Social initiatives around refugees

Social initiatives around refugees

Nesrien Abu Ghazaleh and Eltje Bos

With the cooperation of Maarten Hogenstijn, Linda Kroeze and Tessa van Ham Abstract

After the arrival of refugees in the Netherlands, many citizens wanted to act and improve the social inclusion of refugees. Community initiatives emerged where some of these initiatives even grew into potential Social Enterprises. In this research we investigated the main issues

initiatives around refugees encounter when growing into a social enterprise (RQ1). Through the organization of learning networks we gathered data from initiatives which were currently in this process. The two main issues that arose, are making a good business model and finding a way to measure impact when the impact area is the social inclusion of refugees. Our second research question (RQ2) investigated in what way the social initiatives help refugees in their social inclusion process. For this research question we interviewed refugees whom where involved with one of the initiatives participating in our research. Our main findings are that the participants in this research are all trying to take control over their lives, learning how to make a change and are trying to achieve a life that is good for them. They attributed various benefits to their active participation in the initiatives. They all mention that they met new people, that the people who started the initiative were very helpful and that they liked participating.

Introduction

Inclusion has been a hot topic for many years. However, especially since the strong influx of refugees since 2014 it has caused an even greater deal of debate about inclusion. In 2019, 70.8 million people were forced to move around the world, from whom nearly 25.4 million refugees (http://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html). The biggest influx was of refugees from Syria.

They have received asylum in over 125 countries, including the Netherlands

(https://www.werkwijzervluchtelingen.nl/feiten-cijfers/aantallen-herkomst.aspx). The Dutch government is undertaking action to make it easier for refugees to find their way into society.

However, this is not yet sufficient (Dagevos, Huijnk, Maliepaard et al., 2018). Not much

research has been conducted on the numerous community initiatives that have emerged as a

result of the lacking sufficiency of the government and in what way they play an important role in supporting refugee integration (Start 2016 in Rast and Ghorashi, 2018) while trying to become social enterprises themselves.

As Ghorashi and Rast (2018) mentioned, numerous community initiatives have emerged which want to play a significant role in refugee integration (Start 2016 in Rast and Ghorashi, 2018).

This is also underlined by a research done by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that mentions civil society plays an important role when looking at refugees and social inclusion (OECD, 2016). We actually know very little about the interaction of members of different backgrounds, such as refugees or (EU) migrants, and the experiences of interacting at a community level (Daley, 2007). Therefore, in this explorative study, an attempt is made to gain more insight into the role of Amsterdam initiatives in promoting social inclusion among refugees in Dutch society.

First we investigated what these social initiatives experience as obstaclesin their journey to grow into social enterprises. Secondly, we researched how refugees feel about their social inclusion and what role the initiatives played here. It contributes to the existing knowledge of social entrepreneurship as well as (to the) knowledge of refugee social inclusion, which results in benefits for the knowledge about social inclusion.

Next we will discuss what social initiatives are and how we define them. Then we will have a closer look at social entrepreneurship and social inclusion and we will elaborate on the method and results, finally the discussion is presented.

The Arise of Citizen Generated Social Initiatives around refugees

In the Netherlands there has been a shifting trend from welfare services being the responsibility of the state to being the responsibility of more local development or private enterprises

(regulated by the state). ‘With this transition from a welfare state to a participatory society, the

government is withdrawing from certain activities and sectors' (Abu Ghazaleh et al., 2017, page

23). Due to the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ and this shift into a ‘participation society’ there has

been a change in focus when looking at refugee settlement (Rast &Ghorashi, 2018).

When looking at the Netherlands below graphs (see figure 1) indicate the top nationalities of

applications in 2017 and 2018. In 2017 the total of asylum applications was 31.327 (Ministry of

Justice and Security, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, IND Business Information Centre,

2017) whereas in 2018 the number of total asylum applications was 30.380, which is only

slightly less (Ministry of Justice and Security, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, IND

Business Information Centre, 2018).

Figure 1. Top nationalities of applications in 2017 ((Ministry of Justice et al., 2017 p. 4). and 2018 in the Netherlands (Ministry of Justice and Security et al., 2018 p. 4)

With more refugees arriving in the Netherlands, increased tensions and anti-immigrant sentiments have been reported amongst the majority of the population. Some say refugees are

‘playing victims’ in order to access housing, benefits and employment (Bakker, Cheung &

2018

2017

Phillimore, 2016). For example, the establishment of temporary or additional reception centers resulted in strong opposition, demonstrations and attacks against asylum seekers and their shelters (EMN, 2016). Due to the governments’ struggle and the negative sentiment of some of the citizens, there are other citizens who actually want to contribute to helping the refugees, citizens who actually want to contribute are standing up. As a consequence, civic or community engagement is arising in most liberal democracies (which can of course vary in forms and fields) in Western European countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany,

Sweden, Belgium and Denmark (van Meerkerk, Koppenjan & Keast, 2015; Marsh et al., 2007;

Stolle & Hooghe, 2005; Dalton, 2008).

Civic engagement citizens can be seen as self-organizing, bottom-up initiatives that are usually

‘driven by personal experiences or interests to take care of ones’ own neighbourhood or

community, often in reaction to a (new) governmental intervention or as a response to a lack of governmental action in certain sectors or policy fields’ (Van Meerkerk et al., 2015 p.2).

Civic engagement can influence the inclusion of refugees, for example, by providing for service provision, mentorship programs, training and skills assessments, and local community initiatives (OECD, 2016).

Edelenbos, Van Meerkerk and Schenk (2016) frame it slightly differently by using the concept of

self-organization and define it as: ‘bottom-up initiatives that are community-driven and aim to

advance public administration and policy making via sustainable models of cooperation among

citizens’(p.3). Usually citizens organize themselves in local groups and engage in forms of

collective action. The reason could have arisen independently from, or in reaction to,

government-led processes or structures (Edelenbos & van Meerkerk, 2016). More and more

people are actively considering to take on a proactive, hands on role, wanting to challenge local

issues and needs themselves (van Meerkerk et al., 2015). They often feel responsible to help out,

which creates an urgency to get things started in their own environment (Schleijpen & Leatemia,

2014). They are active entrepreneurial citizens who work together to create social, economic and

environmental value (Sterk, Specht, & Walraven, 2013) and in the refugee context are able to

influence the integration of refugees in different ways depending on their expertise and

institutional set-up (OECD, 2016). Sterk, Specht and Walraven (2013) even describe citizens

who are equipped to think and act as change-makers and work vigorously with others to achieve social change as: social entrepreneurship part 3.0 (Sterk et al, 2013).

For refugees this ‘might constitute a turn towards a more inclusive approach to refugee reception: they offer a chance for refugees to take an active part in shaping their integration process for themselves’ (Ghorashi & Rast, 2018, page 189). In times when negative perceptions of foreigners are rising, and are perceived as the cause of a cohesion breakdown (Daley, 2007) it is of great importance that community cohesion is also pursued through citizen initiatives and social enterprises.

From Initiative to social Enterprise

Citizen-driven initiatives (in the beginning) mostly rely on public resources making it hard to be truly independent because they still need to interact with traditional formal institutions and government bodies (Healey, 2014). Examples of where citizen initiatives get their resources from are public grants or local, national and EU governments. However, recently public funding has been substantially reduced, and initiatives are becoming more dependent on other financial sources. Citizen initiatives realize that they need to develop their own way to generate income to pay for their own running costs. Some initiatives currently are trying out new methods such as crowd-funding (Healey, 2014). However, interaction between citizen initiatives and

governmental bodies will most likely always exist (Edelenbos, Klok, & van Tatenhove, 2009) also when they want to grow into social enterprises.

Although we do not expect that all the social citizen initiatives have the ambition to become a social enterprise, many do and therefore have to be able to survive to continue their contribution of impact on society, neighbourhood or community. Social enterprises are independent

companies that deliver a product or service, primarily and explicitly pursuing social purposes

(SER, 2015). Usually they carry out tasks that were previously (partly) carried out by the

government and therefore have an interest in social entrepreneurship. That is: it is usually about

social goals that the government is still striving for (Hogenstijn 2018).

Social entrepreneurship is a concept that has been widely used and as a consequence now lacks clarification, definition and differentiation; what is considered ‘normal’ entrepreneurship and when does it become ‘social’ entrepreneurship (Chell, Spence, Perrini & Harris, 2014,

Hogenstijn. 2018). Many researchers indicate that social enterprises offer solutions to different kinds of social problems and are effective in generating economic, social and environmental value (o.a.Haugh & Talwar, 2014, Acs, Boarman & McNeely 2013; Murphy and Coombes 2009). Sometimes even more than government invention would have been able to (Stephen, Patterson, Kelly, & Mair, 2016). The creation of social value is especially considered as one of the first steps of becoming a social enterprise (Dacin, Dacin & Tracey, 2011). Some researchers (see Hogenstijn, 2018) say that social entrepreneurship is between a (citizen) initiative and an economic enterprise, where the starting period usually focuses on social contributions and the next step is 'upscaling'.

For citizen generated social initiatives who actually do want to grow into a social enterprise, social value creation is one of the necessary conditions for social entrepreneurship. The creation of social value plays a central role in this type of initiative. Measuring social impact is therefore essential (Hogenstijn, 2018), as such measurement not only expands markets for a citizen

initiative but also improves access to funding and finance (Nicholls, 2007). Social impact can be considered as: ‘the positive shifts (changes) in the status quo of people (affected by a specific social problem) as a consequence of an action, activity, process, project and even policy undertaken by individuals, companies, governments etc’(Hadad & Gauca, 2014, p. 6-7).

To our knowledge not a lot of research has been done in investigating the path from citizen initiatives around refugees to social enterprises. Therefore, the following research question is formulated.

Research question 1 (RQ1):

What are the main issues that initiatives around refugees encounter when growing into a social

enterprise?

Refugees and Social inclusion

Integration

Probably the most common word used when talking about migrants and refugees is integration.

As with the definition of social entrepreneurship also the definition of integration is not unified and is a concept that has been defined by many and is understood differently by most (Ager and Strang, 2008). Different dimensions of integration are mentioned in the literature. There is structural integration, which means a successful participation in the economic life of the host society (also called economic integration). Being able to be part of the economic life,

employment is crucial and might be the most researched part of integration (Castles, Korac, Vasta & Vertovec, 2001). Through employment for example, economic independence, planning for the future, meeting members of the host society, providing opportunity to develop language skills, restoring self-esteem and encouraging self-reliance can be achieved (Africa Educational Trust 1998; Bloch 1999; Tomlinson and Egan 2002 in Ager & Strang, 2008). However, most refugees who arrive in their host counties encounter the problem of diplomas not being valid or qualifications not being recognized (ECRE 1999b in Ager & Strang, 2008).

Another form of integration is cultural integration which entails the adoption of host society values and customs (similar to assimilation), and social integration, which means participating in the social life of the host (Di Saint Pierre, Martinovic & de Vroome, 2015). Ager and Strang (2004) also mention the dimension of political integration. Valtonen (1999) defines integration as the process by which refugees ‘engage in, and become part of the social, cultural and

institutional fabric of society’ (p. 470). She also mentions that from a broad perspective,

integration can be defined as inclusion in the wider society (Valtonen, 1999).

Social inclusion

Social inclusion is referred to as the right of persons to live the kind of lives that they have reasons for to value and to have the capability to construct meaningful lives (Sen 1999; Andrade

& Doolin, 2016). There is hardly a difference between social inclusion and the definition of integration, as social inclusion also entails an economic dimension, civic and political participation, cultural identity, social interaction and interpersonal networks (Phipps 2000;

Selwyn 2002). However, Maidment and Macfarlane (2009) mention that social inclusion is more about self-determination than assimilation into dominant or mainstream norms and values (Andrade & Doolin, 2016). This appeals to us as, in order not to worsen the psychological condition of refugees, it is important that they experience positive emotions and to be simply capable of realizing this. For example, research shows that the time of the procedure, the uncertainty of a citizenship status and the right (not) to do anything, greatly affects their

psychological wellbeing (e.g. Schick, Zumwald, Knöpfli, Nickerson, Bryant, Schnyder, Müller, Morina, 2016; Laban Gernaat, Komproe, Schreuder, & De Jong, 2004). People who repeatedly experience positive emotions feel better, which allows them to perform better individually and collectively (Frederickson, 1998).

So it entails more than integration. Capabilites, for example, really entail all the aspects that we need to live a meaningful life (Nussbaum, 2011). The Capabilities Approach mentions that well- being is about real freedoms (capabilities) people have to achieve valuable ‘beings and doings’, known as ‘functionings’ (Austin, 2018). Capabilities are the things that we all need to live a flourishing life. The Capabilities Approach acknowledges a person’s hopes and dreams but simultaneously recognizes that these need to be supported by real skills, assets and social networks in order to release them (Cottam, Dillon, Hackett & Southgate, 2015). Kato, Weaver and Ashley (2016) even introduce a way of measuring social value creation using the capabilities approach as a framework. It measures in terms of capabilities (opportunities to convert resources into what people desire) and functioning’s (what people desire/value), where it captures societal level factors, individual preferences as well as identifies the marginalized population in a society.

Some say that ‘public policy ought to be the expansion of capabilities – the space within which

people can develop a conception of the good life, and have the opportunity and ability to live in

accordance with that conception’ (Austin, 2018, page 10). As public policy is shifting, this may also be true for social initiatives.

Based on the Capabilities Approach is the Wellogram. This is a testing method that focuses on four general capabalities (and 6 specific, see method) : 1) the ability to create and sustain

relationships, 2) to work and learn, 3) contribute to your community and 4) be healthy. This tool focuses on where people are in terms of their ability and has the very practical aim to help people make changes in their life to be able to live and stay well. They do this by focusing on the development of capabilities in order for people to be able to have the life they want for the long run (Cottam et al, 215). We will further elaborate on this in the method section.

This model is appealing for this research because we also research social entrepreneurship.

Recently, the first professor in Social Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands, even added an 18

sustainable development goal ‘Promote and strengthen the capabilities of individuals and the communities in which they live to actively participate in and effectively influence policies, practices and activities that are part of the global sustainability agenda’ (p. 73) which is in line with our approach (Hummels 2018).

As the social initiatives offer different kinds of programs, such as education courses, skill development or citizen engagement programs, research has shown that newcomers value the initiative’s work (Ghorashi & Rast, 2018). However, diversity researchers also show that minority participation does not necessarily promote inclusion, even if the intention is

to include (e.g. van der Raad, 2013; Ghorashi & Rast, 2018). Therefore, research question two is formulated.

Research question 2 (RQ2):

In what way do the social initiatives support refugees in their social inclusion process?

Method Research Question 1 Learning Network

We were looking for citizen initiatives that were active in the Amsterdam area to promote social inclusion among refugees. We found nine initiatives in Amsterdam that were willing to

participate in our learning network. They were initiatives that, according to them, were in the scaling up phase or at least needed more knowledge about it. They participated in order to learn and contribute to the knowledge of social entrepreneurship and social inclusion.

This study was conducted in the form of a learning network. This is an action-oriented and practice-based method through which the more and less experienced initiatives were able to learn from each other by sharing knowledge and expertise or look for new insights if the solution is not achieved yet (Zinsmeister, 2012; Hogenstijn, Zinsmeister, Sander & Meerman, 2016).

Through learning and knowledge sharing citizen initiatives were able to recognize their struggles in becoming a social entrepreneur and were able to collaboratively look for solutions at hand.

In 2016, a learning network with nine initiatives was set up by the HvA for research into the process from social initiative to social entrepreneur. It consisted of a network community where refugees can make contact with Dutch colleagues, organizations and companies, an initiative that arranges a careful matching between refugee and host family, an initiative that supports

ambitious entrepreneurs in the development and realization of professional projects, thus

activating the entrepreneurial spirit, a platform that brings local makers and newcomers together to create meaningful and sustainable products with a special story, an initiative that develops talent from different cultures and ages to shine on small and large stages in various cities;

Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Groningen, and an initiative that works with young people aged

from 16 onwards. These are mainly young people with a care background, developmental delay

and, or with an increased risk of social exclusion and crime. The learning network came together

during three meetings.

The first meeting was held at the location where several initiatives already have a communal working space. The learning network worked in stages to identify the problem, analyze it and work on possible solutions. Thus, during the first meeting we inventoried what the main challenges of the initiatives have been so far. All this is analyzed by the researcher. During the second and the third meeting, held at the Amsterdam University of applied sciences, the issues that had arisen from the first meeting were further discussed in more detail. The meetings lasted approximately 3 to 4 hours. They were recorded, transcribed and analyzed through inductive coding.

Method Research Question 2 Interviews

To answer the second research question, interviews with refuges were chosen as most

appropriate method. An interview model (see appendix 1). was created in order to collect data from refugees, during eleven semi-structured interviews. The interviewees where found via the social initiatives and social media, indeed we therefore have to take some selection bias into account. The interview questions to measure social inclusion were derived from the Wellogram (Cottam, Dillon, Hackett & Southgate, 2015) which is based on Nussbaums’ ‘Capability

Approach’. This approach takes into account that a person has dreams and aspirations and additionally recognizes that they need to be supported by real skills, assets and social networks in order to release them. The six capabilities that Wellogram measures are the following:1. Healthy Actions

2. Self Esteem / Resilience 3. Support / social interaction 4. Work & Learning

5. Future Plans & Goals ( planning future) 6. Community Involvement (Cottam et al., 2015)

The interviewees were informed that the recording of the interview would take place. One interviewer refused to have the interview recorded so the researcher took notes.

In order to analyze the data found after the eleven interviews, MAXQDA coding

software was used. The analysis of the data followed the process of coding the interviews according to the six aspects that social inclusion consist of from the Wellogram perspective (see appendix 1).

Results

Growth into a social enterprise

RQ1: What are the main issues initiatives around refugees encounter when growing into a social enterprise?

The first meeting with the social initiatives showed that the initiatives have difficulties in setting up a good business case and especially in measuring the 'social impact' of their initiative,

whereas this is crucial when scaling up the activities and to become sustainable. They want to be able to demonstrate that they contribute to the impact area they have chosen. Impact is a central concept for social enterprises, which can be defined as independent companies whose primary goal is to solve a social problem (SER 2015). These two subjects were further discussed in the second and third meeting as the network was also established for them to learn.

During the second meeting the possibilities of making a good business case were discussed in more detail. One of the initiatives mentioned:

I know that I have to make a good business model in order to survive, but as we are social it is good to hear that we actually have to think of ways of making money’.

The third meeting was about social impact measurement. The main issue which the initiatives indicated to have with the current impact tools is the economic aspect of it. The initiatives mentioned that the current measuring instruments could be enriched with an instrument which considers non-economically balanced aspects to a larger extent

Their key question was:

'How can we make impact tangible?'

This clearly showed that they would like to be able to express it as economically as possible in an economically balanced manner. This is also clearly expressed in the following story by one of the initiators:

'If you look at how the municipality measures social impact, then that is easy. For example, they want to provide work for as many refugees as possible (these people are now status holders but are often still called refugees). This is easy to measure. Having a job has been made an impact.

But what the municipality does not look at and what we think is very important, is the person really happy with that job, improves his quality of life, is he or she happier by having this job?

Has his or her social circle become bigger? These are questions that we also want to have answered from our company. This is what we aim for as a company. But this is difficult when it comes to impact measurement. It is difficult to make the intangible, tangible and therefore measurable. Then we know that we have made an impact '.

Impact measurement is one of the ways to promote sustainability. It is obviously not the only way but a necessary one. It is an intrinsic part of social entrepreneurship. Next, we will discuss the results of our second research question.

The social inclusion process of refugees

Our second research question was (RQ2): In what way do the social initiatives support refugees in their social inclusion process? The results will be discussed according to the Wellagram variables.

Healthy action

The fact that all eleven interviewees were involved with the initiatives turned out to be a sign

that they are taking healthy actions. They proactively looked for initiatives because they

recognized that not doing anything was not the way they wanted to live their lives, nor would

this bring them anywhere. However, it has to be noted that looking for an initiative is not the

only proactive thing most of the participants did, so it’s broader than just being involved with an initiative.

‘The initiative was very important to me, it was a way to further develop myself. I might have been a bit depressed and down because I did not want to sit and wait and do nothing. Now I feel a lot better’.

‘I also try to visit Dutch people at home, to see how they live and what they think, then you are more connected……You always need to be in contact with people’.

Most of the participants were very keen on developing themselves and therefore first started to look for an initiative. They needed it to live and do the things that can help to live a healthy life.

‘It’s my passion, and I see it as an opportunity to take in the learning aspect. I always look for opportunities to learn and develop to become a better person’.

One participant even mentioned that he has changed since he arrived to the Netherlands. He prefers to be alone more, became more calm. But he also needs to be social, feeling the energy of being alive to keep him healthy. Another participant said he learned that he needs routine, he had enough time here to discover this. He saw people who weren’t able to handle having all this

‘free’ time and as a consequence their mental health deteriorated. They weren’t able to take action to stay healthy. Another participant mentioned that he can try to do everything to have a good life but it means nothing without having his family here.

Self Esteem/Resilience

Participants mention that the initiative played a direct and indirect role in their lives. They say it can be very beneficial for some people, because a safe environment is created where people feel comfortable, can relax and discover that they can relate to other people (also from other cultures than their own). For some, the initiative involving music played a large role to feel good about oneself. For others, it was very helpful to get more entrepreneurial skills to work on their future and be positive about it. Being surrounded with smart or creative people is felt as very beneficial.

And being able to discuss and brainstorm helps in thinking positively.

‘I arrived here with nothing; no work, no friends no family. Step by step I am starting again, things will be ok again’.

Some of the participants mention that as the war and violence was so horrible, thing cannot get any worse. So being in the Netherlands offers them a safe place with new opportunities. All the participants seem to have a rather positive outlook on life at this moment in their lives. They say being involved with an initiative is a good start. One of the participants who was involved with an initiate that makes music says:

‘I love music, feeling sad disappears when I make music, I have many chances in the Netherlands and being involved with this initiative was the first chance I got’.

Two of the participants however highlight specifically that they are positive by nature and therefore feel good about themselves and about their future. Many refugees do not feel good and are depressed and sit at home but these are not the people who will go to an initiative, let alone speak to a researcher.

Many initiatives do very good work and the participants mention that it’s an added value to stay upbeat, however, it’s not the only aspect of added value. This is further elaborated in when looking at social support next.

Support and Social interaction

The amount of social support and social interaction they experience varies. Some say that the initiative offers them space to work and practice and to meet new people. They sometimes meet up with the people whom they have met through the initiative. Some made friends and are still in contact. Many however, posit that if the participants participating in the program of the

initiatives only consists of Syrian refugees, they didn’t really find the support nor did they learn

as much new things as they wanted. They say if the other participants were all Syrian, they all

have the same perspective and way of looking at things. In addition there seemed to be less

willingness to interact with each other.

One positive participant mentions: The initiative was very important to me, we had a nice international group with people from Eritrea, Somalia, Syria and from The Netherlands. From all over the world. It’s very nice to hear about their culture and tradition. Especially during dinners, we have time and talk about everything. What did you do, How was it for you?’

A less positive participant mentions: ‘Some of the Syrian people are failing a bit socially, due to the war. Maybe that person is from another village, maybe he supports another political party, maybe he is more extreme, has a religion or has not. This makes people more cautious and distant towards each other. They rather not have people from Syria. And some Dutch people think, let’s put them together to integrate. But some would rather not talk to each other’.

However, there is a general positive sense of support of the people who started the initiative.

Many say they were of good help and they can still turn to them if something is going on. Some have even become good friends.

Work and learning

All the participants are either involved in learning or working. Their level varies. They all realize this is an important aspect of creating a meaningful life here in the Netherlands. Many are still taking language courses and some say they feel pressure to pass this course. Some are still working on their A2 level (basic user) but others are already working to pass the B2 level exam (independent user). After they pass their language course they can start their education. Some will do it in the same area in which they were educated in Syria, others will do something else.

One of them is doing a ‘linking program’ so he can do his masters at university.

Also when regarding ‘work’, some already work on projects and are trying to succeed and others

are still sending out resumes to organizations. One participant mentions that he is working on

projects for schools, NGO’s and other organizations and gives presentations about the refugee

crisis in Europe and is facilitating cultural events. Another participant mentions that looking for

jobs was his full time job in the last 50 days. He managed to have four interviews and is hoping

something will come out of it. Another person just went to the Kalverstraat (shopping street in Amsterdam) and left his resume at different shops. But he feels a bit hesitant. He says they still prefer to hire a Dutch person and not someone from Syria (more will follow under Community involvement).

Some mention that they have a coach from the municipality who also helps them with looking for (volunteer) work and also they can ask the people from the initiatives. They see it as a good way to broaden their network to find a job. However, also concerning this aspect, a participant highlights that people involved with an initiative are different:

There are also many Syrian refugees who are not educated, they don’t know how to search the internet, or do research on the IND website. I am educated and can find all the rules and processes, but they can’t. Some of these people do look on social media, but there the

information is not always consistent. It makes them confused and they feel upset when they find so many platforms, institutions, initiatives etc.

The participants of this research have already been able to find their way to an initiative. They differ from the many refugees whom are not ‘in the picture’.

Future plans and goals

When asking about this subject they are all trying to get an education or an income. As

mentioned previously, most participants are currently learning the Dutch language to be able to

achieve their future plans and goals; but all of them are trying to build a life and are exploring

how they can reach their goals. Although one participant is hesitant about staying in the

Netherlands and therefore is wondering if he wants to invest time in learning Dutch. He is not

sure about his future but will probably stay until he gets his permit. When looking at education,

some are still figuring out what they want to learn others are getting an education that fits with

the education they followed in Syria and even others want to do something completely new (for

example one participant studied economics in Syria and now is considering becoming a dental

technician). Others are trying to find a job or starting their own business (as one of the initiatives

focuses on that).

They see participating in an initiative as a means to reach their goals. It depends on the type of initiative in how they see it contributes to their future plan and goals. Some give a very practical answer by saying that they are learning how to start their own business, are expanding their network to be able to take the next step (sometimes as ‘simple’ as providing an income) or broadening their vocabulary. Others see it as a way to develop themselves by learning and becoming a better person. One person even says it has helped them in a therapeutic way. The way he learned how to think about himself and what he wants really helped him.

One participant clearly mentions that by being part of an initiative he is trying to achieve his long term goal:’ Music influences how I feel and makes me smile but my big passion is the

environment. That is more of my overall goal; writing and doing storytelling is my way to the goal. Through this I hope to inspire people to care about the environment’..

Another participant mentions: ‘Hopefully next time I will be able to travel to my family and I can go back proud.

Community involvement

When looking at community involvement the participants seem to experience the most

difficulties. Although all of them say that the contact with the initiatives is very good and they have met people through these initiatives and made new friends, it proves to be more difficult to have real contact with a community that matters to them: ‘to become adapted to a new

community plays a big role in how you can deal with it, survive and are able to communicate’.

Being a refugee seems difficult for most. They say stereotypes exist, not all people are accepting

and there is a cultural shift they have to deal with: ‘in Syria we are used to having a lot of friends

as it is not normal to have a (romantic)relationship at a young age. Here, everybody has a

boyfriend/girlfriend and they don’t need groups of friends. Therefore, here it is more lonely for

us, we get depressed, we are used to having a lot of people around us . Here you go to school,

work and go home. You don’t have any more contacts’. Hence, this participants’’ observation

about the Dutch society.

Another person mentions that even though he lives in a culturally diverse part of Amsterdam, it does not make it any easier: ‘all people have their own society, environment. They are happy with each other and it is difficult to come in between’.

In the beginning there weren’t many Syrian refugees, people were interested, but now you see them thinking: ’there is another one’.

I started experiencing how people started to deal with me regarding my label, not the person I am. I am a law student and I have worked in many different countries, many people don’t see this or don’t want to see this’.

Conclusion

Our first research question was what the main issues are that initiatives around refugees experience when growing into a social enterprise?

From our learning network meetings the two main issues that arose were making a good business model and what way impact can be measured when the impact area is the social inclusion of refugees. As mentioned, most initiatives start from an idealistic point of view; wanting to help those in need and create social impact. They feel responsible to help out and work together to create social, economic and environmental value (Schleijpen & Leatemia, 2014; Sterk, Specht, &

Walraven, 2013). One of the main struggles for most of the initiatives turned out to be being able to make a good business model. This highlights the difference between starting an enterprise from an idealistic, social perspective or a more monetary, economic perspective. One of the crucial differences between a citizen initiative and a social enterprise after all is, independent entrepreneurship. In the end they have to be able to be independent from subsidiaries

(Hogenstijn, 2018). Van der Veen and Wakkee (2002) visualize an entrepreneurial process (see figure 2) in three stages. The first stage is recognition of opportunity, here initial ideas are developed into business opportunities. As mentioned, the social initiatives in this research already had issues with turning ideas into business opportunities instead of ‘just’ opportunities.

The second stage is opportunity exploitation. Here the business opportunity is translated into a

concrete offering. The social initiatives have something good to offer but again the business mind for some is difficult to realize. The third stage is value creation, this one is important as Van der Veen and Wakkee (2002) highlight it is about value and not wealth creation that highlight the possible non-economic outcomes of the process. This is crucial for the involved social initiatives as, the many non-economic outcomes are also of great value for a social enterprise. Focusing their business model on actual monetary earnings is difficult and in our opinion needs a change of mindset (as one of the participants said, they now they have to start charging money for their ‘product’). But also being able to measure impact can be beneficial to make a good distinction of balancing the monetary and the non-monetary outcomes.

Figure 2. The entrepreneurial process in three stages (van der Veen & Wakkee, 2002)

The second issue turned out to be impact measurement. Many social enterprises use social

impact measurement to strategically improve their performance, access resources, and build

organizational legitimacy (Nicholls 2009). The social problem that an enterprise would like to

tackle is however not always clear, which is also shown in our research. Which solution has

greater impact, how is the outcome measured? Additionally, the context, the problem that is

addressed, and the social value that is to be created, can differ greatly for different enterprises

(Hadad & Gauca, 2014). Barraket and Yousefpour (2013) mention a number of challenges,

especially for small to medium social enterprises, such as: ‘resource issues; the complexity of

operationalizing ‘impact’; and organizational challenges in collecting and analysing data over

time’ (p.448). This is also the case for the initiatives in this research. Impact measurement is

costly and inclusion is not as easily measured as something more objective like having a house or a job. And how can you prove that it was the impact of your initiative and not something else?

Our second research question was In what way do the social initiatives help refugees in their social inclusion process?

The participants in this research are all trying to take control over their lives and are learning how to make change and achieve a life that they are living well and attributed various benefits to their active participation in the initiatives. They all mention that they met new people, that the people who started the initiative were very helpful and that they liked participating. This is also in line with the research conducted by Ghorashi and Rast (2018).

Discussion

An interesting notion in this research is that participants said they are very outgoing and do everything in their power to achieve participating in the society. So for them, taking part in an initiative was a very logical thing to do, either to network, find a job or to have their time spent well. They have the (mental) strength to do this and would have done it either way if initiatives would not have been available. Most participants are trying in as many ways as possible to participate in order to be able to build a good life and some of them are involved in more than one initiative. An interesting notion here is Byrne’s (1961) similarity-attraction paradigm, which posits that when people are more similar to each other, the more they like each other. This is a very popular notion and considerable research has provided evidence for this

paradigm (see Byrne, 1997, for a review).

Most research has focused primarily on similarity in more easily observable demographic

characteristics, such as ethnicity, gender, and age and to a lesser extent perceived deeper level

similarity. Examples are similarity in terms of values, personality andentrepreneurial mindset,

outgoing types who want to participate in/have impact on society. After all, in this research many

refugees indicate that they are still in contact with the founders of the initiatives and some have

even become friends. So, similarity in deep-level characteristics may also lead to taking part in

the program of the initiative from the refugee perspective and finding these refugees whowant to take part in the program from the founders of the initiatives’ perspective. We believe social initiatives really should try to look above and beyond and find the refugees who need help most and are not visible to them.

When looking at the aspects specifically we can see that all the participants are still more in the starting side of their inclusion process in the Netherlands. Many are still trying to learn the language and haven’t started their education or ‘real’ job.

The only issue they are struggling with even more, is the community involvement. This is with the Dutch community but for some participants also with the Syrian community. When we look at Granovetters’ ideas (1973) about networks, he mentions that that strong, broad, neighborhood- oriented ties ('strong ties') are most important for social support. This is a basic human need and it is only logical that most initiatives focus on this. However, to take next steps, the ‘weak ties’

are also important. The Syrian refugees mention that they find it difficult to have ‘strong as well as weak ties’, and as Hogenstijn and Middelkoop (2008) mention, it is exactly through these links that a person can obtain information which is in not easy to retrieve in their neighborhood, for example information on where you can find a new job.

The refugees in this study find it difficult to really make contact with Dutch people and some prefer not to be in contact with other Syrian people due to the war or don’t see it as beneficial.

This is also in line with previous research that shows there is a lack of understanding of integration processes in general and social integration and cohesion in particular, and there is insufficient research examining social network formation between new refugees, migrant groups and established communities (Castles et al., 2002 in Daley 2007). When looking at the initiatives we might be able to say that they have created strong ties for and with the refugees. After all, most of them started from an idealistic point of view and wanted to help the refugees who came to the Netherlands. However, within strong ties, the sense of mutuality and liking might not help growth and opportunity and as mentioned previously, the weak ties are of considerable

importance for refugees to think further and see what other/different opportunities are available

for them. Maybe it will help initiatives to better articulate their impact area and determine how

this can be achieved (perhaps through weak ties). This might become more clear when, for example, formulating their theory of change, which is part of the Impactpad. The aim of theory of change (TOC) is to start reasoning with the intended impact. From there you go back to the other elements. First, the effects that activities have on the initiatives’ stakeholders and society are considered and then the direct results of the activities of the initiative, the activities itself and finally to the needed sources or resources are checked (Hogenstijn, 2018). In our opinion this way the impact area can better be understood and the social initiatives are better capable of realizing that they should also try to find the refugees who need the help most and are not yet visible to them.

Literature

Abu Ghazaleh, N., Hogenstijn, M., Meerman, M., Zinsmeister, J., & Ballafkih,

H. (2017). Meedoen in Nieuw-West 2: de rol van bedrijven in de participatiesamenleving.

Amsterdam: Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Urban Management.

Acs, Z. J., Boardman, M. C., & McNeely, C. L. (2013). The social value of productive entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 785-796.

Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2004). The Experience of Integration: A qualitative study of refugee integration in the local communities of Pollockshaws and Islington. Research

Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office.

Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework.

Journal of refugee studies, 21(2), 166-191.

Andrade, A. D., & Doolin, B. (2016). Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees. Mis Quarterly, 40(2), 405-416.

Austin, A. (2018). Well-Being and Social Justice: In Defence of the Capabilities Approach. In The Politics of Wellbeing (pp. 49-70). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Bakker, L., Cheung, S. Y., & Phillimore, J. (2016). The asylum integration paradox: ‐ Comparing asylum support systems and refugee integration in the Netherlands and the UK.

International Migration, 54(4), 118-132.

Bang, H.P. (2009). “Yes we can”: Identity politics and project politics for a late- modern world. Urban Research and Practice, 2(2), 1–21.

Barraket, J., & Yousefpour, N. (2013). Evaluation and social impact measurement amongst small to medium social enterprises: Process, purpose and value. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(4), 447-458.

Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713-715.

Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(3), 417-431.

Castles, S., Korac, M., Vasta, E., & Vertovec, S. (2001). Integration: Mapping the Field, Report of a project carried out by the Centre for Migration and Policy Research and Refugee Studies Centre. University of Oxford.

Cottam H., Dillon C., Hackett, T. & Southgate E.(2015). Wellogram Learning report.

Retrieved from http://www.participle.net/health

Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization science, 22(5), 1203-1213.

Dagevos, J., Huijnk, W., Maliepaard, M., & Miltenburg, E. (2018). Syriërs in Nederland.

Daley, C. (2007). Exploring community connections: community cohesion and refugee integration at a local level. Community Development Journal, 44(2), 158-171.

Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation.

Political studies, 56(1), 76-98.

Chell, E., Spence, L. J., Perrini, F., & Harris, J. D. (2016). Social entrepreneurship and business ethics: Does social equal ethical?. Journal of business ethics, 133(4), 619-625.

Di Saint Pierre, F., Martinovic, B., & De Vroome, T. (2015). Return wishes of refugees in the Netherlands: The role of integration, host national identification and perceived

discrimination. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(11), 1836-1857.

Edelenbos, J., Klok, P. J., & Van Tatenhove, J. (2009). The institutional embedding of

interactive policy making: insights from a comparative research based on eight interactive

projects in the Netherlands. The American review of public administration, 39(2), 125-148.

Edelenbos, J., & van Meerkerk, I. (Eds.). (2016). Critical reflections on interactive governance: Self-organization and participation in public governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Edelenbos, J., van Meerkerk, I., & Schenk, T. (2018). The evolution of community self-organization in interaction with government institutions: Cross-case insights from three countries. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(1), 52-66.

EMN. Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum: Synthesis report 2015. Retrieved from http://emn.ie/cat_publication_detail.jsp?clog=1&itemID=2996&t=6

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions?. Review of general psychology, 2(3), 300-319.

Ghorashi, H., & Rast, M. C. (2018). Dancing with ‘the other’: Challenges and opportunities of deepening democracy through participatory spaces for refugees. Social Inclusion, 6(1), 188-198.

Granovetter, M. (1973), ‘The strength of weak ties,’ American Journal of Sociology , 78, 1360–1380.

Hadad, S., & Gauca, O. D. (2014). Social impact measurement in social entrepreneurial organizations. Management & Marketing, 9(2), 119.

Healey, P. (2015). Citizen-generated local development initiative: recent English experience. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 19(2), 109-118.

Haugh, H. M., & Talwar, A. (2016). Linking social entrepreneurship and social change:

The mediating role of empowerment. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 643-658.

Het Impactpad. Avance, Social Enterprise NL and Impact Centre Erasmus (2018).

Retrieved from https://impactpad.nl/

Hogenstijn, M., Zinsmeister, J., Sander, J., & Meerman, M. (2016). In geouwehoer kun je niet werken: eindrapport Leernetwerk Sociaal Ondernemerschap en Omgaan met de Overheid - pilot Amsterdam Nieuw-West. Amsterdam: Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Lab Social

Entrepreneurship.

Hogenstijn, M. & Van Middelkoop, D. (2008).‘Zo werkt dat hier niet’. Gevestigden en buitenstaanders in nieuwe sociale en ruimtelijke kaders (in Dutch). PhD Thesis, Utrecht

University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Hogenstijn, M. (2018). Sociaal ondernemerschap: grip op het begrip. Uitgeverij

Eburon.

Hummels, G. J. A. (2018). The 18th SDG. Social entrepreneurship in a global society.

Oratie Universiteit Utrecht, 1 maart. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/369840 Kato, S., Weaver, R. L., & Ashley, S. (2016). Measuring Social Value: Potential Applications of the Capabilities Approach. Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2016, No. 1, p. 11509). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

Laban, C. J., Gernaat, H. B., Komproe, I. H., Schreuders, B. A., & De Jong, J. T. (2004).

Impact of a long asylum procedure on the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in Iraqi asylum seekers in The Netherlands. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 192(12), 843-851.

Maidment, J., & Macfarlane, S. (2009). 2.7 Debating the capacity of information and communication technology to promote inclusion. Theorising social exclusion, 95.

Ministry of Justice and Security, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, IND

Business Information Centre (2018). Asylum Trends: Monthly Report on Asylum Applications in The Netherlands Recent trends, 1-10.

Ministry of Justice and Security, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, IND

Business Information Centre (2018). Asylum Trends: Monthly Report on Asylum Applications in The Netherlands Recent trends, 1-10.

Nicholls, A. 2007. What is the future of social enterprise in ethical markets?, London:

Office of The Third Sector.

Nicholls, A. (2009). ‘We do good things, don’t we?’:‘Blended Value Accounting’in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, organizations and society, 34(6-7), 755-769.

Nussbaum MC (2011) Creating capabilities. Harvard University Press, Harvard.

OECD (2016), Making Integration Work: Refugees and others in need of protection, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251236-en.

Phipps, L. (2000). New communications technologies-A conduit for social inclusion.

Information, Communication & Society, 3(1), 39-68.

Selwyn, N. (2002). ‘E-stablishing’an inclusive society? Technology, social exclusion and UK government policy making. Journal of social Policy, 31(1), 1-20.

Sen, A. K. 1999. Development as Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER). (2015). Sociale ondernemingen: een verkennend advies. Advies 15/03, mei 2015.

https://www.ser.nl/~/media/db_adviezen/2010_2019/2015/sociale-ondernemingen.ashx

Schick, M., Zumwald, A., Knöpfli, B., Nickerson, A., Bryant, R. A., Schnyder, U., Müller & Morina, N. (2016). Challenging future, challenging past: The relationship of social integration and psychological impairment in traumatized refugees. European journal of psychotraumatology, 7(1), 28057.

Schleijpen, R., & Leatemia, L. (2014). Pioniers in de stad: Wijkondernemers delen kennis en praktijk. Haarlem: Trancity/Valiz.

Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C., & Mair, J. (2016). Organizations driving positive social change: A review and an integrative framework of change processes. Journal of

Management, 42(5), 1250-1281.

Sterk, E., Specht, M., & Walraven, G. (2013). Sociaal ondernemerschap in de participatiesamenleving: Van de brave naar de eigenwijze burger. Maklu.

Stolle, D., Hooghe, M. and Micheletti, M. (2005) ‘Politics in the Supermarket: Political Consumerism as a Form of Political Participation’,International Political Science Review, 26, 245–70.

UNHCR (2019).Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html UNHCR (2019).Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/syria-emergency.html

Valtonen, K. (1999). The Integration of Refugees in Finland in the 1990s (No. 224).

Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.

Van der Raad, S. (2013).Othering and inclusion of ethnic minority professionals: A study on ethnic diversity dis-courses, practices and narratives in the Dutch legal workplace.

Amsterdam: VU University Press.

Van der Veen, M., & Wakkee, I. (2002). Understanding the entrepreneurial process.

ARPENT: Annual Review of Progress in Entrepreneurship, 2, 114.

Van Meerkerk, I., Koppenjan, J., & Keast, R. (2015). New citizen collectives, their democratic potential and their implications for public management.

Vluchtelingenwerk Nedeland (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/feiten-cijfers/landen-van-herkomst/syrie Werkwijzer vluchtelingen (2019). Retreived from

https://www.werkwijzervluchtelingen.nl/feiten-cijfers/aantallen-herkomst.aspx

Zinsmeister, J. (2012). Oud is wijs genoeg. Een studie naar de inzet van de

arbeidsvermogens van oudere werknemers. Amsterdam: CAREM/Hogeschool van Amsterdam.

http://kennisbank.hva.nl/document/495322

Appendix 1

1.Healthy Actions

Due to the social initiative:

Are you able to take actions that can help you live a healthier life? This relates to being able to recognize and do the things that can help you live a healthier life

2.Self Esteem / Resilience

Are you generally able to feel good about yourself, get through tough times and enjoy life? This relates to thinking positively about yourself, being able to Network recover from set-backs, stay upbeat and have a positive outlook.

3.Support / social interaction

Are you able to draw on family (if they are here) and friends for support when you need it? This relates to developing and using a support network constructively.

4.Work & Learning

Are you able to participate in work and learning activities that you value and enjoy (in the host society? This relates to staying mentally active, learning new skills language or being productive (i.e. working) by doing things that give you enjoyment and satisfaction.

5.Future Plans & Goals ( planning future)

Are you able to plan and achieve goals that you set for yourself? This relates to being able to set realistic goals and take action to achieve them.

6.Community Involvement

Are you able to be involved in a community that matters to you? This relates to being able to

engage within a community that matters to you.