exacerbating thus the integration process (Celik & Erdogan, 2017; Sekler & Sirkeci, 2015; Hos & Cinarbas, 2018). Second, education is seen as a powerful tool because it can improve the well-being of refugee children, helping them to regain their self-esteem and thus, paving the way for a more optimistic future (Sekler & Sirkeci, 2015; Rousseau et al., 2005). The literature also points out the value of education in early years. Authors argue that early literacy brings a great

contribution to social and communicative skills, emotional maturity, well-being and physical health (Hos & Cinarbas, 2018, Sekler & Sirkeci, 2015). Authors also mention that these contributions are critical for the less-advantaged children, such as refugees (Hos & Cinarbas, 2018). Similarly, Lunnnebald (2017) argues that preschool activities are important for the development of an early identity as children. The literature also stresses the importance of different school subjects in the integration of refugee children. For instance, Rousseau (2005) and Krasteva (2013) claim that creativity and art are one of the most powerful instruments for integration and empowerment,

constructing thus meaning and identity in the lives of refugees. Similarly, Léna (2019) argues that it is unacceptable, in times of intense migration and multiplication of refugees, to deprive children of science education. The author believes that science education can help children understand better the world they live in, while cultivating self-confidence and creativity (Léna, 2019). Finally, Hek (2005) also emphasises that

(20)

even children’s families benefit from the relationship with school, as they can be sometimes marginalised. It can be observed that the literature offers a few reasons why education is a powerful tool in the integration of refugee children. According to these authors, not only it removes traces of trauma and mitigates negative influences of displacement, but it also enables a first contact with the host community.

However, other authors stress the fact that education alone is not enough. For instance, Matthews (2008) argues that immersing refugee children into mainstream classrooms is a cause of concern as they can be new to the power dynamics of literate cultures. As an example, she uses the Australian case, where the curriculum is based on teaching European and Asian migrants from literate backgrounds, therefore not fully suitable for children from other regions. In this way, it can be seen that solely providing education to children refugees is not enough. Moreover, she emphasises the importance of using a holistic approach, based on welcoming environments, good induction

procedures, community links, pastoral care, but also racism, xenophobia and first language support (Matthews, 2008). For her, schools should not simply be “literacy delivering machines”, but a healthy environment which creates a space for participation, communication, friendships and belonging. (Matthews, 2008, p. 42). This view is shared by Hek (2005), who claims that the support of refugee children has to go beyond the curriculum and disagrees with the traditional focus on exam and achievement-led schooling for refugee children. For her, the curriculum has to be adapted in order to include a wide range of experiences and cultures (Hek, 2005). At the same time, she argues that teachers’ tendency is to focus on the past experiences of the children and young people, rather than implementing “here and now” practices (Hek, 2005, pp. 167). It can be observed that a more critical approach is taken by the above-mentioned

authors, who point out the existent shortcomings in the educational system. It should be also noticed that both of the articles were written before the 2015 “refugee crisis”, when the refugee numbers were considerably lower.

The literature also emphasises the challenges that refugee children face when it comes to the integration in the educational systems. For Taylor & Sindhu (2012), the main problems identified were: lack of language support classes, inadequate

information provided to children and the lack of psycho-social support. Similarly, Hos & Cinarbas (2018) argue that one challenge would be the lack of training and

(21)

qualification of teachers in order to address the needs of refugee children. At the same time, there are bureaucratic obstacles (such as issuing and recognising diplomas) and socio-cultural differences among peer pupils (especially in multicultural schools)

(Sekler & Sirkeci, 2015). For instance, in Turkey, Temporary Education Centres (TECs) have been established in order to meet the needs of Syrian refugee children (Celik & Icduygu, 2018). They employ almost exclusively Syrian teachers and follow a slightly modified Syrian curriculum (Celik & Icduygu, 2018). However, while they do give students the feeling of belonging, some teachers stressed the vagueness of the schools’ future, as they were intended to be a temporary solution and not meant for a protracted refugee crisis (Celik & Icduygu, 2018). As these schools lack diversity, the

discrimination levels are higher and the feeling of belonging is almost non-existent. In a 2017 study, there were almost 60 thousand Syrian children enrolled in Turkish public schools and more than 260 thousand learning in TECs (Celik & Erdogan, 2017). This study emphasises the need of integrating TECs into the Turkish educational system and gradually incorporating Syrian children into public schools (Celik & Erdogan, 2017).

The literature is also rich in good practices implemented in the educational systems in order to facilitate a smooth integration of children refugees. Taylor & Sidhu (2012) describe good practices as “successful programmes of support for refugee students which enable their inclusion in the school and broader community”. For instance, in Lebanon, Greaves et al. (2019) refers to the importance of non-formal education and exemplifies a few good practices that were meant to alleviate the abrupt changes in children’s lives: the creation of safe spaces, non-authoritarian teaching practices and establishing trust. Another example from Northern Uganda shows how the focus was to empower the communities and families to play an active role in their children’s education and future, as part of an educational project (Bragin & Obiro, 2012). In this way, teachers were trained how to work with parents and community members in order to address dialogues on critical issues and concerns related to their children’s education (Bragin & Obiro, 2012). The project also encouraged pupils to participate in non-formal activities such as story writing, drama and musical

performances and offered specialised psychological care and support (Bragin & Obiro, 2012). Rousseau et al. (2005) describe the outcomes observed in refugee children in two elementary schools in Canada and they argue that creative expression workshops have

(22)

positive effects on refugee children’s self-esteem and may also decrease their emotional and behavioural symptoms.

When it comes to the methodology of the reviewed articles, it can be seen that most of them relied on qualitative research. In order to assess the children’s integration in the educational systems, researchers used semi-structured interviews or informal conversations with teachers and parents (Celik, 2018; Lunneblad, 2017; Taylor & Sidhu, 2012; Greaves et al., 2019; Hos & Cinarbas, 2018; Sekler & Sirkeci, 2015). Ethnographic observations were also used as a way of getting a broader perspective of schools’ environment (Lunneblad, 2017; Greaves et al., 2019). Ethnography is a research method that enables the researchers to immerse themselves in the lives of people that they are studying. It uncovers valuable insight and researchers get a more realistic picture of the study population. However, it requires time and people are not always open to the idea of welcoming a stranger in their own habitat. Another research method observed was the document analysis (Celik & Erdogan, 2017; Crul et al., 2017). The least popular method used was quantitative study, used to measure the effects of creative expression programmes on refugee and immigrant classes children in Montreal (Rousseau et al., 2005). However, this is a study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and does not discuss theoretical concepts related to integration.

Equally relevant to this issue are the gaps found in literature. For instance, Greaves et al. (2019) analyse psycho-social strategies in non-formal refugee education in Lebanon, but do not provide data on the long-term efficaciousness of the studied measures. This gap can be observed in most of the reviewed articles, as they focus on good practices and do not provide a follow up in order to rate the success of the integration strategies. Furthermore, some articles contained studies based on a single project (Hos et al., 2018; Bragin & Obiro, 2012). In this way, the research seemed to point out the projects’ success rather than to include a set of limitations or a critique of the implemented strategies. Other gaps observed were: small size of sample (Greaves et al., 2019), research focused on primary schools only (Sekler & Sirkeci, 2015) or only on pre-schools (Lunneblad, 2017), descriptive rather than analytic article (Crul et al., 2017). As a general theme, no refugee children were interviewed for these studies, perhaps due to ethical purposes. Last but not least, the importance of education as an

(23)

integration strategy was highlighted in all of the articles, but some did not go further and analyse why education can be a powerful tool (Celik & Erdogan, 2017).

It can be seen thus that the reviewed articles tend to focus on the integration of refugee children from an educational perspective. While some researchers pointed out the challenges, others offer a set of good practices observed most probably during a case study. A vast number of studies is focused on the example of Turkey, a country with a high percentage of refugee children. Others focused on education in emergency settings (Uganda), or in European countries where people are seeking asylum (Sweden, The Netherlands, Germany). It can be noticed that the studies on European countries tend to focus on Western and Northern Europe. Moreover, when assessing Eurochild’s (2017) report on the integration of refugee children in Europe, it can be seen that the focus is again on Western European countries or countries with a high number of refugees (Greece). A few exceptions are Serbia, Slovakia and Hungary. However, Romania’s case cannot be found in this study. The next section will review the existing studies on the integration of refugee children in Romania.

Integration of Refugee Children in Romania

The literature on refugee children in Romania is not very developed. Instead, it focuses on the process and policies of seeking asylum (Iacob, 2017; Cocosatu, 2012; Vasile & Androniceanu, 2018), the attitude of Romanians’ towards refugees (Iacob et al., 2016) or it assesses the integration barriers in general (Grigore, 2018). However, a few reports contain chapters on the integration of refugee children in the educational system. For instance, Voicu (2015) analyses the indicators of integration in the national education system. However, his whole report assesses the situation of immigrants in Romania, and doesn’t necessarily focus on refugees.The summary version of the report requested by the National Romanian Council of Refugees (2018) assesses three

mechanisms of integration: exposure to Romanian culture and institutions; socialisation in the country of origin and the representations of refugees of their country of origin in comparison to Romania and other Western European countries. The report contains also a set of recommendations meant to increase refugees’ access to education, such as organising awareness raising campaigns targeting teachers and parents so as to inform

(24)

them on the topic of refugees and at the same time and to increase refugee children’s acceptance in schools; tailored activities in schools for refugee children (Voicu et al., 2018). Regarding refugees’ social integration, the report recommends NGOs to organise events that bring together refugees and the host community (Voicu et al., 2018).

Similarly, the country report for Romania of the Asylum Information Database (2018) focuses on the access to education and integration courses. As the afore-mentioned study, it emphasises the challenges that impede children’s integration in the educational system: long distances to schools, language barriers, parents not paying proper attention to their children’s education, or pupils not receiving proper care in schools (AIDA, 2018). Another useful research report is aimed at optimising educational strategies for refugee families or for people with a subsidiary protection status. It analyses the educational systems in other European countries and it gives a few good practices for the integration of refugee children (Alexandru et al., 2017).

It can be observed that the literature on this subject is quite recent, most of the reviewed articles and reports being written after the 2015 refugee “crisis”, when Romania started to have relatively a higher number of people seeking asylum on its territory. At the same time, the tendency is to analyse or describe the asylum policy (Gabriel, 2018; Vasile, 2018; Iacob, 2017), rather than to elaborate on the integration policy. Some reports include an overview on the educational integration of refugee children, but the subject is not thoroughly discussed (AIDA, 2018; Voicu, 2018). Furthermore, these chapters focus on the integration in the national education system and do not evaluate any activities or strategies implemented by NGOs, in order to fill the gaps existent at the national level. The present thesis intends to look further, assess these gaps and analyse activities implemented by NGOs in Romania in order to address how they perceive their role in regards to the social integration of refugee children.

Most of the reviewed articles rely on document analysis as a research method (Gabriel, 2018; Voicu, 2015; Iacob, 2017; Vasile, 2018; AIDA, 2018). This is an efficient way of collecting data as it is less time-consuming than other research

methods. At the same time, most of the documents are accessible and easy to find. One disadvantage would be the potential presence of biases. Also, the researcher has to search through a vast number of documents in order to find relevant information. Other researchers chose to rely on qualitative data collected through interviews, surveys

(25)

or focus groups. The interviews were organised both with the refugee populations and NGOs or experts in the field (Voicu, 2015; Voicu, 2018). Interviews are an important tool in data collection as they allow a more personalised approach and leave room for clarification. The downside is that the presence of the interviewer may alter

interviewee’s answers and lead to biased results. At the same time, getting access to refugees can sometimes be an impediment. Iacob et al. (2016) relied on quantitative data through an online questionnaire, meant to assess the host country’s opinion

towards refugees. Online surveys are also a valuable tool when conducting research, as data can be collected faster. However, the answers can be quite short and lack important details. Lastly, focus groups are more time-saving than face-to-face interviews, and also more cost-effective. One problem would be that the moderators can unintentionally influence the data. For the purpose of this research, a combination between document analysis and other qualitative methods, such as interviews or surveys, would be a suitable option. Document analysis is a good starting point to have a broader picture of the subject and interviews would allow the researcher to analyse data from a different, more personal point of view.

(26)

Chapter 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter reviews the definitions of the main concepts used throughout the thesis, namely ‘integration’ and ‘social integration’. Then, it assesses the historical context and the development of the intergroup contact theory. Moreover, this chapter analyses the conditions that promote positive contact. It also casts light on the different types of contact and evaluates empirical studies on intergroup contact between refugees and host communities. Furthermore, the chapter provides a few limitations and criticism of the theory. The last section assesses the implications of the theory for this present research, while offering an insight into the national education system in Romania and its limitations in terms of the social integration of refugee children.Finally, it also

motivates why this theory is used when assessing the integration paths for refugee children in Romania.

Defining “Integration”

As the literature review chapter has previously shown, there are multiple definitions on the concept of “integration”, depending on the area of research and expertise. Integration was firstly seen as a process of assimilation, where newcomers were slowly incorporated in the host society (Park & Burgess, 1921). Schneider & Crul (2010) argued that the term “assimilation” originated in the American historical context, meant to be used as a common denominator for the immigrant waves of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. On the other hand, the authors claim that the European

discourse is not focused on the concept of “assimilation”, and that the political debate sees successful integration as a scenario of parallel societies - ethnic groups with little connections to the society (Schneider & Crul, 2010). While some authors consider integration a linear process, some regard it as a two-way street involving migrants and host communities (Berry, 1997). Other authors, such as Schneider & Crul (2010) developed theories to explain the new discourse regarding integration: they introduced the notion of comparative integration contexts in which they stress that integration in Europe is highly shaped by different sociocultural, political and economic contexts. It

(27)

can be seen thus that integration is quite a difficult term to define. Therefore, while this means that states have a high amount of freedom in shaping their own integration policies, it also implies that they can elaborate certain laws that are not beneficial for refugees and migrants, hindering thus the integration process.

Furthermore, there is no consensus on the definition of integration of refugees, and the international refugee law does not offer any formal definition on this topic (Crisp, 2004). As a consequence, integration varies and it is influenced by national and international policies, context or the economic situation. United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees, for instance, defines integration as “a mutual, dynamic, multifaceted and ongoing process. From a refugee perspective, integration requires a preparedness to adapt to the lifestyle of the host society without having to lose one’s own cultural identity. From the point of view of the host society, it requires a

willingness for communities to be welcoming and responsive to refugees and for public institutions to meet the needs of a diverse population.” (UNHCR, 2002).

The ample discourse on integration also focuses on the different spheres of integration, such as social, economic and political. This thesis will focus on social integration. There are multiple definitions that tackle the issue of social integration, ranging from very general to more specific. For instance, the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development claimed that social integration implies equal rights and opportunities for all human beings (UNRISD, 1994). Another definition focuses on the principles generated by social integration: “social integration indicates principles by which individuals (actors, agents, or subjects) are bound to each other in the social space and it refers to relations among the actors, i.e. how the actors (agents) accept social rules” (Beresneviciûtë, 2003, p. 97). However, these definitions do not directly tackle the social integration of refugees. For this reason, the following definition is more suitable for the purpose of this thesis: “social integration is a multidimensional construct that can be defined as the extent to which individuals participate in a variety of social relationships, including engagement in social activities or relationships and a sense of communality and identification with one’s social roles” (Brissette et al., 2000, p. 56). This definition emphasises the importance of participation and engagement in social relationships. As the following sections will demonstrate, social integration contributes to refugees’ well-being as well as the overall integration in the new host society.

(28)

Contact Theory

The history of the contact theory begins in the 1930s, when American social psychologists initiated empirical studies of the effects of intergroup contact between white and black people (Paluck et al., 2018). Later on, between the 1940s-1950s, studies focused on naturally occurring circumstances in military, industry and housing projects (Stephan & Brigham, 1985). The most influential and long-standing theory proved to be the one formulated by Allport in 1954, in the book called “ The Nature of Prejudice”. Allport’s main idea was that “prejudice may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals. The effect is greatly enhanced if this contact is sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e. by law, custom, or local atmosphere), and provided it is of a sort that leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of two groups” (Allport, 1954, p. 281). Allport defined prejudice as “an aversive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to the group” (Allport, 1954, p. 7). This theory grew in prominence within the United States in the context of desegregation, as in the 1950s, integrated schools were still illegal in 17 states (Slavin, 1985). The term “desegregation” is generally understood as the ending of the separation between sexes or races in an organisation. The transferability of the theory can be noticed as it was used in multiple settings: as a rationale for desegregation policies, a guide for designing peace-building interventions, or as a theoretical narrative for interpreting the persistence of discrimination and interracial conflict (Paluck et al., 2018).

Scope Conditions for the Contact Theory

As it was previously mentioned, Allport argued that positive contact can only occur in situations marked by four key conditions. First, he emphasised the importance of equal status within the situation. Although “equal status” is a concept difficult to define, a few authors clarify that in order for a contact to be positive, both groups should expect and perceive equal status in a given situation (Pettigrew, 1998; De

(29)

Coninck et al., 2020). The second condition is the common goal. This requirement implies thus an active and goal-oriented effort (Pettigrew, 1998). An example in this sense would be the studies made on interracial athlete teams, that rely on each other to achieve their goal (Pettigrew, 1998). Furthermore, Allport believed that intergroup cooperation is also an obligatory requirement (Paluck et al., 2018). For instance, in a classroom setting, the cooperative learning method is often used to decrease prejudice (Slavin, 1985). In this way, groups would work together in order to accomplish a common goal (condition 3). Finally, the last requirement is the support of authorities, law, or custom (Pettigrew, 1998). This implies that positive contact should not occur without support. On the same note, Allport did not believe that mere contact would reduce prejudice : “the more contact, the more trouble” (1954, 263).

However, Tropp and Pettigrew’s (2006) meta-analytic study mentioned in the literature review concluded that these conditions are not essential to achieve positive outcomes. This argument stands in direct contrast to Allport’s conclusion that mere contact would cause further disagreements between two groups. On the same note, in an earlier article, Pettigrew (1998) argued that the original theory does not say anything about the processes in which contact will lead to positive change. Therefore, the author developed four interrelated processes that operate through contact and determine attitude change. Firstly, he emphasised that the in-group should learn about the out-group: “When new learning corrects negative views of the out-group, contact should reduce prejudice” (Pettigrew, 1998, p.70). The second process is changing behaviour: “behaviour change is often the precursor of attitude change” (Pettigrew, 1998, p. 70). Furthermore, the author believes that generating affective ties based on positive emotions and empathy can play a significant role in intergroup contact (Pettigrew, 1998). On the same note, Pettigrew (1998) argued that optimal contact requires time for intergroup friendships to develop and that cross-group friendship is a powerful tool for reducing prejudice. Finally, the author contends that there is a need for in-group reappraisal: in other words, in-groups should stop focusing on their own norms and customs and instead, value out-group cultural standards (Pettigrew, 1998; Verkuyten et al., 2010).

However, it is important to take into consideration the fact that the context was highly different by the time the study was concluded, in 2006. One must keep in mind

(30)

that the contact theory has its origins in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the context was highly tumultuous. As Sengupta & Blessinger (2018) argued, it was a period when social scientists were striving to bind the human race in spite of the existing hatred. Thus, it can be argued that Allport’s conditions were fulfilled to a certain degree by institutional change. At the same time, more equal contact has been encouraged both in schools and at the workplace. Even though the study has concluded that the conditions are not essential to achieve positive contact, they represent a suitable starting point in improving intergroup relations, as they promote a healthy,

non-hierarchical contact.

Types of Contact

In order to have a clearer picture of the current theory and discourse, it is relevant to take a look at indirect contact theories that emerged from the original hypothesis formulated by Allport, namely extended, vicarious, imagined and parasocial contact.

Even though the direct contact theory has proved to have the most promising results, it also poses a clear limitation: people need to have the opportunity to meet in order to engage in contact (Crisp et al., 2009). Based on this limitation, Wright et al. (1997) formulated the extended contact hypothesis: learning that an in-group member has a close relationship with an out-group member can improve one’s attitudes towards the out-group. Research shows that extended contact was effective in reducing prejudice in both children and adults ( Stathi et al., 2014; Cameron et al., 2006; Crisp et al., 2009). However, this theory works best for groups that do not have the opportunity to engage in contact, and therefore it is more difficult for them to form a friendship - considered by Pettigrew an important condition.

Another type of contact is the vicarious contact. This theory stresses the

observation (as opposed to knowing) of an in-group member having a relationship with an out-group member (Brown et al., 2016). This type of contact can be experienced and implemented through the media (Di Bernardo et al., 2017). Thus, it has been

(31)

demonstrated that the observation of positive group interactions in books, movies and television programmes can lead to prejudice reduction (Di Bernardo et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2016). On a similar note, parasocial contact hypothesis claims that it can provide an experience that reduces prejudice, especially if the out-group has limited opportunity for interpersonal contact with minority group members (Schiappa et al., 2005). The phrase “parasocial interaction” was firstly introduced by Horton and Wohl (1956), suggesting that communication via media can provide viewers with an “apparently intimate, face-to-face association with a performer (p. 228). Based on this, Schiappa et al. (2005) claim that one can learn about a minority group from mediated messages and representations, and that if the experience is positive, their attitude is to rather seek contact than avoid it. In other words, television can play an influential role in decreasing prejudice about minority group members (especially when direct contact is minimal or non-existent). However, unfortunately, media can also depict negative interactions between members of different group, which can lead to increased prejudice (Weisbuch et al., 2009). It is important to add that, when reviewing the existing research, the parasocial contact theory did not seem to receive much attention, at least not in the area of contact studies.

Finally, the third type of contact is the imagined intergroup contact, formulated by Crisp et al. (2009). For them, extended contact is an important theoretical

contribution because it reveals the significance of the concept of contact (Crisp et al., 2009). However, in some cases direct or extended contact is not possible. Thus, by focusing on the concept of contact, they pose the question: “What if this concept alone was enough, unbounded by actual experience anywhere in one’s social network […] what if simply imagining intergroup contact could improve intergroup attitudes?” (Crisp et al., 2009, p. 3). The authors define imagined contact as the mental simulation of positive intergroup interactions (Crisp et al., 2009). As for empirical support,

researchers showed that imagining a positive interaction with an out-group member not only improves the attitudes towards them, but also reduces the anxiety that precedes the actual interaction (Crisp et al., 2009; Stathi et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2016; Birtel et al., 2019). Interestingly, all the reviewed articles are based on interventions conducted on children enrolled in preschool and elementary school. There is a lack of data on

teenagers and adults. Moreover, one of the conditions of a successful imagined contact is the positive scenario, as opposed to neutral (Stathi & Crisp, 2008). It is important to

(32)

mention that Crisp et al. claim that the imagined contact should not be a replacement for the actual contact, but a valuable “first step” on the route to reduce prejudice and to promote interest in engaging in actual interaction with the out-group (2009). One limitation of the imagined theory would be the longevity of the effects, as most of the up-to-date interventions focused on the short-term effects (Brown et al., 2016). In conclusion, all of the four prejudice reduction strategies prove to be a promising alternative where direct contact is impossible or impractical. Despite the limitations of the indirect contact strategies, they generally seem to be a good starting point for promoting future positive intergroup interactions. It is also important to note that research has focused on extended and imagined contact, rather than vicarious or parasocial.

Contact Theory and Refugees

It was previously shown that the intergroup contact theory was formulated in a context of racial desegregation, in the United States of America. Over time, the theory started to be used as a prejudice reduction method against other categories such as disabled, elderly, political partisans and gay people (Paluck et al., 2018). More recently, the theory has been used as an intervention in reducing prejudice against refugees and immigrant people. This section will focus on refugees. It is important to mention that the latest article written on this topic was De Coninck et al’s “The Contact hypothesis during the European refugee crisis: Relating quality and quantity of (in)direct intergroup contact to attitudes towards refugees”,in June 2020. This shows that there is increased interest from researchers to link the contact theory with the studies on migration and refugees.

As the refugee “crisis” grew in proportions, scientists started to consider new ways of reducing prejudice against them. Especially after 2015, when global forced displacement has increased with record-high numbers. By the end of the year, 65.3 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of conflict, persecution, violence or human rights violations (UNHCR Global Trends, n.d.). Countries that received most of the refugees were Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iran

Perception of NGOs on the Social Integration of Refugee Children Evidence from Romania