• Methodology for the NICeR Project• NICeR Evaluation Report• Vademecum On Intercultural Education

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union.

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can

in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union

Creative Commons License

Table of Contents

Methodology for the NiCeR Project ........................................................................................ 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Ethos ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Challenging the Terminology ................................................................................................................... 2

Context in the Partner Cities .................................................................................................................... 2

Molenbeek, Belgium ............................................................................................................................ 2

Liverpool, England ............................................................................................................................... 3

Nicosia, Cyprus .................................................................................................................................... 3

Rome, Italy .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Timisoara, Romania ............................................................................................................................. 5

Sevilla, Spain........................................................................................................................................ 7

Berlin, Germany................................................................................................................................... 8

Aims of a Musical and Language Training for Refugee and Local Youth .................................................... 9

Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Pilot Projects and Inspirations............................................................................................................ 10

1.The Theatre of the Oppressed ........................................................................................................ 10

2. Opéra Q ......................................................................................................................................... 12

3. JugendtheaterBüro Berlin .............................................................................................................. 12

4. RARE Studio Liverpool: ................................................................................................................... 13

Project Outline ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Staff: Finding the Correct Practitioners to Deliver the Training ........................................................... 15

Recruitment: Selecting and Recruiting the Right Participants ............................................................. 17

How to carry out the recruitment process ......................................................................................... 18

Structure: How to Structure the Course to Reach the Aims and Objectives ............................................ 21

The Theater Workshops ..................................................................................................................... 21

Structure of the theater workshop..................................................................................................... 22

Three steps to create an intercultural musical ................................................................................... 24

The Language Workshops .................................................................................................................. 26

Monitoring Tools: Measuring the impact of the project ......................................................................... 27

NiCeR Evaluation Report ............................................................................................................ 33

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 33

Methodological challenges .................................................................................................................... 34

Methodology and data collection process ............................................................................................. 35

Key results ............................................................................................................................................. 36

Belgium ............................................................................................................................................. 36

Cyprus ............................................................................................................................................... 37

Germany ........................................................................................................................................... 39

Italy ................................................................................................................................................... 40

Romania ............................................................................................................................................ 42

Spain ................................................................................................................................................. 44

UK ..................................................................................................................................................... 45

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 46

Vademecum On Intercultural Education ............................................................. 49 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 49

Key concepts ......................................................................................................................................... 51

Refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, migrants ............................................................................... 51

General principles and conceptual challenges .................................................................................... 52

Integration and inclusion ................................................................................................................... 53

Culture and cultural differences ......................................................................................................... 55

Ethnicity versus communautarisme ................................................................................................... 56

Ethnicity: ethnic groups and boundaries ........................................................................................ 56

Anti-communautarisme: denial of the right to belong .................................................................... 57

Cultural differences, social inequality and power relations ................................................................ 57

Barriers to integration and social inclusion ............................................................................................ 59

Stereotypes and prejudices................................................................................................................ 59

Racism ............................................................................................................................................... 59

Discrimination ................................................................................................................................... 60

The glass ceiling effect ....................................................................................................................... 61

The Golem effect ............................................................................................................................... 61

Strategies to promote positive intercultural attitudes............................................................................ 63

False solutions: tokenism, individualisation, ignoring differences ....................................................... 63

Solutions based on the contact hypothesis ........................................................................................ 63

Ignorance theory: getting to know each other beyond stereotypes ................................................ 63

Intergroup contact ......................................................................................................................... 64

Common ingroup identity model ................................................................................................... 65

Interculturalism, democratic culture and inclusive societies .................................................................. 66

Interculturalism as acculturation orientation ..................................................................................... 66

Interculturalism as a normative approach in public policies ............................................................... 67

Transculturalism ................................................................................................................................ 68

Competences for democratic culture ................................................................................................. 68

Intercultural education .......................................................................................................................... 70

Intercultural versus monocultural education ..................................................................................... 70

Traps to avoid in intercultural education ........................................................................................... 71

Inclusive education and intercultural education ................................................................................. 73

Methodological references for inclusive intercultural education ........................................................ 73

References ............................................................................................................................................ 75

1

METHODOLOGY

Introduction This document presents a proposal of how organisations could develop, with the support of professional artists and coaches, a performing arts training project whose aim is to bring together young refugees and local youth in European cities.

We would like to suggest a methodology that stimulates the engagement of refugee youth in the local life of the city where they live through the combination of language and musical training giving empowerment to the young people.

Ethos

In 2015, more than a million refugees arrived in Europe and just as many, if not more, are expected to come in 2016. They are fleeing war, terrorism, poverty, hunger, searching for safety and a better life.

Most of them are young, or come with children of schooling age. All over Europe, they are accommodated in refugee shelters, reception facilities or in makeshift camps, where the opportunities for interaction and exchange with locals are very limited, and very often language and cultural barriers can be a major obstacle. On the other hand, the local population has little understanding of who the refugees actually are and where they come from. Currently, a growing number of Europeans perceives this situation as a crisis, which has been giving rise to fear, right-wing populism, xenophobia and a generalised anti-immigration sentiment.

This situation creates the need to identify and implement innovative instruments to counterbalance this prejudice.

We believe that it is especially important for refugee minors and young adults to become active participants in the local life of their new homes and to make contact as well as build lasting connections with local youth. As a matter of fact, not only are they adjusting to life in a new country and recovering from trauma, but they are also dealing with these experiences at a critical stage of their lives, that of transition to adulthood.

In this sense, giving them the opportunity to get to know the local culture and language and establish connections and friendships between refugees and locals are important steps towards refugee empowerment, so that they can achieve a sense of belonging in society.

2

Challenging the Terminology

The following methodology would also like to call into question the use of the term integration, which has become a controversial concept with different meanings and interpretations.

In European policy documents, for example, integration is seen as a two-way process, in which newcomers and natives have to adapt to each other.

However, in some European countries this term is often used in the political and institutional discourse as well as in mainstream media as a synonym for assimilation. In this sense, it is generally perceived as a one-way process in which migrants are required to leave their own culture behind and adopt the language, culture and practices of the host country. This misuse of the concept of integration is based on the understanding of society as homogenous and therefore creates a difference: the person that is not part of what is considered to be the norm is seen as an “outsider” and required to "fit into” what already exists. In doing so, a dominant versus dominated culture paradigm is established.

With this project we would like to challenge this model and the use of this word in EU terminology. In this sense, we wish to put forward that the most beneficial approach for Europe is to see migration as an enrichment, and therefore to create the basis for a shared culture or remix culture. In the same way we wish to see migration as an enrichment of terminology as well and encourage the use of different, inclusive and more representative terms such as self-determination and active participation.

Context in the Partner Cities

Seven partner cities are participating in this project. In order to develop a transeuropean methodology, it is important to analyse the context in each country and city involved.

Molenbeek, Belgium

Molenbeek-Saint-Jean is one of the most intercultural and poor communes in Belgium, with an unemployment rate widely above the average of the Brussels region and a clearly younger population than the national average. For more than 50 years, Molenbeek has been a place of reception favored by the successive waves of immigrations that Brussels experienced. For some of the newcomers, it is a crossing point that they leave as soon as they have acquired administrative and economic security. The situation at the Petit château, the main asylum seeker reception center in the Brussels region, perpetuates its role of first welcome area for migrants, and thus for refugees.

As far as refugees are concerned, after the wave of people who arrived in 2015, fleeing the wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, the situation had changed. In 2016, notably after the agreements with the Turkish government, the number of asylum applicants dropped. Several reception centers were closed to rationalise the places occupied in the different existing centers. Numerous asylum seekers were moved,

3

again, to other regions of the country, in the centers that remained open. This is symptomatic of Belgium's approach to welcoming refugees, who regularly have to move around the country, following governmental decisions and regulations for their distribution on the Belgian territory.

Liverpool, England

The United Kingdom is 7th in Europe for asylum claims, in 12 months to June 2015 there were 35,045 claims for asylum.

In 2012, there were an estimated 469,700 people living in Liverpool. The city has a relatively young population, with the median age being 29 years compared to 35 years for England. 15.2% of the Liverpool population come from a minority ethnic group, equating to approximately 71,000 residents. Liverpool is the most deprived local authority in the country, with 42/291 (14%) of lower superoutput areas in the city being in the most deprived 1% nationally. Childhood poverty remains a major challenge, with over 60% of children in some wards living in poverty.

The Home Office provides accommodation for all eligible people seeking asylum whilst their cases are being processed, including transport to the accommodation. In March 2012, 6 national COMPASS (Commercial and Operating Managers Procuring Asylum Support) were award by the Home Office to three private providers (G4S, Serco and Clearel) to fulfil these duties.

Liverpool is one of 5 cities in the UK designated as initial accommodation sites. It is the north west base for refugees and asylum seekers, from which they are dispersed throughout the region.

Asylum Link Merseyside is one of the main agencies that works closely to support, manage and guide people looking for refugee status. They offer practical support, legal support and friendship to both asylum seekers and refugees. In 2015 they dealt with 954 claims for asylum. Of these they were broken down into: Iran (136), Eritrea (116), Sudan (74), Iraq (44), Libya (43), Ethiopia (42), Sri Lanka (36), Syria (36), Pakistan (34). The rest of the nations are below 30 people making a claim.

However, these were official claims for asylum, they also dealt with approcmately 3,000 refugees and other asylum seekers each month during 2015 with the highest amount being 3643 in one month alone.

The people seeking asylum in the Liverpool region are predominantly young men. Numbers of children and unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in the UK are noted to be low and declining. Numbers for unaccompanied minors aged 16-18 are higher. Any young people who are of school age are once identified as asylum seekers then managed by the local authority.

Nicosia, Cyprus

The Republic of Cyprus used to grant reception conditions in the form of welfare benefit, but the revised public benefits system for asylum seekers and persons with humanitarian protection status, developed by the Council of Ministers and voted by the House of Representatives in July 2013, is an example par excellence of the socially divisive policies of the government, which basically lead to further

4

marginalisation of asylum seekers, as the revised system provides for two different levels of benefits: one for Cypriots/other EU citizens (minimum income guarantee), and another for asylum seekers and persons with humanitarian protection status, to replace what used to be a uniform for all public benefits system. The new system grants asylum seekers a reduced amount of public benefit and provides to receive a large part of it (for food, clothing, and footwear) in the form of vouchers . The system was adopted without any assessment or consideration as to the best possible way for the provision of material reception conditions to asylum seekers or whether the voucher system would cost less than monetary benefits and ignoring the complexity and cost of its management. It is certain that neither the reduced amount of public benefit nor the coupons system can guarantee asylum seekers decent living conditions. Rather, they condemn them to living in extreme poverty and misery, while their human dignity is further violated.

Moreover, once refugees apply for international protection in the country, they are referred to the Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers in Kofinou until their asylum application is examined, a procedure, which often takes years to be completed. In short, the remote location of the Reception Centre in Kofinou, combined with the conditions that prevail within the centre today (lack of effective management, overpopulation) may serve to trigger the traumatic experiences that some refugees may have experienced in the past. Additionally, the remote location hampers the integration of refugees. KISA’s experience indicates that the referral to the Centre is also being used by the authorities as a mechanism to deprive asylum seekers of their right to material reception conditions. More specifically, if asylum seekers refuse to stay in the centre, their refusal automatically leads to the termination of the provision of material reception conditions.

Rome, Italy

Since 2008, with the increasing conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa region, the number of refugee arrivals in Italy has also increased.

About 25,000 applications for international protection were submitted in the first five months of 2015, with 64% of asylum seekers being of African origin (the top three countries are Nigeria, Gambia and Senegal), 24% of Asian origin, and 11% of European origin. The majority of them (90%) are men.

Since 2014 Ukraine is also among the top ten nationalities. In 2014 the asylum seekers from this country were around 2,000; the same number of Ukrainians applied for protection in Italy only in the first five months of 2015.

Lazio is the second region in Italy by number of foreign residents (636,524, that is 10,8% of its population). The city of Rome alone has 523,957 foreign residents (12.7% of its inhabitants). On average, foreign residents in Italy represent 8,2% of the population.

The year 2014 saw an increase of 50.4% of the residence permits issued for asylum and international protection in the province of Rome. As a consequence, the regionꞌs reception system was strengthened, with 4,790 seats available in Lazio, 68% of which in the capital. Around 2,000 seats for extraordinary reception were activated in Rome and in the province.

5

As of 2014, 117,396 foreign minors and 8,777 new Italian citizenship acquisitions were registered in Lazio. 7,235 of these concern the city of Rome only, with an increase of about 30% compared to 2013. However, the number of unregistered refugees has also increased. Most of them live in occupied buildings, tents and slums, notably in the countryside, in unacceptable living conditions and completely neglected by the institutions.

Despite the activation of a wider system, the reception facilities were paralysed by the increasing number of arrivals in 2014 and 2015. Many newcomers voluntarily escaped the identification procedures, since according to the EUꞌs Dublin Regulation they would be obliged to apply for protection and residence in the Member State through which they enter the EU, and thus to stay in Italy.

In December 2015 the European Commission opened an infringement procedure for failure to identify tens of thousands of refugees landing on Italian shores. As from the end of 2015, the “hotspot approach” was launched to ensure a swift registration of newcomers and a fair distribution of refugees among EU member states. According to this system, the newcomers who “are not in need of protection” are immediately sent back to their country of origin; as a consequence, the implementation of this procedure contributed to increase the population of the informal settlements and to the further marginalisation of vulnerable groups.

The inhabitants of the informal settlements can be divided into two groups: those who arrived in Italy in the previous three months, and those who have been living there for more than three months. The members of the first group have recently arrived and are only waiting to move to another EU member state; the second group are those who have been excluded from the reception facilities. 14.8% of them are women; most of them are in their mid thirties, with only 25% being 40+. The top countries of origin are Eritrea (38.8%), Ghana (12.6%), Nigeria (6.6%) and Somalia (6.7%).

Almost all the informal settlements are completely neglected by the institutions and local authorities; they are “tolerated” due to the absence of alternative solutions. For this reason, their inhabitants are characterised by a widespread mistrust, if not downright hostility towards local authorities and organisations.

According to the Roman Minister of the Interior there were 103 illegal settlements in Rome as of December 2015. At least three of them have a population composed almost exclusively of Eritrean refugees.

Timisoara, Romania

The jurisdiction managing asylum application in Romania is the Asylum and Integration Directorate (IAD) of the General Inspectorate for Immigration, Ministry of Interior, through the 6 Regional Centres for Accommodation and Procedures for Asylum Seekers in Bucharest, Galati, Giurgiu, Radauti, Şomcuta Mare and Timisoara.

6

According to the General Inspectorate for Immigration there were 1,266 asylum applications in 2015. Compared to 1,547 in 2014, the country registered a 18% decrease over the previous year. Among the top countries of origin of these asylum applicants are Syria (541), Iraq (214) and Afghanistan (96).

A form of protection was granted in 472 cases, with 230 persons being granted refugee status and 242 subsidiary protection, totaling a 59% approval rate. A total of 204 people were enrolled in the program of integration.

According to the General Inspectorate for Immigration in Romania, a total of 26,442 people submitted applications for some type of protection between 1991 and 2015. 4981 of these applicants were granted refugee status or subsidiary protection.

According to the statistics published by the General Inspectorate for Immigration in Romania, there are 644 refugee minors residing in Romania as of November 2015.

Most of them (334) live in Bucharest, the Romanian capital city. 53 minor refugees live in Timisoara as of the end of 2015, although this number covers 6 different districts in the western side of the country.

As of November 2015, the total number of refugees with a national ID in Romania is 2,492. 236 of these are registered in the western side of the country, in the Timisoara Center of the Immigration Office.

After the European Commission's decision to relocate a total of 160,000 refugees from Italy and Greece in all European countries, adopted by the EU Council in September 2015, Romania should receive a total of 6,351 refugees.

Romania's initial reaction was to reject the mandatory EU quota, along with Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.

The Romanian president, Klaus Iohannis, publicly declared the country's opposition to the quota system in a press conference on September 7, 2015, stating that “Romania does not have the capacity to integrate these refugees in society” due to its poor infrastructure.

The latest polls show that over 80% of Romanian also oppose to refugees settling in Romania.

One possible cause of this reluctantly perception of the Romanian population towards refugees resettlement through quota system is due to the reduced capacity of governments to manage the integration of immigrants-effectiveness. According to the Romanian Academic Society, “these perceptions indicate a low role of public authorities in facilitating the inclusion of migrants” since “the assistance of immigrants in Romania is made by non-governmental organizations, religious structures and migrant organizations and this not only compensates, but most often replaces the assistance that could be given by the local authorities”.

On the other hand, many initiatives came from the local communities to support refugees in Romania. Many non-governmental organizations provide complementary social and legal services to asylum seekers

7

and refugees upon their arrival, for example the Ecumenical Association of Churches in Romania AIDRom, the Romanian National Council for Refugees (CNRR), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the ICAR Foundation and the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS).

Sevilla, Spain

In 2015, almost 15,000 people made a formal application for international protection, the highest annual level recorded in Spain. The high increase in the arrival of refugees from Syria and Ukraine justifies the considerable variation from 2014, when there were just 5,947.

The remarkable increase of applicants from Syria (5,724 against the 1,679 of 2014) and Ukraine (3,420 vs. 946) largely explains this historical fact, which, however, only represents 1% of those attended by the 28 countries of the European Union.

So far this year, 611 people have applied for asylum in Andalusia compared to 480 registered throughout 2015. Currently, as indicated from the Government Delegation in Andalusia, 1,091 people are entitled to asylum in Andalusia, 453 of them are from Syria and 202 are Ukrainians.

Most of these people are attended in the province of Seville. In this regard, 39% of refugees registered in the National Refugee Reception System in Andalusia are at the Refugee Reception Centre (CAR) of the Ministry of Employment and Social Security, located in Sevilla Este. The rest of people are distributed among different specialized NGOs with state-funded places. These are Red Cross (267), CEAR (226), Accem (115) and Cepaim (59) based in the provinces of Cadiz, Cordoba, Malaga and Seville.

Until the closing of this report, only 105 people had come to Spain as part of relocation commitments, 18 by the end of 2015 and 87 in the second half of May 2016, in this case as part of a group of 586 people refugees that the Government has announced that it will arrive before August 2016 through relocation and resettlement.

The asylum, international protection and resettlement of refugees competencies belong exclusively to the Government. Since 1984, the central government funds the reception and integration programmes, which now is a matter for the Ministry of Employment and Social Security.

Article 31 states that the host will be made primarily "through the different centers of the competent Ministry and those that are funded through non-governmental organizations" with which the state maintains a coordinating position.

Due to citizen mobilization to demand for refugees reception fleeing mainly from the war in Syria, different regions and municipalities communities promoted proposals for hosting, boosted refugees care offices, approved motions to be considered as refugees’ cities, opened spaces to channel donations of all types (private loan apartments, reception at home, blankets, clothing) organized volunteers offering etcetera.

8

Berlin, Germany

In 2015 Germany received more than 476,000 new asylum applications, which is the highest number among all EU countries. However, according to German officials more than a million have been counted in Germany's EASY system, which manages distribution of newcomers throughout the country.

Among the top countries of origin of these asylum applicants were Syria (162,510), Albania (54,762), Kosovo (37,095), Afghanistan (31,902) and Iraq (31,379).

67% of them were men, and only 33% were women.

Most of them (35%) were aged 0-17, then 18-24 (24%), 25-29 (14%), 30-34 (10%) and, finally, 35-39 (6%); the remaining 11% were aged 40+.

Overall, there were 587 applications for every 100,000 residents. The EU average was 260.

In the same year, the city of Berlin (3,610,156 estimated inhabitants) welcomed 79,034 refugees, out of which 54,325 remained in the city.

First of all, refugees who arrive in Germany need to register as asylum-seekers in the nearest reception facility. Once they are registered, as mentioned above, they are distributed across the 16 federal states through the EASY system. The distribution is based on the “Königstein formula”, calculated according to the state's tax revenue and its population.

The distribution quota for Berlin for 2015 was 5.04557%.

9

Aims of a Musical and Language Training for Refugee and Local Youth

• To use performing arts as a driver to engage them into the local community and strengthen their participation in cultural and social life at the local level

• Setting up regular activities, to create a sense of structure, predictability and familiarity in a completely new environment, as well as a sense of security for the young refugees who have been through many traumatic experiences and whose transition to adulthood is especially challenging

• To promote exchanges and connections between refugee and local youth, create positive common experiences: joy, friendship, the pride of creating something beautiful together, learning and expanding boundaries

• To improve and develop the young refugees’ social, artistic and language skills through the medium of performing arts: acting, singing, training, developing concept and organise a musical representation

• To give the young participants the chance to develop and enhance their creative and innovative potential

• To develop seven original musicals which will be performed in seven European cities: Rome, Sevilla, Berlin, Molenbeek, Timisoara, Liverpool, Nicosia

Objectives

• To give both refugee and local youth the confidence to function in society as a positive and confident individual

• To enable young people’s ability to develop their self-esteem and self-expression, and to improve their self-perception while at the same time opening up their curiosity for other people and other stories

• To broaden horizons and raise cultural awareness on both sides

• To give young people a unique insight into the world of performing arts

• To encourage and develop the young participants’ creativity

• To foster cooperation among cultural organisations and actors across Europe in the field of integration

• To produce a documentary film about NiCeR in order to raise awareness among a broader audience

10

Pilot Projects and Inspirations

NiCeR is the result of a collaboration between seven partner cities, each one collaborating with theatre experts who have their own established methods and techniques to deliver a performing art workshop and stage a performance.

The following methods and some of their elements are used as a source of inspiration for the methodology of the project NiCeR.

1.The Theatre of the Oppressed

The Theatre of the Oppressed is a set of tools aimed at allowing anybody to share and stage oppressions. Once an issue has been staged and studied, participants try to tackle the problem and rehearse solutions in a safe theatrical framework.

Forum Theatre is one of the main techniques, where the audience has the opportunity to both observe and act on stage in order to engage in an empowering process, made of critical thinking and tools for action.

The basic principles of this methodology are:

• The collective analysis of common and shared problems relative to the cultural landscape of each city, which contribute to breaking down barriers and to facilitate the creation of a community

• To stage problematic situations:

1. to share daily difficulties and challenges experienced by the participants

2. to analyze the root causes of these situations

3. to explore possible solutions to these problems

• To raise questions: the scene itself does not provide any truth or answer to the problems taged. The aim is to start a collective research and engagement. The actors and the audience are engaged together in finding challenges, discovering common mistakes, testing solutions and deciding together which is the best way to act and change the situation.

Selection of exercises and games, that are gradual and easily accessible to anybody. The sequence proposed is meant to allow anybody to express and overcome oppression, beyond any linguistic barrier. It consists of:

• De-mechanization games: to foster team-building, participation and everybody’s expressiveness

11

• Image theatre: to express an issue through the use of one’s body, the interaction with other people’s body, and to quickly represent complex situations through simple images. Image theatre is a very precious tool for the understanding of tricky situations and for problem solving. Images are also used to create a forum theatre play where the audience will be allowed to intervene.

• Forum theatre: to encourage people to try social changes, rehearsing possible solutions, discovering difficulties and consequences of each proposal.

• Barcelona Names: Introduce yourself by shaking hands, giving your name to and taking the name of the person in the front. Exchange names until you find your name again.

• Name and Clap: in a circle, by clapping your hands on your left you take the name of person on your left, by clapping your hands on your right you pass your name to the person on your right. The aim is to create more turns in order to create confusion and de-mechanize people.

• Extraterrestrial: in couples, one partner plays the role of the human being who tries to convince the other person, who plays the extraterrestrial, to wear a jacket. The extraterrestrial refuses or does not understand, thus creating difficulties and challenges.

• Colombian Hypnosis: in couples, one partner leads the other by moving the palm of his/her hand. The aim is to help the partner move in several ways and directions, making him/her aware of forgotten and unexpected possibilities, encouraging mobility, freedom of movements and body expression. You can freeze the movements when an interesting image comes out and invite the other participants to comment, analyze and think of a possible context for the images.

• Image of power: two people come to the center of a circle and put themselves in a position of handshake, thus creating a “statue”. At first, the participants are invited to describe the statue and make several hypothesis describing the situation and the two characters. Secondly, they are requested to change the position of the statue and create an image where one person has more power than the other one. It is possible to create more images of power, in order to reflect and discuss together: what is power? Which position gives more power to the people?

• Image of the real and the ideal society: divided into two groups, one group creates the image of our current society, representing the problems we have to face in our project; one group creates the image of the ideal society we want to build, representing our idea of self-determination and organisation, inclusion and so on. How can we move from the real to the ideal situation? The aim of the exercise is to reflect and create together a concrete image of this transition.

• Example of Forum Theatre: one person (the oppressor) is seated on a chair and another person (the oppressed) is going to take a seat on the second chair. The oppressor prevents the oppressed to do what he/she wants. The participants are invited to test different strategies to face the oppressor and get the seat. The exercise ends with a collective analysis on both the pros and cons of each proposal: what are the risky consequences of the proposals? Which solutions appear to work well?

12

2. Opéra Q

There are three main principles when carrying out a performing arts training project:

• Passion

• Patience: try not to focus short term, immediate results but rather on the long term effect

• Repetition: it can be considered as the mother of all pedagogies. It is extremely important to create a ritual, a routine allowing every participant to find his/her space, the reference points that help everyone progress and understand. The whole process has to be carried out as a sort of ritual, so that every participant can gradually leave their everyday life and worries (job, family, friends) behind and become part of a group.

It is also important to find the appropriate space to carry out the trainings: the participants should have enough space to rehearse and be free to move and express their body and voice. In this sense, the setting is essential to the success of the whole project.

When working with young people coming from a disadvantaged neighborhood, it is essential to build their trust by avoiding the traditional school setting and underlining that they are not there to be evaluated and, most importantly, that they will not be forced to attend. Loyalty is created once they have the freedom to decide spontaneously to participate in the trainings. In this sense, practical things like a visit to the theatre or going to a performance together as a group can, little by little, create trust and build a stronger relationship.

It is essential to create a form establishing two main elements:

• the actual organisation of the workshops and trainings (venue, timetable, how to recruit the participants)

• the proposed pedagogy (singing, dancing, acting): it is best when every participant is invited to take part in all the activities, rather than to let him/her express a preference.

Once this main structure is established, one needs to create room to provide flexibility. It is essential to always keep in mind the participants’ needs.

3. JugendtheaterBüro Berlin

JugendtheaterBüro’s work focuses on people who would not normally get the chance to get into theatre production.

The activities of this organisation are based on three main pillars:

13

• Political base: JugendtheaterBüro’s methodology does not include the word integration, since it presupposes the existence of a leading, dominant culture to which a dominated culture needs to adapt. They prefer to see it as a two-way process and rather use other expressions such as shared culture or remix culture

• Group production: for every production staged by JugendtheaterBüro there is a director, but behind the result is actually the leadership of the whole group. In this sense, self-determination is achieved through self-organisation. As a result, a more “expendable” leadership is created, since everybody in the group gets the ability and skills to eventually take over and continue the project.

• Artistic work: the participants usually work with happenings. In this sort of performance, the key elements are planned, but there is plenty of room for improvisation. Another important element is the new dramaturgy: every performance is preceded by field work and research. The participants try to intervene and be active parts of current debates and then to bring them back in the theatre and in their performance. In this sense, every process is dominated by the idea of symmetry of knowledge: the knowledge of the participants needs to be considered as equal to the knowledge of the coach. The coach has the role to make this knowledge emerge through elicitation, that is collecting information and reactions through specific inputs.

4. RARE Studio Liverpool:

Rare Studio is specialised in working with young people from a range of different backgrounds to develop their confidence, skills and ability in life through performing arts training.

Many of their students are from a disadvantaged upbringing, are from disaffected areas and are disengaged in education. At Rare they work hard to:

• Identify potential students at risk from social isolation

• Re engage them into society with students of their own age

• Encourage positive experiences through the arts

• Offer help and advice on progression into education or employment

Rare Studio has a specialist outreach team specialized in community based work, identifying those in need of intervention and help. This team works hard to encourage young people to engage in the programme through a range of classes, workshops, performances and work placement scheme. Recruitment is done by a mixture of word of mouth, recommendations from schools and colleges of those who may have fell through the system and pupil referral.

Participants can access weekly classes in:

14

• Dance

• Drama

• Singing

• Music

• Musical Theatre

• Script writing

• Directing

• Next step support

One of their main method to stage a production is Verbatim theatre, a form of documentary theatre in which plays are constructed from the precise words spoken by people interviewed about a particular event or topic.

In order to give an honest account of the current refugee crisis and to give ownership to the participants in that they will be fully in control of how much or little they would like to divulge, Verbatim is a very effective method of extracting stories and then with a writer and director developing that work for stage or even film.

The playwright interviews people that are connected to the topic that the play is focused on and uses their testimony to construct the piece. In this way they seek to achieve a degree of authority akin to that represented by the news. Such plays may be focused on politics, disasters or even sporting events.

A verbatim style of theatre uses the real words from interviewees to construct the play which is not written in a traditional sense, but is conceived, collected and collated. It is a creative type of drama to help tell the story of what actually happened’.

15

Project Outline

Using the lessons learned from our pilot project and different elements from every partner organisation's specific method, we have been able to create a methodology for the implementation of a performing arts training project for young refugees and locals across Europe.

In order to develop a strong performing arts project that engages and brings together young locals and refugees one needs to think carefully about the following key elements:

1. Staff – finding the correct practitioners to deliver the training

2. Recruitment – selecting and recruiting the right participants

3. Structure – how to structure the language workshops and trainings in order to fulfill the aims and objectives

4. Curriculum – the actual content of the performing arts training and of the language workshops; Tools that can be used to deliver the curriculum

5. Tools for the monitoring of the participants’ progress

6. Developing the musical production

7. Outcome and achievements

Staff: Finding the Correct Practitioners to Deliver the Training

At the beginning of the project, every partner has already identified a project coordinator and created a team of committed and experienced experts which will guide and support the implementation of the activities.

For this particular project, a series of key professional figures needs to be identified:

1. A vocal coach: he guides and supports the participants in learning how to work on their voice, control it and improve its quality. He needs to have proven experience in music and singing.

2. A theatre director/drama teacher: the young participants take complete ownership of the project, however this figure supports them in writing the screenplay, the songs, the music (possibly trying to focus on the traditional music of the countries of the participants), and in the creation of the scenery and props.

He needs to be able to support the young participants in specific elements of the project such as:

• Acting

• Dancing

16

• Songwriting

• Creative writing

• Backstage

• Sound and lighting

• Musical theatre

• Folk music and songs

• Scenic design

3. A language coach: this is a key figure in the facilitation of the relationship between the young refugees and the locals. The language coach guides the young participants to the understanding and comprehension of the different languages through songs and other innovative techniques such as storytelling or role-playing.

4. A social worker, who acts as a facilitator for the welfare of the group, promoting cohesion and the empowerment of every participant.

5. A local coordinator, who oversees the day to day running of the project and manage the coordination between the international partners and the local project.

6. A local network of partners such as local authorities, social workers, refugee welcome centers which support and collaborate with each partner at the local level.

The young people need a regular and committed staff so they can feel secure. They may not respond to a variety of different people coming in and out, as they need to trust and believe the practitioners.

The qualities that the staff need are:

• Ability to connect and relate to the world of young people

• Motivation to teach

• Passion for change

• Empathy

• Good communication skills

• Ability to structure and manage a group of young people in a friendly and easygoing way

• Flexibility and creativity

• Will to take risks and experiment

• Patience and understanding

17

• Based in the city where the trainings will take place

• Experience in the performing arts industry

• Experience in teaching to young people and notably in working with a multicultural and multilingual youth group.

Recruitment: Selecting and Recruiting the Right Participants

The target of the present project includes young refugees and non-refugees between 9 and 25 years old.

As far as the term refugee is concerned, our methodology refers to the official definition provided by the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951): “the term refugee shall apply to any person who (…) owing to 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” - article 1, letter A (2)1.

A person who holds a refugee status is issued a residence permit for political asylum.

Persons who cannot be protected either through recognition of refugee status or through the right to asylum may be entitled to the subsidiary protection, which is granted if the applicant can demonstrate a personal persecution according to the same criteria described by the Geneva Convention (see above).

In this sense, the group of non-refugees should include young participants who, regardless of age, do not hold either a refugee status or a subsidiary protection status.

The young participants need to have the following qualities:

• Be motivated, committed and want to attend: the project will not work if the coach forces them

• Know beforehand that they will be available throughout the whole duration of the project; however, the staff itself need to have a flexible attitude and understand that, although requiring commitment and availability from the participants is important, refugee youth are a vulnerable group and their lifestyle is challenging and not always predictable

• Have some interest in music, dance and theater

• Be willing to learn, to discover, to open to new experiences, opportunities, ideas

1 Please consider that this declaration was written in 1951 when the concept of race was still in use; later on, research demonstrated the inadequacy of this concept and nowadays race is no longer considered as a valid scientific category.

18

• Be curious and willing to meet, get to know and establish relationships with new people

• If possible, be able and ready to work as part of a group (relate to the other participants and the staff, deal with and manage conflict); however, we should not forget that we are working with vulnerable people and, for this reason, teamwork skills cannot be a criterion for exclusion as such. It is thus up to the staff to create an inclusive environment that caters for individual needs and allows everyone to take part in the activities according to their own rhythm and explore and develop their own skills

• If possible, have basic communication skills, in order to be able to work productively and in harmony with a heterogeneous group and with the staff

• Be willing to agree with a set of key norms that are essential to facilitate and manage group work

• Be a heterogeneous group in terms of age, social and geographical background, as well as in terms of gender: an equal number of boys and girls would be preferable.

How to carry out the recruitment process

In order to recruit the young participants (refugees and non-refugees) one should go through the following process.

First of all, each organisation needs to create a network in its own pilot city and promote the project among key local players such as:

• Cultural centers, NGOs, social workers, refugee welcome centers and other associations that are in direct contact with refugees;

• The schools (primary, secondary, high school) present in the district in which the workshops are going to take place: school directors, families and parents

• Public institutions

This collaboration represents a necessary step as it will allow young refugees to be directly involved in the local community and to become active participants in it.

Once a pool of potential participants is identified, the final recruitment will be carried out by directly investigating the motivation and availability of each participant.

To do so, we agreed that for a number of reasons the use of a written questionnaire should be avoided at this stage of the project. In fact, we believe this is not the best approach when the aim is to stimulate the young participants' interest in the project as well as their awareness, motivation and commitment.

19

Moreover, since there will be a feedback and evaluation questionnaire at the end of the project, an initial questionnaire would create a feeling of excessive control from the staff over the participants.

In our opinion, a valid alternative is represented by a face-to-face interview, preferably in the form of a group interview, a focus group or a workshop.

In fact, we believe that one-to-one interviews may create a feeling of discomfort at this stage of the project, notably within the refugee group, since they may recall previous traumatic experiences. Also, it would be preferable to avoid an excessively formal approach, which could end up intimidating and discouraging the young participants.

For example, it could be effective to organise an initial taster workshop, both in schools and in refugee shelters or welcome classes, or directly in the theatre where the workshop will take place, facilitated by a person they can relate to: also young, with a similar background, used to working with young people and vulnerable groups and able to stimulate their interest and build their motivation and expectations.

In this context, the potential participants have the chance to try out a theater workshop session, get to know each other through games and icebreakers, familiarise with the setting and the staff. At the same time, the staff can directly investigate their motivation and personality through the way the potential participants react, their body language.

As far as the questions that the potential participants will be asked during the recruitment process, we believe that one of the most crucial aspect is to avoid discrimination between the two groups (refugees and non-refugees). It is important to consider the participants as individuals and, as such, to create a setting in which they all have an equal status.

At the very beginning it could be necessary to acknowledge the presence of two different groups; in the initial phase, the participants themselves will probably feel the need to look for belonging in their own sub-group. However, the success of the project depends on the staff's ability to create an environment where every group has the same rules and is working for the same results and for a common goal, that is meaningful for both groups. This way, at the end of the project the two groups will become increasingly aware that they actually belong to one group, made of young and equal individuals.

We believe that the first step to the creation of a setting in which every participant has an equal status is to ask the two groups (refugees and non-refugees) the same questions.

When dealing with the most vulnerable groups, the refugee group, some pressing questions such as for example their daily routine and their availability for a four-month weekly workshop can be asked directly to the social workers and the centers working with them on a regular basis, who know their personal story and everyday activities.

Overall, we believe that it would be useful to start with an investigation about their interest in music, dancing and acting (“Can you sing/dance/play music? Would you like to sing/dance/play music?”); after

20

the taster class, the participants could be asked more direct questions aimed at creating awareness about the participants' responsibility and the aims of the project, such as:

• Did you like what you experienced today?

• Would you be interested in taking part in a similar project?

• Why do you think you are interested in?

• What are your expectations about this kind of project?

• How do you think you could contribute to such project?

• What do you think you can learn from it, and what can we learn from you?

• What kind of difficulties do you think you could experience in this context?

• What kind of gratification would you be happy to receive at the end of such project?

During the taster class, the participants' interest could also be stimulated with more general questions appealing to their need to find a safe space to express themselves and their ideas as young people:

• Would you like to send a message to the world? / Would you like to do something good for the world?

• In what way would you like to express this desire: dancing, singing, writing a song…?

At the end of the group interview process, an internal observation sheet containing useful information for the creative team, theatre and vocal coaches could be prepared and filled out: the participant's motivation, availability, interest and preferences in terms of performing arts.

At the end of the NiCeR recruitment process, 30 young people were selected: 15 refugees and 15 non-refugees. Once the participants were selected, a list containing the following elements for each one of them was prepared:

1. Name

2. Age

3. Gender

4. Country of origin

5. Contact: e-mail and/or phone and/or address and/or Facebook contact

21

Structure: How to Structure the Course to Reach the Aims and Objectives In all seven partner cities, the recruitment phase took place between September and December 2016, that is in the three months prior to the beginning of the workshops.

The theatre and the language workshops were in fact organised from January to April 2017.

During these four months, the theatre workshop took place four hours per week outside school hours, for example between 5pm and 8pm or on weekend sessions (one whole day on Saturday or Sunday).

The same structure was applied to the language workshop, which however only happened two hours per week.

The Theater Workshops

Curriculum: What should be involved in the training

In order to develop a performing arts training, we believe that it is essential to define beforehand a few elements that the young people should achieve after completing the training, such as:

• Have developed their self-confidence and self-esteem

• Have developed their communication skills / language skills

• mutual understanding of each other's culture

• develop friendship with each other

• Have some knowledge of acting techniques

• Have some knowledge of music and singing techniques

• Have the ability to improvise and be creative with texts, songs, and music

• Be confident to perform in a group

• Gain technical skills that could be useful for their future integration in the professional world

In general, the curriculum should involve the following elements:

Introductions to the fundamentals of acting:

• Acting techniques - Task and tactics

• Group pieces

22

• Devising and improvisation

• Musical theatre

• Performance technique

Introduction to music and singing:

• Singing techniques

• Warm up and understanding the voice

• Solos and/or group pieces

• Songwriting

• Performance technique

Possibly, introductions to the fundamentals of dance.

Backstage, scenography:

• Creative writing

• Directing

• Scenography elements

• Staging

• Costumes, masks, make-up

• Lighting

• Sound

Structure of the theater workshop

The curriculum itself followed two parallel lines that were developed gradually and at the same time throughout the four months in which the theatre workshop took place:

• The development of the participants' (basic) skills in the performing arts

• The development of the musical itself: topic, story, characters and script

The theatre workshop was carried out for four hours every week from January to April 2017, the final performance being scheduled for May 2017.

23

Considered this time frame, our suggestion concerning the distribution of the activities is the following:

January 2017

Performing arts skills development and team building The first month was dedicated almost exclusively to the needs and the interests of the participants as well as to team building. The main aim was to spend time gaining the young people's trust and creating a group that is able to work together and to develop as a team.

To do so, games and exercises were used to create confidence and build relationships among the participants.

Moreover, the participants also started to explore the fundamentals of acting, singing, dancing and backstage without going into too much depth but simply to understand with which activities they were most comfortable with.

Through specific exercises they learnt to develop and understand their body expression: how to move in the space of the stage, how the other members of the group react to one's body movements, how to find balance in this space, how to create stories through their own bodies. Through exercise and warm ups, they started to understand how their voice works and how they could use it.

Development of the musical The first month was dedicated to very general group discussions about the main topic of the musical and the issues connected to it, with the aim to narrow down the options and start thinking of a possible specific topic of the musical.

February-March 2017

Performing arts skills development During this second phase, the young participants' interests and needs started to emerge more clearly. For this reason, these two months were dedicated to the identification and development of each participant's skills and talents. At the same time, the group started working more closely, as a team, on the fundamentals of each subject. Therefore, through improvisation and dance, the participant's abilities were identified and a first draft for the distribution of roles was organised.

Development of the musical Throughout the month of February, a dramaturgy/creative writing atelier was carried out, during which the participants learned how to write songs and dialogues for the final musical and develop their own musical piece.

In order to achieve this, the staff suggested the following exercises:

24

• Brainstorming on the main topic of the musical: collect words connected to it, discuss within the group and select the most meaningful words around which they could build the story

• Group discussions about issues related to the main topic of the musical, exchange of shared knowledge or personal experience connected to it.

• Creative writing: a topic was chosen and the participants were asked to write a short and creative text about it

Following these exercises, the main story was defined by the group during the month of March.

April 2017

During the last month, the workshops mainly focused on the development of the musical production: writing of the script and of the songs, distribution of roles, costumes etc.

May 2017

Final performance

Given these general guidelines, the theatre directors were able to include elements that were more specific to their own established method.

For example, the Theatre of the Oppressed Method (Image Theatre, Forum Theatre) is based on improvisation and on a completely different technique when it comes to writing the script, which is entirely improvised.

In this sense, the first month was dedicated to general improvisation techniques, the second and the third month to more specific techniques and the images through which the final story was created, and in the last month the specific scenes of the stories were rehearsed and improvised until, little by little, the dialogues and the story were more and more defined.

Three steps to create an intercultural musical

In order to achieve the final stage of the process, that is the performance, the structure of the workshop needs to go through three main phases.

The first is exploration. In this phase, the group is created, and the relationship between the members as well as the rituals and the working routine are built. It is the time dedicated to self-discovery through stories, personal experiences, identifying and sharing knowledge, personal tastes, desires, talents, resources that characterise each participant.

25

This phase represents thus both the discovery of the other and the construction of a common baggage for the future definition of the performance. There is also the need to agree on a way of communication that takes into account the sharing of languages and the possibilities of translation among the workshop participants, and then allow those who do not yet speak the language of the host country to advance and make progress.

The working process also depends on the age of the participants and needs to adapt to a certain variability of the group.

More concretely, the workshops need to include vocal training and singing lessons as well as motion and physical activities, improvisational acting techniques, and group discussions about the main topic and the structure of the final performance: will the participants want to focus on their own experiences and write an autobiographical story, or rather focus on imaginary narrative? What sort of music will they play in the final performance? Will there be a clear distinction among the three disciplines (acting, singing, dancing) or will everyone engage in all three of them? Which one(s) of the participants would like to play a solo role? Who will bring their own creative talent into the music, writing, movement, etc...?

As this particular workshop only lasted four months, it was also necessary to gather texts, music tracks, video clips, etc. which were representative of the participants' identity and of what they wanted to show during the performance. This represented another way for the participants and the staff to get to know each other more deeply, while at the same time collecting helpful material that could be used in the final performance, together with the participants' original creations.

In this phase of exploration the individual skills and those of the group as a whole are introduced in a more general way for all the three disciplines. In order to contribute to the common knowledge and experiences, common activities, visits and shows can also be organised.

The second phase is about construction. In this phase, the main element are defined: the story, its artistic elements and the definition of a balance between music, theater, dance; the selection of the material that has been collected over the previous weeks (excerpts of texts, music suggestions, drafts of the structure); the creation of new elements which will be included in the planned structure; songs, dialogues, choreography sketches; definition each participant's role according to the character that they have to play; distribution of roles and phases of the performances among the participants, so that they can engage themselves and their ideas in that direction.

In the meantime, the participant training process in the three disciplines continues through exercise, improvisation, performance, rehearsals etc. The common activities too, which provides an opportunity for the young people to meet and share.

The third phase is the realisation or achievement. Before the final performance, a musical needs to be rehearsed. Everything has to be refined until it is mastered to perfection. The actors have to take their characters even further and get deep into the acting. Their body has to map out the choreography. The choir needs to sing in harmony. Such a production needs a lot of adjustments. As a result, during the long

26

creation process, the show undergoes various changes in order to acquire an artistic value as well as improve in coherence. Every person participating with their soul and body in this collective creation makes it even more vibrant and alive. The rehearsals and trainings are therefore far from mechanical. In fact, the rehearsal is a permanent act of embodiment. As the group may be altered and some participants might leave during the process, a character can be assigned to different actors successively. The characters can thus be interpreted in a different way by each actor. It is in fact all about giving a frame to the artistic work while at the same time developing a flexible approach.

The Language Workshops

During the same four months, two hours per week were dedicated to the language workshops. These sessions were facilitated by a language coach, who assisted the refugees and locals in their interaction.

The aim of the language workshops was to support the young newcomers in learning and understanding the local language and culture in a context of exchange, different from the traditional frontal teaching approach that is typical of a school setting.

Therefore the role of the language coach was primarily the creation of an environment where every participant had the opportunity to fully participate, contribute to and learn from this exchange, regardless of their native language or status.

At the end of the workshops, the young refugees should feel more empowered thanks to the new knowledge acquired over the previous months and the friendships made with their local “classmates”. This will enable them to gain more confidence and achieve a sense of belonging in their new home.

It is important to remember that the participants came together to create a musical. In this context, each one of them already possesses some very powerful tools that go beyond spoken language and that can support their exchange and mutual learning process: music, acting and dance.

In a context when not all the participants shared a common language, it was thus crucial for the language coach to focus on these elements when assisting the exchange. Local songs, gestures, movements were used to support the young refugees in their language learning process. The story and the script of the musical was also used used to help the refugees learn new words. Moreover, the fact of having a precise goal, that is the musical performance at the end of the workshops, further motivated the group during the process.

The group dimension is essential, as the young people who already speak the language supported, translated, helped the non-locals, constantly accompanying them towards their common goal.

One exercise that can be used in this context is that of the language choir: the participants read a text out loud together, trying to use the right intonation and pronunciation. This way, the participants who do not know the language will not feel too exposed, but can at the same time express themselves and learn vocabulary in the new language.

27

It is also important to remember that cultural diversity is among the main elements of the musical and at the heart of the project itself. In this sense, the non-locals can also be encouraged for example to bring their own traditional music and translate it with the help of the locals, which would encourage the exchange.

The language learning process can also be integrated in common activities, such as visits to exhibitions, shows, tours around the city and so on. Such events will provide further help and support, notably to the participants who do not master the language very well or even at all.

Another interesting exercise is represented by the tandem approach: during a specific time of the language workshop, the participants can split into couples, formed by one local and one refugee, and start a conversation. This approach will also help create friendships and connections which can be extended and last outside of the workshop context.

Lastly, the school teachers who helped during the participant selection process can also provide their support and work together with the staff to facilitate the refugeesꞌ language learning process.

Monitoring Tools: Measuring the impact of the project

Guidelines for Conducting Focus Groups with the participants in the NiCeR project

Introduction: Focus group is a qualitative research method which takes the form of a group interview, a facilitated discussion led by a series of questions around a specific topic. Below are some instructions for the facilitator of the focus group. The information collected through the focus groups should be seen as complementing data obtained through the other evaluation instruments planned.

Duration of the focus group: 60 - 90 minutes

Participants: The recommended number of participants in a focus group is between 6-12, in order to ensure a good interaction and group dynamics and allow everybody enough time to express opinions. A focus group can also work well with 15 participants. Therefore, in each location of the NICER project, two focus groups should be organised: one for the local participants and one for the refugees.

Organising the focus group

The participants should be informed about the focus group even before the final performance and this should be presented as a discussion at the end of the activities with a facilitator. You need to choose the best time and location in order to ensure attendance of all participants. The best room is a room where

28

participants can sit in a circle and see each other well, without physical barriers, with appropriate lighting and isolated visually and audio from the surrounding environment. Having a large table in the middle of the room, a classical classroom style setting or a room that is too small or too large, might not generate the desired dynamics of the interactions in the group. Also, if people from outside can see what is going on in the room or if they can hear what is being discussed, participants might feel uncomfortable sharing their views. The equal value given to opinion of all participants should be reflected in the room setting: all participants should have a similar type of seats and with a similar kind of positioning in the room.

It is important to make sure that participants are informed in advance about the duration of the focus group, about the fact that their attendance is necessary for the whole duration and that they will be asked to share personal opinions in an open way and that the opinions provided will remain confidential.

Opening and introduction

The moderator has to ensure that all invited participants are present and sit in a circle. If the moderator is not known by the participants, he/she should introduce himself/herself.

Then the moderator will introduce the rules for focus group conduction, emphasising the following elements:

o Confidentiality of the information provided. The discussion is recorded (audio only) but the recorded material will only be used for elaborating a report and will not be made public; Although in the report there will be possible quotes from statements of participants, there will be no way of identifying the person who made a specific statement and the names of participants will not be made public without their agreement;

o The discussion will be approximately 60 minutes, with the possibility of extending it to 90 minutes if this is needed to allow participants to express their views;

o All participants should listen to each other respectfully but they are encouraged to formulate comments regarding what the others are saying. Interventions and interruptions are possible. Disagreement or different views on a certain topic are normal and all the opinions will be noted, including minority ones;

o Participants speak clearly and loudly enough, one at a time;

o Because of the time limitation, the moderator will interrupt the participants in case of diversion and will keep the conversation close to the main line;

o Participants express their personal opinions and wishes in a way that will not harm or affect in a negative way the others.

29

When everyone has confirmed agreement with these principles and rules, the moderator starts recording and moves to the next part of the focus group session.

Introduction of participants: The moderator opens the discussion, giving the floor to each participant for a short introduction if the moderator is not known to participants.

The moderator might need to pay special attention to balancing power relations and encouraging some participants to speak and will make sure that all get to intervene. It might be necessary to adapt the formulation of the questions in order to ensure that they are well understood also by all the participants in the focus group.

The focus group discussion

The moderator will then address the following questions (a printed list of the questions may help):

1. Do you keep in touch with [local nationals/people having migrant background]? If so, in which kind of relationship you are (colleagues, friends, acquaintances, relatives, and so on)? Otherwise, if you don't, could you explain why?

2. Is there a difference in the number and quality of the relationships with [local nationals/people having migrant background] now, compared with the start of the NiCER activities? If yes, please describe, explain what you think generated the change and give examples illustrating the change.

3. How are the social spaces (pubs, public parks, restaurants, training courses, and so on) that you are used to frequent: [local nationals/people having migrant background] hang-out there separately or together?

4. Are there places where you go now and where you did not use to go before the activities? Give examples? What made you decide to go there? With whom are you going?

5. When you get in touch with [local nationals/people having migrant background], do you feel unsafe and/or uncomfortable? If so, why? Has this changed over the past weeks?

6. What are your impressions related to the migration in [your country / the country where you live]?

Closing the discussion

The moderator has to give the opportunity to participants to make final comments or to ask questions (if they have any). After that, the moderator has to thank for the participation and remind that these ideas are useful for the project team.

NOTE: The suggested sequence of the questions is not mandatory. Changes and flexibility in the order of asking are allowed. It is important to discuss all questions and each participant should have the

30

opportunity to express personal opinions and share information for each of the questions. In the case that participants start the discussion on a question that is not asked yet, the moderator will not ask that question again.

Reporting

The discussion will be recorded, but it is important that the moderator does a short memo immediately after the end of the discussion with the main ideas resulted; points out and writes key quotations that could be used in the analyses; sketches out briefly his/her impressions of the participants – their involvement in the discussion and their reactions to specific topics, as well as any other elements that are not grasped by the recording.

The recording should be written down as accurate as possible in a file and the moderator comments should be inserted at the beginning of the document or in line with a different colour.

Send the documents and the recording to the evaluation coordinator.

33

NiCeR EVALUATION REPORT

Introduction The Nicer project aimed at developing and testing an innovative approach in working with young refugees, by engaging them in direct interaction and cooperation with local young people in activities related to artistic expression.

By the design of the intervention, the approach is completely compatible with the requirements for successful intergroup contact as proven by decades of research in this field.

Thus, research shows that bringing together people with different background and with different group affiliation is not in itself a guarantee for improvement of mutual perception and attitudes. This is even less the case when the groups which are put in contact have negative mutual perceptions and attitudes. In such cases, it is not unusual to see an increase in the negative attitudes and en enforcement of negative stereotypes as a result of intergroup contact.

In order for the contact to bring positive outcomes, research shows that several conditions need to be fulfilled simultaneously:

- Groups in contact should have similar size and have similar status in the situation of interaction - Groups need to cooperate for a meaningful common goal (in a pattern of interactions called

positive interdependence – in which members of the two groups need each other’s contribution to reach the goal)

- The immediate social environment should be supportive of positive relations between the two groups.

Research in the field of social psychology of intergroup relations proved that, even if at the scale of the society the there is significant status inequality and the relationships between groups are problematic, by creating a setting in which the above-mentioned conditions are met, will result in an improvement of the mutual perceptions and attitudes of those involved. Moreover, in such situations it is highly probable that these positive representations and attitudes will expand beyond the people with whom the actual interaction takes place, to the members of the other group in general.

The approach proposed and tested by the Nicer project fulfils all these conditions. Although young refugees generally have a lower social status than their local peers and although the presence of refugees in Europe is seen negatively by large segments of the population, the setting of Nicer activities:

- Creates a situation in which young refugees are seen as equally important and their contribution is valued to the same extent as the one of the local young people;

34

- Young refugees cooperate with local young people in developing a performance which ispresented together in front of an audience;

- The facilitators and the organisations behind the whole process make sure that a clear messageof support for positive relations is transmitted.

We could then say that simply because of the design of the interactions, the approach promoted by the Nicer project is likely to contribute to better cultural integration and inclusion of young refugees in the local society.

However, besides this general assumption supported by generic research, an evaluation process based on the collection of concrete evidence is needed to support this claim.

This document describes some of the debates held within the Nicer consortium with regards to the methodology which could be used to collect such evidence and the challenges related to the use of the various methods and to the corresponding data collection process. It follows with the presentation of the methodology actually used and the way data has been collected and with an outline of the main results obtained. A set of key conclusions is presented at the end. The full set of documents which are the basis for the outline and conclusions presented in this report has been collected by the Intercultural Institute of Timisoara, the editor of this report, and transmitted to CIOFS-FP, the leader of the project consortium.

Methodological challenges The project partners, particularly those involved in the design of the evaluation methodology, but also the partners in charge of the workshops, thus expected to implement the methodology, had extensive discussions and debates on the best approach to take.

The initial plan was to use a classical evaluation design, based on a comparison of the measurement of the situation before the workshops with a similar one done after the end of the workshops. This would have provided a more reliable evidence of progress and would have required the use of a set of quantitative indicators in order to make the comparison possible.

Such a set of quantitative indicators can be provided, for example, by the theory of interactive acculturation developed by Richard Bourhis. According to it, an effect of the improvement of mutual representations and relationships between locals and refugees could be reflected in an increase of integrationism (attitude reflecting respect for both the culture of origin of refugees and the host country culture) and a reduction of separationsm, segregationism and exclusionism.

Another valid option could be the use of the sociogram model, developed by Jacob Moreno, illustrating the interactions between the members of each group and across groups. If activities have a positive impact on the relationships, the pattern of contacts between participants belonging to different groups should increase.

35

This approach, although more accurate and provided data easier to process in a multilingual context such as the one of the Nicer project, has the major disadvantage that it might be perceived negatively by participants. Having participants register to activities was a significant challenge even if presented as an interactive and interesting cultural activity but it could have proven hard to retain participants if they perceive the process as invasive and controlling their behaviour.

Therefore the final option chosen was the use of a data collection process located exclusively after the main activity and relying on qualitative data, as described below.

Methodology and data collection process Two main instruments were used to collect evidence regarding the impact

- Interviews with one or several key persons (facilitators, organisers, etc.) which were directly in contact with the young people

- Focus groups with the young people (preferably done separately with the young refugees and with the local young people).

The interviews aimed to stimulate a reflection and collect evidence about the impact of the activities on participants. It was not supposed to be a description of what was done or a list of general impressions. The main focus was to reveal concrete descriptions of behaviours of participants (which reflect attitudes, emotions, thoughts, relationships, etc. what they did, what they said, but also non-verbal behaviour), observed during the process of the Nicer workshops and which show the impact of activities. Facilitators interviewed were asked to describe behaviours of participants related to certain specific situations, types of situations, and interactions during the activities but also before the start of the workshop, during breaks and after the performance, illustrating the following aspects:

1. Changes of perception and attitudes towards the members of the other group (refugees about non-refugees and non-refugees about refugees

2. Changes of self-perception and of the way participants see themselves 3. Changes in the relationships between participants

Descriptions were requested to be brief but provide enough information in order to understand what actually happened with the groups.

The focus groups were designed to investigate the perspectives of the two categories of participants in response to the following set of questions (adapted accordingly to each type of group – locals or refugees):

1. Do you keep in touch with [local nationals/people having migrant background]? If so, in which kind of relationship you are (colleagues, friends, acquaintances, relatives, and so on)? Otherwise, if you don't, could you explain why?

36

2. Is there a difference in the number and quality of the relationships with [localnationals/people having migrant background] now, compared with the start of the NiCERactivities? If yes, please describe and explain what you think generated the change giveexamples illustrating the change.

3. How are the social spaces (pubs, public parks, restaurants, training courses, and so on) thatyou are used to frequent: [local nationals/people having migrant background] hang-outthere separately or together?

4. Are there places where you go now and where you did not use to go before the activities?Give examples? What made you decide to go there? With whom are you going?

5. When you get in touch with [local nationals/people having migrant background], do you feelunsafe and/or uncomfortable? If so, why? Has this changed over the past weeks?

6. What are your impressions related to the migration phenomenon in [your country / thecountry where you live]?

Several challenges were encountered during the data collection process using these two instruments.

In several cases participants manifested resistance to the recording of the focus group discussions. The fact that many participants, especially refugees, had difficulties in expressing their in the language of the focus group resulted in uneven contribution of various participants and sometimes generated simplistic or superficial answers.

In the case of several groups, participants and facilitators considered that the key ideas were better expressed through the contribution in the performance and not by talking. Another challenge was the fact that in several cases the focus groups were moderated by project staff which were not researchers and shared the same preference for artistic expression against verbal expression.

There was also resistance in addressing verbally sensitive issues or analysing situations which create uncomfortable feelings in participants. In most cases it was also too early to see a wider impact in terms of behaviours.

However, despite these challenges, a valuable amount of data was collected and the key ideas resulted from their analysis is presented below.

Key results Belgium

The activity in Belgium was done with two groups, one bringing together local and refugee young people aged 9-13 in a school setting and the other young people aged 18-24 from the two groups in the context of a community cultural centre.

37

The facilitator noticed a strong positive impact at the level of the group of pupils. They gained self-confidence, resilience, as well as the ability to express and share their personal story. The fact that, in cooperation with the teachers, the work on the project was connected in a meaningful way with curriculum elements of the school facilitated the process.

As for the other group, the work was perceived by the facilitator as more challenging but equally generating positive outcomes.

The participation in the activities was seen by the young refugees as an important opportunity to meet local young people in a secure environment. They usually tend to interact with young people from the same country of origin and discovered the Cultural Centre where Nicer activities were organised (Maison des Cultures de Molenbeek) as a space helping them to get out of their ethnic bubble. They feel the positive attitudes with which they are received at the Centre as encouraging them to engage in relationships outside of their community of origin.

Local young people became aware of the importance of language and realised that a reserved behaviour observed among refugees can be also related to difficulties in communication and fear of not being able to respond to the demands of a situation of communication with locals. They also discovered the difficult experiences young refugees faced in the country of origin and during the migration itinerary, as well as the challenges they are facing now in Belgium. They were touched and moved by the strength and resolve displayed by some refugees despite the very difficult circumstances.

Local young people also realised how difficult it can be for the young refuges to think about the future, considering the uncertainties in finding a place in the host country, as well as the uncertainties regarding the evolution in the origin country.

They gained a lot of empathy for the young refugees, seeing the world also from their perspective. They sometimes admire their refugee peers for their willingness to overcome challenges. In certain cases, for those local young people with migrant background, they relate the efforts made by the refugees now with the efforts their parents made to build a new life in Belgium years ago.

Cyprus

When the project started participants tended to ‘hang-out’ in their existing groups/or stay alone. Drama and music coaches developed a number of techniques for people to be more comfortable with each other. The first involved ‘name’/what’s you name/what does it mean? This was a simple exercise where people were asked to explain their name and to spend time researching information on it and it worked very well in getting participants to familiarise themselves with each other and start a process of sharing stories. Some of the local young people also took the initiative to reach-out to the lonely young refugees.

Here are statements illustrating this effect:

38

“I remember the first time I came and I knew no one because I was supposed to come with a friend but she didn’t come so I was alone and didn’t know anyone but after I met new people, I feel more confident to talk [with others]”.

“to be honest the first few weeks I used to come, sit alone participate, I was heard, I used to talk but Andrea and the others tried to talk to me more, they were super annoying at the beginning they took my number, my Facebook, until we became friends. Then I would sit with them, talk with them, hang out with them, they actually changed it was them trying to be friends with me.”

Over a period of time and through the use of social media people connected and communicated more. Also the walks through the city enabled people to mingle with each other more freely. For some participants, changes were quite radical by the end of the project – between refugees and non-refugees. And at the same time, for others, only small things changed. This process was also perceived by some young refugees as frustrating and challenging at the start. The majority of participants saw themselves as one ‘family’ by the end of the project, which was one of the biggest achievements.

Sharing each other stories was an important element in changing self-perception, and some of these stories ended up being part of the performance. This however was not an easy process and it had to be approached delicately, step by step. By giving people a voice, having a chance to be heard, other people were able to hear things they had perhaps never heard before (especially locals/non-refugees). Generally though, the biggest change in self-perception involved the actual performance itself. Most participants, with the exception of three local young people, had never acted, sung or played an instrument before. Unlocking that element in people gave them a sense of empowerment individually and as a group. This took months to develop through practice/discussion but when it came to the actual event and its very successful/packed turnout, participants rose to the occasion.

The changes in the relationships between participants reflect different perceptions ranging from ‘yes I connected more and made friends’ to ‘no not much has changed’. However, the experience of the workshop gave people a sense of hope through an activity they would not have been doing and a real sense of belonging somewhere. This applies to all participants but with varying degrees, as some would like to pursue acting/singing/music further while most of them just liked the ‘getting out of the house’ element of the project, doing weekly performance activities in a venue, and engaging in the walks/cultural events. Giving that sense of belonging was very important as well from the coaches’ point of view as was perceived as their biggest achievement. This is a view shared by KISA as well, who are now exploring ways to continue activities for the group to develop further.

The statements of young people provide evidence for this positive change.

Asked if they feel that something has changed, several young people answered that it is not their views that changed but themselves as persons and the people close to them, such as their friends:

- “I think that NiCeR Project has changed my friends’ perspective on migrants and refugees. Whenthey came and watched the performance and listened to the stories people had to tell";

39

- “I believe that the project has changed me. (…) I was shy but now I feel like I can interact more with other people and talk to them because I’ve heard new stories, I have bonded with them, I have met new people, we have cooked together, laughed and cried together and basically this process was amazing, the whole of it, and I feel like I can talk now with more people.”

On the one hand, it was acknowledged and expressed that projects like NiCeR can bring a change and have an impact on a subjective and individual level among people involved, but, unfortunately, the great gap that needs to be bridged is at the society level. These assessments were pointed out through disappointment and frustration by the people that are local but with a migrant background, and with a sense of blame, survivor’s guilt, and responsibility for being citizens of this country, by the people who are locals and don’t have a migrant background.

“I met a lot of people in this project and we became friends. It is because we were always doing something together, we were a team and we all became friends because we bonded doing something as important as the NiCeR project.”

All participants, but to a larger extent the locals, gained also factual knowledge about migration and about the countries of origin of their peers and enlarged their perspective of global issues:

- “It was an opportunity to learn all of that stuff about other nations and ethnicities in general.” - “What amazes me is that the stories being shared have opened my eyes basically and it helped

me, I guess, to see more things.”

Germany

Participation in the project had an impact even on those local young people who see themselves as open-minded and without prejudices. They confirmed that they became aware of the importance of the language used, of the concepts and the way they are used in public discourse. They also gained an increased critical understanding of the current German society, of its declared and practiced values and principles, as well as of their own background and position in society.

The fact that activities brought together locals and refugees was also appreciated by the refugee young people:

- “It was good that this was a mixed group, and that we did not divide it between refugees and not refugees, there was a real symbiosis inside our group and we constantly learned from each other…”

- “At the beginning, I thought I was the only one here who´s not German and who doesn´t understand anything, then I realized that there are a lot of people like me in the project and I wasn´t alone. We sometimes translated… it was also a good thing that we were mixed together and there was support from other group members, with text for instance. It would not have been the same if we would only have been refugees there.”

40

The supportive atmosphere, the cohesion-building activities and the respect of privacy and confidentiality were also positively perceived by all participants and led to improved relationships between the two categories of participants.

There was a progression reported at the level of feelings, from the frustration and stress at the start, to a feeling of being together and openness to learning from others and sharing own stories.

Italy

At the first meetings almost all the participants were shy and had introverted attitudes, mainly because they did not get to know each other and there were different languages. The tendency was for the refugees to sit together and use the phone, and for the Italians to sit together, talk a bit and wait for the beginning quite separately from the other group. After 2-3 meetings, they started to be curious to know more about the different countries of origins. So at the beginning of the meetings they still preferred to join their “own group” (of refugees or of locals), except when they were the first ones to arrive (in that case they sit together and started talking). However, at the end of the meetings, some of them left together, going towards the metro stop asking each other, “I have never heard about your country, where is it? Is it close to the sea? Are there mountains? Which language do people speak there? “Which animals are there? Did you see them?”. That happened firstly among Africans and the other foreigner people (coming from Armenia, Ukraine exc.) but gradually also between the Africans and the Italian group.

At the final meetings an Italian boy and another boy from Mali were always together, joking a lot and making exercises together. For the Malian guy, who is very shy and does not speak Italian, this Italian boy became the reference person in the group and the one who made him laughing a lot.

Approximately after one month, since group members already shared personal stories and experiences, the group started to explore the situation of migrant people, the reasons why the leave their countries and families, the challenges faced before, during and after the departures. At that time the refugees were very animated while telling the stories and explaining the real situations of migrations and the Italian group was listening very carefully and was astonished to hear about that.

At the end of the meetings there was still a generic separation between the two groups (refugees and Italians) but individually they overcame many barriers and tried to establish individual relations.

Participants became aware that everybody had a migrant background as well as a desire to migrate towards other places. That created a common and specific group identity and allowed them to perceive themselves as people who may have many common things to share.

Their critical understanding of prejudice and discrimination also increased: they created images of different situations of racism and/or suspicion and in all the interpretations of these images, they believed (and brought practical examples where) the victim could always been both an African person and an Italian one (racist and suspicious attitudes happened towards girls wearing dreadlocks, people who did

41

not speak English, people with sweaty clothes, beggars and more generally people who do not fit the classic Eurocentric bourgeois and patriarchal model).

One of the Italian girls, after the first performance, said “It has been a very good experience. I want to make my final thesis on this project, interviewing you and some of the guys”.

The relationships among participants changed from the beginning till the end. First of all, during the final meetings they perceived themselves as a group and not only as individuals. Before and during the performances they helped each other to prepare their materials and clothes, they created a good atmosphere of collaboration.

Since one of the African guy loved dancing, especially traditional dances, he made contact with an Italian young woman in the group, who teaches traditional Italian dances and invited him to join her group. Sometimes he went to her classes to learn to dance and in the final event they danced together the Italian traditional dance “Pizzica”. At the final meetings, all the participants asked to receive the contacts of everybody.

During the two performances, typical Italian dishes were served to the whole group (the first time the risotto and the second time the pizza). The pizza was appreciated by everybody, while some of the African guys did not like the risotto and they felt uncomfortable to refuse it. On that occasion, a couple of refugees told about the typical African dishes and very proudly they said they were chef’s assistants in their country and they would have loved cooking for the group a typical African dinner. Thus, for the final event an African dinner was organised and the two chefs went to the market, bought all the ingredients and cooked the dinner for 20 people. The Italian group was pleased to have the chance to taste the dishes and they appreciated everything.

For some of the participants the participation was the first experience to meet young people from the other group, while for others, who already had such acquaintances, the artistic experience was the new element.

Some refugees expressed frustration that more extended contacts with Italian young people outside the project is limited by the expectations they have for the refugees to adopt their way of socialising which implied smoking and drinking alcohol. They also appreciated the positive atmosphere in the group, as opposed to the mostly negative attitudes they perceive from ordinary local people.

NICeR activities gave the chance to the Italian participants to better understand some of difficulties that migrants have to face when they arrive in a new country through the stories that migrants decided to share in the group. This had impact not only at the cognitive level, but also at the level of emotions and attitudes.

42

Romania

Activities generated a gradual evolution in the attitudes towards the other group from one of curiosity and shyness to friendship:

- “We went from being acquaintances to being colleagues and from being colleagues to beingfriends.”

- “Without this project I don’t think i would have this amount of Romanian friends in this shortperiod of time.”

There were some expectations of some of the members of the non-refugee group that the refugees would fit in the stereotypes promoted by the media, that they would be extremely different, even weird, that they will not be able to communicate or that they will intensely show off their religion but these thoughts were soon overcome:

- “In the beginning I was sceptical, I was thinking they are also human beings but … I had this fearinduced because I had heard many bad things but in the end I saw that everybody has a good partand a bad part. Now that I have friends with a different background I realized that even if theymay have another religion, they don’t necessarily have to have a bad thought about me[everybody laughs]”

- “When I first heard about this project and I heard there will be 15 refugees I was like, man, theseguys are coming with bombs [everybody laughs] and afterwards I met them and I changed myopinion a lot.”

- “I am usually a bit of a hater and I was joking about it, I mean, I knew about the project from myfriend and […] I thought it might be nice, but afterwards I was like OMG, look at these refugees,coming with the bombs. Then I met them … we worked together and I felt very safe so I was overit.”

Perceptions based on stereotypes were replaced by the excitement of the young participants discovering each other. The fact that the project started with an arts camp in the mountains helped the participants a lot in this common discovery:

- “I was just so happy to work with them and know their stories.”

Also, sharing ideas in improvisations and playing theatre games together made them more confident in themselves and in the others in the group:

- “It helped me build a better relationship with my own self as well.”

The most evident change of self-perception was in the youngest participants (around 12 years old) who in the beginning manifested a typical behaviour of bullying and aggressiveness, especially towards the older non-refugee participants. This behaviour was obviously based on low-confidence, fear and insecurity which were overcome after the first few days as they realized they were in a safe environment and nobody was going to mistreat them. This may have been also a school-induced behaviour, since

43

unfortunately the school environment is often based on competition and survival of the fittest, the wittiest, the coolest.

All participants increased their self-confidence, with many situations where they initially did not want perform in front of the others but slowly realised that there was support from the group for each of its members. There were a couple of situations that illustrate this best: one of the non-refugee participants had a passion for rap music but never dared to perform or even show her lyrics until one of the refugee participants encouraged her to do so, complimented her lyrics and suggested they could possibly make music together after the project ends (and this has actually happened). The second situation is that of a refugee girl who never dared to try out her ideas in the theatre workshop but was encouraged by a non-refugee girl to do so and in the end it came so naturally that she forgot her prior shyness. The workshops offered intense learning experiences for all those involved, making them discover that they have the power to help others, to build trust, to show solidarity, thus changing another person's experience.

The non-refugee group was made of two sub-groups of young people who knew each other well and these sub-groups started to merge towards the end. None of them knew any of the refugees before the project. Some of the refugees knew each other from before but without having a strong relationship. As the project evolved, strong friendships were born, regardless of the background of participants. Two weeks after the project ended, most group members attended together the graduation ceremony of one of the participants and the birthday party of another one, a refugee helped a Romanian Roma young woman to find a job and they make music together now. Building on the time spent together during the workshops, the public success of the final performance made them more aware of their strength together and made them trust each other more. Thus, many continue to go out together regularly.

The impact of the improvement of the relationships in the group reached beyond the context of the workshops:

- “Before, if I were on the street and I would see Arabs or I would hear people speak Arabic, I was like [looking like dodging, like evading], but now I’m like ‘Oh look, Arabic people’. [everybody laughs]. I am calmer and more open, I guess.”

- “we went to falafel and you were with us and they guys there started speaking among themselves in Arabic about us and then you told them not to speak about us when you're there”.

- “I think my only change in behaviour was that before, if the subject of refugees came up, I either didn’t get involved or I didn’t argue strongly when I noticed that somebody has a negative opinion. Now it’s different… for example I was talking to someone about this project and they told me ‘wow isn’t it awkward for you to work with them’ and I got angry and started to explain that they shouldn’t have prejudices like this and that it is really cool to work with them. “

The reflection made participants aware of the fact that the process they went through is against the common prejudices in society:

- “When I used to tell people that I am going to a winter camp with refugees, everybody used to say watch out [laughter] and he [pointing towards her brother, also present in the group] said

44

OMG take care but I told him to join me. I was just being very protective and if anything was to happen I would be there for her [the brother].”

Participants also learned about migration in general as a social issue and became also aware of the negative influence of media manipulation in the perception of this issue by the general public:

- “They made an opinion solely based on the media”. “When you watch TV there is no good newsabout this topic.” “I spent hours looking for positive media coverage on the refugees and Ihardly found anything.”

Spain

During the first meeting, there was little interaction across the two groups. Refugees remained among themselves by placing an invisible barrier to non-refugees. However, the non-refugees did the same thing while, on the one hand, they felt benefactors of the non-refugees and, on the other hand, they were more interested in participating in the workshops. Throughout the workshop, these perceptions have been drifting toward an openness of refugees towards non-refugees and towards the sentiment by non-refugees that they were simply facilitating social justice.

In this sense, the most striking thing has been that refugees have ‘broken’ their silence regarding the reason for their need for refuge and have been able to express their pain, which perceived as ‘a liberation’.

- “I value a lot the self-confidence you gain with this. I thing we all had a lot of things inside…andthanks to the workshop, I could finally let things go….let my story come out….I can now talk about it…I could not before…there were so many people listening to our message…getting emotional….I have no words….”

Non-refugee members have mainly felt privileged for not having been in situations such as those experienced by refugees and displayed empathy towards the feelings of refugees.

Throughout the workshops, the interactions between the two groups (refugees and non-refugees) have increased in number and quality, establishing friendly relations between them:

- “the result has been so good….the group of people is so great, I take so many relationships with me….that I know that this is the beginning of something”.

This has been facilitated by what, in principle, could be considered a negative aspect (the lack of punctuality of some of the participants) since they have taken advantage of the waits to strengthen ties and to join the group.

Having held two other meetings to eat together, being able to speak practically all of them in Spanish and joking about the differences and similarities of socio-cultural aspects between the different countries of origin and Spain, has also facilitated changes in the perception and attitudes of all the members of the group towards the others.

45

UK

When the group first came together there was a tendency to stay with the people they knew from their own communities. Not only did the language barrier prevent them from engaging but also the cultural differences. It was down to the facilitators in the room to ensure that they come together and bond. They did not focus on the differences and definitely not concentrate on the young refugees and their journey. Therefore, the workshop was advertised as a free workshop for anyone, without highlighting the differences.

A private Facebook group was set-up and all the participants were encouraged to share ideas and arrange sessions. Over time, participants connected more and more. For some participants, changes were quite radical by the end of the project, while for others only small things had changed. The majority of participants saw themselves as one ‘family’ by the end of the project. Even though the numbers of refugee students was low, they were fully engaged with the group and felt a part of the group.

The biggest change in the students has been the increase in their confidence. They felt more confident after doing this project. They feel like it has pushed them out of their comfort zone and helped them to develop skills they didn’t have before. Many mention the fact that they would have never sang or performed in front of people before and this project enabled them to do this with confidence.

The group has formed a real bond and many have said that they have made friends for life. Importantly they also now understand how you have to work as a team to create something. They understand the commitment that is needed and that if they let the group down it affects everyone. They now have a positive relationship with their peers and they understand how their actions affect others, they have developed empathy.

Motivation of the participants who completed the project increased during the lead up to the rehearsals. The young people were given extra homework to complete and also were allowed to run their own rehearsals, which they did. They took responsibility for their progress in a way that wouldn’t have been possible before. They realized that they were the ones that could control the quality of the project. Although they were supervised they also decided to take control of some of the process, which demonstrated a level of responsibility they had never shown before.

Their self-confidence also grew due to the fact that they felt proud with their achievements, they felt the show they created was great and they were pleased with their progress. The fact that they created a lot of the materials themselves empowered them and made them feel in control.

46

Conclusions There two main deviations from the classical intergroup contact model encountered in reality in the structuring of the groups in several of the countries involved:

- Young people with a migrant background were over represented in the group of local youngpeople in several cases, compared to the overall proportion of young people with migrationbackground in the respective country. Thus, in these cases in was more about a contact betweenrecent migrants and second generation migrants, than between newly arrived migrants with adifferent cultural background and a local population with its culture.

- The size of the two subgroups was also not always equal, as requested by the theory of intergroupcontact.

The evaluation method chosen has also a number of weak points, the most important being that it relies to a large degree on the statements of participants.

However, despite these deviations, and methodological limitations, as reported by both facilitators and participants, the results obtained reveal clearly an overwhelmingly positive outcome of the activities.

There was a positive impact of the workshops on the mutual perceptions and relations between refugees and locals, and there was also an increased self-awareness and increased awareness of migration and related issues among all participants.

Both the young refugees and the young locals developed positive attitudes towards others and towards themselves. They developed skills related to intercultural communication and artistic expression, as well as empathy.

A significant result consistent across countries is the increase in critical understanding of the world and a more nuanced perspective on the complexity of the issues related to migration and of the relations in European societies with respect to cultural diversity.

Last, but not least, the results prove that work on the real integration is not work with the refugees on making them comply with the expectations and requirements of the host society but work with the locals to become aware, open, and supportive and to gain a critical understanding of the phenomena related to migration, as well as work on the relationships between locals and refugees.

It is also important to underline that the impact made visible with the current evaluation process is most probably only a part of the impact which is likely to manifest itself on a medium and long-term basis, in future social interactions of participants. All this makes it obvious that such processes should be replicated and expanded, as they provide essential opportunities for personal development and for building positive social relations in a context of increased rejection of migration and of the fundamental right to international protection of those who left their country in search of safety and a decent life.

49

VADEMECUM ON INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION

Introduction This document is elaborated in the framework of the NICER project and provides background conceptual and theoretical elements, as well as practical guidelines for the implementation of intercultural education activities involving young refugees. It is conceived particularly as a support for the series of workshops planned with mixed groups of refugees and non-refugees in the framework of the NICER project but can be useful in the planning and organisation of various types of educational interventions related to the interaction between refugees and local young people, as well as other intercultural situations. It is important to specify that the aim is not “to educate the refugees” but to work on the self-perceptions and on the mutual perceptions and relationships of both refugees and local young people.

This document should be seen as complementing the methodological guidelines produced directly for the NICER workshops and the pedagogical guide for intercultural education.

The document is structured in five main parts:

Part 1 reviews and clarifies some of the key concepts relevant for the topic and the target groups. It also underlines some challenges related to finding an appropriate terminology, considering the misuse of some concepts in the political and public discourse, as well as the multiple meanings some concepts might have from different theoretical perspectives.

Part 2 describes concepts, processes and social phenomena related to barriers limiting the integration and social inclusion of refugees in a host society.

Part 3 presents a critical review of strategies for promoting positive intercultural attitudes and relationships, including some false solutions and some effective ones.

Part 4 discusses interculturalism and democratic culture as major references for a desirable society.

Part 5 outlines general elements related to intercultural education.

Considering that this is a document targeting practitioners and not academics, the style and language have been chosen accordingly. The references are mentioned at the end and there are only a few cases where authors of certain theoretical models are mentioned in the text.

As in the case of practically all concepts of social sciences, there is no absolute consensus among academics regarding the way the concepts presented here should be understood. Therefore, for practical reasons, choices have been made to present those elements of the academic debate which are relevant

50

for the practitioners. In the case of several concepts, the debates and controversies which occurred in the project team are also reflected.

It has to be emphasised that this document has an explicit focus on education, particularly non-formal education, and does not envisage public policies targeting refugees in other sectors, or the management of cultural diversity in general.

51

Key concepts Refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, migrants

Although frequently used in the media and in the political discourse, these concepts are often considered as equivalent or are misused. The definitions below, inspired by the ones used by the International Organisation for Migration, show how refugees and asylum seekers are two specific categories of migrants:

Migrant - A person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of (1) the person’s legal status; (2) whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary; (3) what the causes for the movement are; or (4) what the length of the stay is.

Refugee - A person who, "owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinions, 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. (Art. 1(A)(2), Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Art. 1A(2), 1951 as modified by the 1967 Protocol).

Asylum seeker - A person who seeks safety from persecution or serious harm in a country other than his or her own and awaits a decision on the application for refugee status under relevant international and national instruments. In case of a negative decision, the person must leave the country and may be expelled, as may any non-national in an irregular or unlawful situation, unless permission to stay is provided on humanitarian or other related grounds.

In legal terms, a person forced to leave the home country and seek international protection in another country (asylum seeker) needs to apply to receive the status of refugee (meaning an internationally recognised protection granted by a state on the basis of the UN convention). In the European Unions, the responsibility to evaluate applications and grant or reject the refugee status (or provide a temporary intermediary status called “humanitarian protection”) belongs to each Member State and EU institutions cannot make such decisions. However, for several years there are attempts to set up a common European Asylum policy. An agreement has also been made at EU level with regards to the relocation of asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy (the main entry points to European Union) to other EU countries.

The number of asylum applications peaked in 2015, with around 1.3 million files submitted. However, Europe is not the area with the largest numbers of refugees. Most refugees are in the countries neighbouring the areas of conflict, which now are Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia, Jordan, followed several other Sub-Saharan African countries. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is managing also an international resettlement programme, through which refugees from these countries are received by more stable and developed countries, including EU countries. The number of refugees in EU represents a tiny fraction of the total number of migrants: over 35 million EU residents are born in a non-EU country.

52

General principles and conceptual challenges

The common basic principles for immigrant integration policy in the European Union, adopted in 2004 and reaffirmed in 2014 define “integration” as “a dynamic, long-term, and continuous two-way process of mutual accommodation, not a static outcome. It demands the participation not only of immigrants and their descendants but of every resident. The integration process involves adaptation by immigrants, both men and women, who all have rights and responsibilities in relation to their new country of residence. It also involves the receiving society, which should create the opportunities for the immigrants' full economic, social, cultural, and political participation.”

The document also states that integration has to be grounded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Furthermore, integration policies and practices should take as reference the provisions of the Charter of fundamental rights of the Union, which enshrine the concepts of dignity, freedom, equality and non-discrimination, solidarity, citizen's rights, and justice.

These ideas are also emphasized and developed in the Third European Module on Migrant Integration, published by the European Commission in 2014.

However, transposing these general principles into policies and practices at national level is a process facing numerous challenges and some of these challenges are related to the words used and the concepts behind them.

Two types of challenges need to be mentioned when discussing about the terminology used with regards to policies related to the presence of migrants in general and of refugees in particular in European societies.

The first is related to the gaps and inconsistencies between the use of various concepts in the common language, in the media and in the political discourse, on one side, and the scientific meaning of these concepts, on the other side.

The second challenge is related to the fact that in some cases the same words are used even in scientific publications with different meanings, depending on the field of study to which authors are connected and sometimes also to the national or linguistic contexts of these publications.

In particular, there are controversies in which these challenges are manifested with regards to the use of the terms “integration” and “inclusion”.

In the following section the ways these concepts are understood in scientific publications is presented and a distinction is made with regards of the misuse of these terms in common language, media and political discourse.

53

Integration and inclusion

The concept of integration has been widely used in research on migration, mainly from a social psychological perspective, since 1980. It refers to the choice migrants have with regards to their cultural affiliation (Berry, 1980).

Refugees are persons forced to leave their country and to seek support in a host country. The return to the former home country is not possible or it is dangerous for a relatively long period of time.

Refugees are therefore in a situation where they live in a cultural environment which may differ in many ways from their previous cultural background and they have to decide, on one side, how they relate to the cultural elements that differentiate them from the locals and, on the other side, how they relate to the host society. There are four options resulting from these two types of choice: integration, assimilation, marginalisation, separation or segregation, as shown in the diagram. Thus, integration is seen as the situation in which migrants maintain, develop and assert, in the public space and in conditions of equality, the consciousness of a common belonging, together with specific cultural characteristics and practices, while also engaging in communication and cooperation interactions with the rest of society, especially with the members of the majority group. Thus, this is the desirable situation which public policies and the strategies that underlie their development and implementation should tend towards. If we apply this model in order to analyse the situation of refugees in Europe, we can notice that there are people and communities that can be found in all the situations illustrated in the diagram but the most acute and visible problems are those associated with marginalized communities, which are simultaneously affected by poverty and social exclusion.

As the diagram illustrates, according to this model, integration is opposed to segregation, but it is also clearly differentiated from assimilation. More recent models (Bourhis et al., 2010) emphasise the fact that integration is an important concept used also in relation to the attitudes with regards to cultural differences and living together in society of both migrants and locals.

The concept of social inclusion is another important concept used in this context and it may have two totally different meanings, depending to the field of study.

Thus, social inclusion is understood in the field of social work in opposition with social exclusion. Social exclusion is defined by Silver (2007) as “a multidimensional process of progressive social rupture, detaching groups and individuals from social relations and institutions and preventing them from full participation in the normal, normatively prescribed activities of the society in which they live”. The notion of social inclusion is therefore the opposite process, of re-creating connections between socially excluded groups and individuals and the rest of the society, through a series of social support measures.

INTEGRATION

SEGREGATION SEPARATION

MARGINALISATION

ASSIMILATION

Communication

Identity

54

Social inclusion is also used in the framework of addressing the issues education of people with special needs and in general the issue of people with disabilities. In this context the term integration is used with a totally different meaning, referring for example to the fact that children with disabilities are integrated into mainstream education. This is seen as a positive process compared to the segregation in special schools, but insufficient because it requires a unilateral adaptation to the existing institutional framework. From this perspective, an approach focused on inclusion proposes a step forward and requires rethinking of the institutional framework in such a way as to correspond to the needs of all children, based on the recognition of the fact that they have equal rights (UNESCO, 1994, 2009).

Therefore, both integration and inclusion are used with different meanings in different scientific disciplines. Additionally, both concepts are misused in public and political discourse. On one side, in common language and political discourse the term integration is often used with the meaning of assimilation. On the other side, social inclusion is often used by assimilationists to deny the pertinence of addressing cultural differences and the right people have to maintain and develop a specific cultural identity. It is considered from this perspective that groups like refugees or disadvantaged minorities should be treated as being in need only of social support, with their needs to maintain and affirm a specific cultural affiliation denied.

Many refugees are affected by marginalisation, poverty and social exclusion and these aspects need to be addressed. However, if we pay attention exclusively to the social dimension and consider that we only have a “culture of poverty” and a vicious circle of exclusion which includes elements connected to education, employment, housing and healthcare, we reject essential phenomena such as those connected to racism and discrimination based on ethnic or religious affiliation, which frequently affect the refugees. On the other hand, an approach which attributes an ethno-cultural dimension to situations of social disadvantage does not correspond to reality either; quite the contrary, it sometimes justifies an essentialist perspective, associated with segregationist and exclusionist tendencies or with views which deny the responsibility of the majority society and dispute the opportunity and possibility for corrective intervention.

The concept of integration, as described above, refers only to the cultural dimension. It can be promoted effectively in society only if key aspects related to respect of human rights, democracy, equality and participation are promoted by public policies.

We consider therefore that it is necessary to adopt an approach which combines the acknowledgement of ethno-cultural aspects together with the factors which lead to social exclusion, in accordance with the Common basic principles of immigrant integration in the European Union, adopted in 2002 and endorsed in 2014.

The concepts described below help understand the challenges that often undermine efforts directed towards achieving both integration and inclusion.

Beyond the challenges related to terminology, the vision promoted by this document is one of a society which values cultural diversity and ensures equal political, cultural and social rights for all its members,

55

regardless of their origin or cultural affiliation and encourages civic participation and cooperation.

Culture and cultural differences

Culture can be understood in many ways and the fact that it is a multifaceted concept is often a source of misunderstandings. According to UNESCO, culture includes “knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, laws, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by [a human] as a member of society." Culture can also be seen as referring to a “fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs, behavioural norms, basic assumptions and values that are shared by a group of people, and that influence each member's behaviour and his/her interpretations of the "meaning" of other people's behaviour.” (Spencer-Oatey, 2000).

In fact, the two definitions concern different levels of culture and if we consider both of them we can see culture like an iceberg.

The “iceberg model” of culture emphasises that there are visible expressions of culture but that there is also a much more extended set of hidden elements that influence people but are not explicit and are often unconscious.

The definitions of culture mentioned above refer to society and groups, not to countries and nations. Various groups and subgroups, including groups defined based on ethno-cultural criteria, but also on geographic, professional, ideological or other criteria, may be described using this model. This means that, when looking at the world, we should not see it as a puzzle, where every piece has its place near other pieces, but as a complex and multi-layered aggregate where parts may overlap and where borders are not always clearly visible.

When analysing any two groups, one can find similarities and differences at the visible or at the invisible levels. Also all larger groups have internal cultural variability, which may make members of two subgroups more different between themselves than compared with somebody from another group.

One should not infer that a person living in a certain country, or region, or belonging to a specific ethnic or religious group, must necessarily correspond to the pattern of beliefs and behaviours usually associated with these groups. People have different personalities, with features that may contradict certain cultural prescriptions. Also, any person belongs simultaneously to a variety of groups and the specific attitudes and behaviours in a certain context may be determined by a conscious or unconscious choice of a reference group for that context. Moreover, many persons feel that they belong simultaneously not only to different groups defined by different criteria, but also to several groups defined by the same criteria (multiple cultural affiliations). Thus, considering the complexity of the elements described above, it is

56

preferable to speak about cultural affiliations of people than of cultures and consider that interactions are always between people and groups of people, not between cultures.

The cultures of all groups and societies are permanently in evolution. Some change very slowly and may be perceived as static, but changes occur everywhere. In some cases, changes are encouraged and supported, while in other cases they face resistance and are labelled as a loss of authenticity. A major source of cultural change is represented by the interactions between people with different cultural affiliations.

Ethnicity versus communautarisme

Ethnicity: ethnic groups and boundaries Like the concept of race, the concept of ethnicity is often contested. However, unlike the concept of race, ethnicity is associated by people across the world with a positive identity and having the right to affirm your ethnic identity is perceived by many as important.

There are several views on the source of cultural differences as reflected in the identity of ethnic groups. The three most important ones, naturalism, culturalism and interactionism or constructivism are described below.

Naturalism is a view that justifies ethnic differences with biological and genetic arguments. Inspired by Darwinism, naturalism emphasises the genetic connections and the biological parenting relationships between members of an ethnic group. This approach risks leading to justifying hierarchical relationships between groups in society, to disapproval of mixed marriages and even to acceptance of ideas concerning ethnic cleansing, racism or segregation. An analysis of the current situation in Europe shows that there are no “pure” groups from the biological point of view and therefore this approach has no scientific pertinence but despite that, many people take such a perspective, sometimes without realising its consequences.

Culturalism puts ‘culture’ at the centre of inter-group differences. Culture is understood here from an essentialist perspective, and seen fixed, unchangeable and in need of protection against external influences. People supporting such a view are ready to accept segregation or superficial “dialogue between cultures” but reject the idea of cultural interferences. Sometimes, people adopting a culturalist perspective also justify a hierarchical order of cultures and consider that “more advanced” cultures have the legitimacy to assimilate the “inferior” ones.

Interactionist or constructivist views on ethnicity start from the analysis of the psychological mechanisms of construction and development of a group identity through interactions between people. Key elements in this process are the way ethnic boundaries are defined, to determine who is part of the group and who is not and the specific identity markers associated with group belonging. From this perspective the subjective dimension is essential: member must have the feeling of belonging to the group but they also need to acknowledge each other as members of the group. Constructivist or interactionist perspective is the only one that actually acknowledges cultural change and welcomes it. It does not deny the importance

57

of specific cultural features within a group and of the differences between groups but sees them as relative and dynamic.

It is this last perspective of ethnicity that is compatible with the view of society promoted in this document.

Anti-communautarisme: denial of the right to belong Communautarisme is a French word and it has a specific meaning in this language, so it should not be translated. Even in French it has different meanings but we refer here to the meaning that is most commonly used in public discourse. It started to be used widely in 1995 after the terrorist attack in a subway station in Paris and its use increased even more after “September 11” 2001 terrorist attacks. Its use is pejorative and it is presented as a menace for the Republic.

In fact, it disapproves, considers suspicious or even dangerous any attempt to affirm in the public space a specific cultural belonging other than the French one. Its main argument is that those who promote any type of ethno-cultural belonging actually aim at controlling the opinions, belief and behaviours of group members, therefore limiting their freedom. In reality those who denounce communautarisme support, explicitly or implicitly an assimilationist approach and deny an important right people should have, the right to affirm, if they so wish, specific elements related to their ethno-cultural belonging, provided that they do not contradict the principle of equality of rights and respect for the others.

Cultural differences, social inequality and power relations

Considering the perspective on culture and ethnicity presented earlier, we can agree that practically cultural differences or differences in cultural practices exist between various groups in society. However, associating differences between groups in society only with cultural differences would be wrong and would reflect a culturalist approach.

There are inequalities between groups in society, reflected in a variety of indicators, from the level of education, to housing, health or employment, which are determined by socio-economic factors and by the social status.

Additionally, these inequalities are in general associated to unbalanced power relations and to differences in access to power and in influence in decision-making in society. Groups with a higher social status tend to have more power and influence in society. Also, there are various subtle mechanisms that result in the reproduction and perpetuation of these inequalities and unbalanced power relations over time, despite the fact that society is based on the principle of equality in rights of all citizens and often even despite the existence of explicit public policies promoting ascending social mobility.

The situation becomes even more problematic when we recognise the specific situation of groups which are in the same time:

- Culturally different from the majority society;

58

- Having a low social status in society; - Facing economic hardships and having a low socio-economic status.

In such cases, addressing only the issue of cultural difference, without considering socio-economic inequality and social status, as a way to achieve equality or opportunities will not be effective.

However, measures and activities ignoring cultural differences and focusing only on the other aspects also risks undermining effectiveness.

This is often the case with groups resulted from recent migration. These groups are frequently facing a number of complex challenges and barriers to integration and social inclusion. Some of these barriers are described in the following section.

59

Barriers to integration and social inclusion Stereotypes and prejudices

Stereotypes are representations (“pictures in our heads”) that are associated with members of a specific group. They describe characteristics, attributes, and behaviours of members of various groups and are shared by most members of a society and integrated in cultural representations. Although some characteristics rely on “a kernel of truth”, stereotypes are abusive generalizations that simplify the way we describe and understand diversity in society. Some groups have predominantly positive stereotypes, while disadvantaged minorities usually are associated with very negative stereotypes. Stereotypes are automatically activated in our brain when we identify a person as belonging to a certain group. Because of the principle of cognitive economy which guides the functioning of human brain, the natural tendency is to take into account the stereotypes. However, in a specific interaction we can choose to rely on the stereotype or not.

Prejudices are attitudes directed toward people because they are members of a specific social group. It includes evaluations of the members of the group as well as emotions felt when thinking about or interacting with members of that group. Prejudices can also be positive or mixed but in the case of disadvantaged ethnic minorities they are usually very negative. Racism is a prejudice.

Racism

Racist prejudices are, without a doubt, some of the most illustrative examples of prejudices as well as some of the prejudices with the greatest negative social impact. Racism can manifest in several different ways. First of all, there is the traditional racism, translated into an explicit manifestation of negative attitudes and discriminating behaviours against people perceived as belonging to a different “race”. Explicit racists attribute to non-Europeans characteristics which make them seem inferior to the other groups in society. Moreover, they see these characteristics as fixed, immutable and specific to all the members of this group. These people believe in the genetic transmission of certain behavioural tendencies and are sceptical about the effectiveness of any educational, socio-economical or other types of measures directed at the improvement of the situation.

However, a great number of people manifest a hidden racism. This refers to a situation in which there is a discrepancy or even contradiction between discourse and behaviour. Thus, these people/ institutions have a discourse in which they state that they treat everybody the same way, but the “objective criteria” applied put migrants at a systematic disadvantage. The motto of this category could be: “I make no difference between migrants and locals, they are all the same to me, but they all must comply with the rules and norms... [established by the majority]”.

60

The third type of racism manifestation is aversive racism, a much more subtle form, difficult to identify both in others and in one’s own behaviour and, implicitly, much more difficult to combat. This includes people who consider themselves tolerant, without racist tendencies and who can even express opinions that reject and condemn racism. These people unconsciously and unintentionally commit acts of discrimination not so much by disadvantaging migrants but by favouring locals, involuntarily avoiding contact with migrants or by adopting attitudes towards migrants which place them in a position of inferiority. The motto which would correspond best to this manifestation is: “they (the migrants) are humans too”.

Discrimination

Legally, at the level of international legislation, racial discrimination is considered “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life” (UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965).

There are three types of discrimination:

a) Direct discrimination occurs when “someone is treated less favourably than another person if he/she could have been treated in a similar way”. Classic examples of direct discrimination are employment advertisements specifying “immigrants excluded”, or posters with similar texts in public places.

b) In the case of indirect discrimination, “a provision, criterion or practice appears to be neutral, but actually puts certain people at a disadvantage [...] compared with other people”. The typical example of this form of discrimination is the introduction of expensive uniforms in certain schools, which makes children from poor environments seek other schools.

c) Structural discrimination means the poor representation of certain categories of people in various fields. For instance, statistical data show a very low percentage of minorities in the judicial system.

A specific form of discrimination is when personal dignity is harmed by hate speech or harassment. The public expression of the wish to “send back home immigrants” represents such discrimination, as it creates an atmosphere of intimidation for this community (if this particular wish is also “justified” by saying that refugees represent a source of infection, then a hostile, degrading and humiliating atmosphere is also created).

The existence at the social level of tendencies to discriminate against members of a disadvantaged social group, leads to several types of consequences: social, connected to the perpetuation of unequal relationships among groups, economical and psychological. Measures such as non-discriminating legislation, legislation against discrimination and the existence of institutions with responsibilities in combating discrimination are important elements, but not nearly enough, in ensuring the reduction of discrimination.

61

Next we present a series of concepts which help us understand better how subjective our interpretation of reality is and what the effects of personal or social beliefs are on a group of people and implicitly on each person identified as belonging to that particular group.

The glass ceiling effect

The glass ceiling effect concept comes from the field of gender equality and refers to the barriers that keep minorities and women from climbing the professional ladder and obtaining high positions. These barriers are, in fact, an unjust system or a set of attitudes that are not directed to an individual, but to a whole group or category of persons, the migrants in our case. Although officially people having refugee status should enjoy equal employment opportunities, as, theoretically, the selection and promotion processes are based on people’s own worth, the members of the disadvantaged groups face invisible barriers which limit their real possibilities of finding a better position, even if they make the same efforts as the other employees and possess similar competences. These barriers may seem invisible, like a glass ceiling, but they play an important role in maintaining the status-quo. Employers tend to hire people who are culturally similar to them and do not want to “risk” hiring minorities. This is also encouraged by the attitudes of certain people belonging to the majority population, who see the professional ascension of minorities as a direct threat to their own chances of advancement.

Confronted with these invisible barriers, with discrimination in all its forms, including indirect and structural discrimination, and with a lack of models, of examples of people similar to them who have successful professional careers in various fields, members of disadvantaged groups come to internalize the image that they are not capable enough for certain positions and to reject the classical model of success through career advancement, resigning themselves to the inferior position which they are convinced they cannot get out of.

The Golem effect

The Golem effect is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy which refers to the effect of low expectations placed upon a certain person. Thus, studies carried out in the field of education and organisational psychology show that low expectations increase the chances that the person in question will obtain poor results.

Employers can generate “a framework for failure” for certain categories of employees, often without even being aware of it. The great majority of stereotypes of refugees contain negative characteristics. Consequently, when an employer interacts with a refugee, instead of making the effort to find out which are that person’s strengths and weaknesses, he/she is content to just form his/her opinion about that person based on the existing stereotypes. Once reality is filtered through those stereotypes, people see what they expect to see. The information is filtered so that those behaviours that do not correspond to the stereotype may be ignored and those which confirm the stereotype may be given more importance, in order to ensure consistency with the initial belief, with the stereotype. Employers or bosses label their subordinates and these labels become self-fulfilling prophecies. Studies have shown that, in the case of

62

the people considered to be competent, bosses attribute their success to internal factors and failure to external factors; in the case of the people considered less competent, they do the exact opposite. Thus, the objective results are interpreted in such a way as not to affect the initial label attached to the respective person.

The Golem effect can be avoided only if employers are willing to identify their own stereotypes about certain groups and refrain from basing their analyses on preconceived ideas about the members of a certain group.

63

Strategies to promote positive intercultural attitudes False solutions: tokenism, individualisation, ignoring differences

Tokenism is the practice of involving a limited number of individuals from a group which is generally underrepresented, in order to appear inclusive, diverse and representative of the larger society and to deflect accusations of discrimination.

Here are three examples of tokenism:

- The parents committee of a school located in a neighbourhood with a high presence of members of a minority group consists exclusively of parents belonging to the majority. They decide to involve one minority parent in the committee, to prove that it reflects the diversity of the area.

- The youth centre of a neighbourhood where a lot of refugees are living, decides to involve two young refugees in their cultural activities to prove that they are inclusive.

- A reporter doing an inquiry about the quality of the public services in a neighbourhood with many inhabitants having a migrant background decides to ask also one migrant to show that the article reflects a diversity of voices.

In reality, in all three cases, having one or a few persons from the underrepresented groups does not really change the situation and it is rather a window-dressing measure. Moreover, in many cases, the persons from the underrepresented groups are selected in such a way as to not disturb the current power relations and to not challenge the status quo. Often, their voice actually does not matter or it is not really reflecting the perspective of the other members of their groups.

Another false strategy to address problematic intergroup relations is to deny the importance of group belonging and focus exclusively on the individuals, with the assumption that a fair situation can be achieved if “everybody is treated the same way” and that differences in cultural practices are kept for the private sphere. In many cases this is not effective because it only avoids addressing the real issues and it may also result in indirect discrimination or in reproducing inequalities and the power of dominant groups.

Solutions based on the contact hypothesis

Ignorance theory: getting to know each other beyond stereotypes One approach to get members of social groups who are having negative perceptions and attitudes towards each other to overcome these perceptions and attitudes and to engage in positive relations starts from the idea that they need to know each other better.

64

This is based on the assumption that the negative perceptions and attitudes are due to a lack of knowledge or to wrong information that people have about the other group. Indeed, if there is little knowledge based on facts, it is more likely that those concerned will rely on stereotypes. The knowledge gap will be filled-in quickly with stereotypical elements provided by the immediate social environment or by the media. Also, populist statements made by the media or opinion leaders are easier accepted.

To counter this tendency, the approach based on ignorance theory recommends that members of the two groups are provided with information about the other group, verifiable data and facts which contradict or nuance the stereotypical image. The direct contact with counter-stereotypical individuals from the other group also can have a positive impact.

This approach can work and lead to an improvement of intergroup perceptions, attitudes and relationships but has also several limitations. Thus, it assumes that those concerned, on both sides, are open and really want to learn about the others and that they are also ready to engage in a critical reflection to process the information they receive and compare it with the stereotypes.

Intergroup contact Another approach to improving intergroup perceptions and attitudes is based on creating direct interpersonal contact between members of the two groups. It assumes that the person-to-person relations will allow those involved to discover each other as human beings, with similarities and differences and generate positive perceptions and attitudes.

Research on this matter proved that simple contact is not enough to generate positive changes. On the contrary, sometimes direct contact can enhance opposition and reinforce the negative attitudes. In some cases people may have the tendency to select from what they perceive at the other only those elements which confirm the stereotypes and ignore unconsciously the elements that contradict the stereotype. Also, the goal is not achieved if those involved say about the person from the other group they encounter “she/he is ok, but she/he is not like the other members of their group”. In order for the intergroup contact to produce the expected outcomes in terms of improvements in perceptions and attitudes, and to have higher chances that these outcomes are generalised to all the members of the other group, a series of conditions need to be fulfilled:

- Equal status in the interaction. Ideally, members of both groups should have similar characteristics, for example, similar number of persons, age, level of education, skills, social status. If there are differences, for example in terms of social status, knowledge of the language, knowledge of local society, as it is the case for groups consisting of refugee and local young people, the interaction needs to be constructed in such a way as to ensure a balanced status and equal recognition of both groups.

- Cooperation for achieving common goals. Both groups must work to achieve a goal that can only be attained if the members of two groups cooperate by pooling their efforts and resources. The distribution of tasks has to be done in such a way as to avoid competition (like in situations when

65

one group does a part of the job and the other group does another independent sub-task. A situation of “positive interdependence” needs to be created.

- A supportive normative framework. The interaction has better outcomes if the idea of the improvement of attitudes and relationships between the two groups is encouraged and supported by recognised authorities, by public policies or by recognised leaders. If the overall society encourages friendly, helpful, egalitarian attitudes and condemns mutual blaming and rejection, it is more likely that the positive effects of the contact will appear.

Other elements that need to be taken into account are:

- The best effects are obtained if members of the two groups have various opportunities for informal direct interaction and have opportunities to share personal stories and feelings, not just to work together.

- The contact needs to be long enough to ensure that the anxiety generated by a new experience and by the interaction with new people is overcome. Activities making the members of the conflicting groups to feel comfortable with one another also help the effectiveness of the process.

There is also research proving that imagined positive contact can have similar effects with the direct contact. For example, young people from a class in a city where there are no refugees may be guided to reflect on how it would be if they met and interacted with young refugees.

Common ingroup identity model According to the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner and Dovidio, 2000), intergroup contact will be maximally effective at improving intergroup relations when group members re-categorize the intergroup situation by perceiving themselves as members of a more inclusive common, superordinate category. Thus, besides the cooperation for a common goal, members of the two groups are encouraged to see themselves as belonging together to the same group. In this way intergroup bias stemming from group distinctions would be reduced. However, this requires that group distinctions are overcome but not ignored. The effect of generalising positive attitudes towards all the members of the other group is higher when those involved perceive themselves and are perceived by the others as each belonging to their group and to a common group.

66

Interculturalism, democratic culture and inclusive societies Interculturalism as acculturation orientation

Differences in the perception of the desirable relationship of migrants with their cultural background and with the cultural background of the host country are reflected by the concept of acculturation orientations. Acculturation is defined from this perspective as the process of bidirectional change that takes place within contrasting cultural groups whose members experience sustained intercultural contact and it is implied that both cultural groups are influenced and transformed by their mutual intercultural contacts (Sam & Berry, 2006).

The Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM) was designed to categorise relations between host community members and nondominant immigrant group members (Bourhis et al., 2010). IAM provides instruments useful in identifying the acculturation orientations adopted by migrants within the country of settlement, as well as acculturation orientations adopted by host community members toward specific migrant groups. The IAM proposes that by virtue of their power advantage in the country of settlement, host majority members may endorse five acculturation orientations they wish immigrants to adopt: integrationism, assimilationism, segregationism, exclusionism, and individualism, defined as follows:

- Integrationists think that migrants should maintain certain aspects of their culture of origin while also adopting key features of the host community culture.

- Assimilationists expect migrants to relinquish their own culture of origin for the sake of adopting the culture of the mainstream host society.

- Segregationists accept that migrants maintain their culture of origin as long as they keep their distance from host majority members. Segregationists do not wish migrants to transform, dilute, or “contaminate” the majority host culture.

- Exclusionists deny migrants the right to adopt features of the host community culture while also denying migrants the choice to maintain their heritage culture. Exclusionists believe that some migrants have customs and values that can never be culturally or socially incorporated within the host majority mainstream.

- Individualists downplay group ascriptions and have a “live and let live” view of cultural diversity, as they are not too concerned about whether migrants maintain their heritage culture or adopt the dominant host majority culture. Individualists value personal qualities and achievements and tend to interact with migrants in the same way they would with other individuals who happen to be members of the host majority.

The acculturation orientations can be different in private domains (for example culture and personal relations) and in public domains (for example, education, employment, housing or place of residence).

67

Interculturalism as acculturation orientation means therefore the choice and the support for the choice of living simultaneously within two cultures and belonging to both the culture of origin and to the host culture.

Interculturalism as a normative approach in public policies

When it comes to addressing issues related to cultural diversity, the terms “multicultural” and “intercultural”, as well as their derivatives, are often mentioned. Both can be used in a descriptive or in a normative way. We can acknowledge that our societies are culturally diverse, that different cultural groups exist, that sometimes there are tendencies of increasing cultural diversity, and we describe society as “multicultural”. We can also use the term “intercultural” in a descriptive way, emphasising that, in nowadays societies, interactions between members of different cultural groups are frequent and even unavoidable, that contact with people having a different cultural background is part of our daily lives. If we take a normative perspective, referring to a vision about society, to what we believe society should be like and what policies should be in place to address cultural diversity, the terms “multiculturalism” and “interculturalism” are more and more commonly used. The model below proposes a way to distinguish between these concepts. It is a bi-dimensional model built around two key issues confronting groups living in culturally diverse societies: maintenance and development of specific cultural identities of each group and exchanges, interactions and cooperation between the groups within the wider society. It represents in fact a transfer to the normative level of the model used in the section explaining the concept of integration.

This model, despite a certain number of limitations, makes it clear that both multiculturalism and interculturalism oppose monoculturalism and policies aiming of assimilation, but also contradicts a common assumption which considers that increased interaction between cultural groups represents a threat to their cultural identity. According to the interculturalist

approach, it is possible and desirable that public policies support members of various groups in affirming publicly and in developing their cultural identities, while also providing a framework for members of different groups to interact, negotiate and cooperate in finding the best solutions to common interest issues, based on democratic principles. This allows for “the existence and equitable interaction of diverse cultures and the possibility of generating shared cultural expressions through dialogue and mutual respect” but at the same time ensures the conditions, for people who wish so, to participate in the cultural life of their specific communities. We could call such a situation an “intercultural society”.

Communication/exchanges

Specific cultural identities

Interculturalism (integration, cohesion, intercultural dialogue)

Monoculturalism (assimilation, cultural

homogenization)

Exclusionism (marginalization, divided society,

exclusion)

Multiculturalism (separation,

parallel societies)

68

Transculturalism

Although there is no generally agreed definition and understanding of transculturalism, there are some common elements among the proponents of this concept. One element refers to the acknowledgment of new realities in present day society which can be described with the word “transcultural”. With globalisation, there are more and more individuals which do not identify with a specific cultural framework or have been used to changing various times their cultural framework of reference. This is related to the concept of cosmopolitanism and it may be associated with individualism as acculturation orientation. Moreover, it is common that promoters of transculturalism are also supporters of cultural relativism and of moral relativism (views that consider that there are no universal references to be taken into account).

Although the debate around transculturalism may increase in pertinence with the advancement of globalisation, with increased access to information and increased mobility of people, in the present context cultural affiliation is very important for the majority of humans. Even people who consider themselves as without cultural affiliation have their way of life, way of thinking and behaving, influenced by specific cultural references. Thus, in reality in many cases transculturalism is assimilationism in disguise.

There are also promoters of transculturalism which are critical of both multiculturalism and interculturalism. Others recognise the merits of interculturalism in combating discrimination, rejecting ethnocentrism and encouraging an ethics of recognition and respect for differences, thus supporting access to fundamental rights for members of minority groups, but consider that transculturalism is needed to overcome the polarity of cultures.

Competences for democratic culture

As mentioned above, interculturalism as a normative approach makes sense only if democratic principles are at the basis of the relationships between individuals with different cultural background and between different cultural groups. In the final declaration adopted at the Conference of the Ministers of Education of the Council of Europe member states in April 2016, a new model of “competences for democratic culture” has been acknowledged as useful to guide educational policies and practices across Europe in relation to the mission of education to prepare young people for their role of citizens.

The term ‘culture of democracy’ rather than ‘democracy’ is used in this context to emphasise the fact that, while democracy cannot exist without democratic institutions and laws, such institutions and laws cannot work in practice unless they are grounded in a culture of democracy, that is, in democratic values, attitudes and practices. The model of competences for democratic culture also includes intercultural competence as being of central importance to democratic processes within culturally diverse societies. A fundamental principle of democracy is that the people who are affected by political decisions should be able to express their views when those decisions are being made and that decision-makers should pay attention to those views.

69

The model includes 20 elements, grouped in values, attitudes, skills and knowledge and critical understanding, as illustrated in the diagram below:

Details about the competence model, the meaning of the various components and the other elements of the competence framework envisaged are available at: www.coe.int/competence.

These elements should be taken as reference also in the definition of the learning outcomes of non-formal educational activities aiming at improving the mutual perceptions and attitudes between refugees and the local population.

70

Intercultural education Intercultural versus monocultural education

There are two main ways of justifying the need for intercultural education:

- The first one, actually related to the origins of intercultural education in Europe, is instrumental: intercultural education is considered as necessary for addressing specific challenges related to the presence of cultural diversity in schools. Thus, cultural diversity, particularly the one generated by migration is seen as a problem, and intercultural education is seen as the solution which can fix it.

- The other main justification for intercultural education is based on principles and is related to the way the mission of education is understood.

The table below illustrates the perspective of intercultural education in contrast with the one of monocultural education.

Monocultural education Intercultural education

Mission of the education system

Generating citizens which are loyal to the country and nation (nation-state), ready to give their life for protecting it and for preserving it for the next generations

Generating active citizens prepared for a democratic culture and for life in a culturally diverse and dynamic society

Outcomes of education

Pride of belonging to the nation, based on ethnocentric arguments, such as:

- We are better than others or simply the best (at least at selected characteristics)

- We have endured adversities and suffered but we will eventually prevail

- We are discriminated, treated unfairly, they steal from us, or do not let us develop as we should

The result is ethnocentrism, positive perception of in-group and negative perception of out-group

Competence for democratic culture, including democratic and intercultural values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding.

This means, among others, considering human dignity, human rights, equality and democracy as universal values, together with respect for cultural diversity.

71

Reflection in educational practices

- conformism is valued - learning to pass over the national heritage

history, literature, civic education (and sometimes religion) are instruments to build pride and justify a positive self-stereotype and negative hetero-stereotypes.

- values refer to universal principles, not to national or cultural specificities

- learning is done primarily for personal development

- critical thinking and critical understanding are essential in all subjects, including history, literature, civic education and religion

Traps to avoid in intercultural education

There are various risks related to the misuse of intercultural education even by people with very good intentions. A first major risk is related to the (often implicit) use of culture in an essentialist perspective. To limit this risk, it is always preferable to speak about interactions between people who perceive themselves or are perceived as having a different cultural affiliation, not between cultures.

The table below compares some of the common misinterpretations of intercultural education with the desirable intercultural approach:

Intercultural education does not mean… Intercultural education means…

celebrating diversity and presenting an idealised image of cultural diversity in society

raising the awareness of learners on both the benefits and challenges related to cultural diversity and in educational activities also the “hot” issues on the public agenda, as well as issues related to diversity that learners are confronted with in their daily life.

presenting only information about specific cultures, based on outstanding cultural products or on ethnographic descriptions of certain realities and cultural practices.

a balanced focus on values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding, with a view to developing competence for democratic culture, avoiding abusive generalisations, stereotypical judgements towards social groups perceived as different in religion and culture

focusing only on how to behave with people which are culturally different

situating intercultural communication skills in close connection with a better understanding of one’s own cultural background, knowledge of other cultures as well as with positive attitudes towards cultural diversity.

72

specific measures for migrants, refugees or minorities, allowing them to learn the official language(s) of the country where they live, their mother tongue, or to be taught about the culture and traditions of their community

Including an intercultural approach also in educational provisions for migrants and minorities and complementing them with learning opportunities favouring intercultural encounters and preventing segregation

organising folkloric performances where songs, dances and traditions of different cultural groups are presented.

going beyond the superficial display of stereotyped representations of cultures focused on the past, stimulating meaningful interaction between individuals and addressing real life issues.

promoting the idea that all cultural practices are acceptable and should be respected.

promoting a human rights – based approach, with the idea that various cultural practices should be understood and respected, as long as they are compatible with the universal principles of human rights and democracy and that practices that result in discrimination and persecution, for example based on gender, age, etc., are not acceptable in the name of cultural difference.

learning about the culture of students who belong to a “minority” in a class, emphasising the exotic differences between “their culture” and the “majority culture”.

addressing and involving all students, whether they belong to a “minority” group or not, regardless of the fact that members of a “minority” group are present or not in the class; making balanced references to cultural elements familiar to all students, pointing out both differences and similarities

a moralising discourse, telling students what attitudes they should have and how they should behave

creating learning situations that lead to critical reflection and the development of empathy, resulting in internal motivation for positive attitudes and behaviours towards people with different cultural backgrounds.

specific support measures targeting members of cultural groups affected by social disadvantages or support measures for children with special educational needs

focusing on the development of intercultural competence of all learners, adapting educational strategies to consider their specific background and needs; sometimes, additional support is needed to ensure effective educational achievement but this support is complementary, not part of intercultural education.

73

that all learners should be stimulated to “declare” their ethnic affiliation

creating a positive atmosphere in the learning group, making its members feel free and comfortable to affirm their cultural affiliation if they wish so, but avoiding any hetero-identification or labelling, while allowing for the possibility of multiple cultural affiliation

Inclusive education and intercultural education

Started as an approach aiming at eliminating the segregation of children with special educational needs, inclusive education evolved into a more general educational approach focused on making sure that each and every student feels welcome and that their unique needs and learning styles are attended to and valued.

From an inclusive education perspective, diverse learners – those with disabilities, different languages and cultural background, different social background and family lives, different interests and ways of learning – are exposed to teaching strategies that reach them as individual learners. Inclusive education is based on the recognition of the fundamental rights of all children and aims at providing them with quality education and with the necessary support to develop their individual potential to the best.

Inclusive education values diversity and the unique contributions each student brings to the classroom. In a truly inclusive setting, every child feels safe and has a sense of belonging.

The goals and principles of inclusive education are compatible with those of intercultural education. However, in practice, this connection is not always made. Education should be inclusive and intercultural.

Methodological references for inclusive intercultural education

The goals and principles of inclusive and intercultural education are not compatible with a classical pedagogical approach, centred on a pre-defined content and structured around the transfer of knowledge from teacher to learners.

In order to allow not just for the acquisition of knowledge, but also for the development of values, attitudes, skills and critical understanding, interactive and experiential learning activities, based on a constructivist approach are essential.

The development of intercultural education activities in mixed groups of refugees and no-refugees should envisage:

• Building positive relations between participants • Stimulating a positive attitude towards diversity • Building self-esteem and a positive social identity

74

• Maintaining a balance between emphasising differences and similarities • Showing examples where diversity brings practical benefits but not avoiding sensitive and

controversial issues • Emphasise linguistic diversity (make visible and use linguistic competences refugees have

– in their mother tongue or other languages - without labelling them)

In order to contribute to building self-esteem and a positive social identity of young refugees, it is important to:

• Generate situations where refugees experience the feeling of success and appreciation • Make sure that refugees recognise themselves and their family and community

background in the common space (e.g. geographical references, names used in exercises, content of educational activities)

• Refer to positive role-models (e.g. refugees/migrants with positive achievements or civic attitude, public figures with refugee/migrant background)

Effective intercultural education activities also build on participants’ skills and competences, encourage critical reflection and awareness of all participants on their own situation, emphasising also disadvantage and discrimination, as well as privilege. They should pay attention to creating a common space where everybody can feel comfortable and express openly but respectfully opinions and views, accepting that others might have different opinions and views.

Together with addressing issues and topics directly relevant for the daily file of participants and the cultural diversity and intercultural encounters they experience directly, effective intercultural education activities should also envisage global issues and promote global citizenship. Global citizenship refers to a sense of belonging to the global community and common humanity, with its members experiencing solidarity and collective identity among themselves and collective responsibility at the global level. An emerging approach, promoted currently by international organisations is global citizenship education, which is closely connected to intercultural education and education for democratic culture.

The following concrete methodological strategies are compatible with the requirements set above:

- Experiential learning - Cooperative learning - Complex instruction - Project-based learning

They are briefly described and illustrated with examples in the guide for intercultural education.

75

References Council of Europe (2016) Competences for democratic culture - Living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies www.coe.int/competences Council of the EU (2004) Common basic principles for immigrant integration policy in the European Union www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf Council of the EU (2014) Council conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the integration of third-country nationals legally residing in the EU www.consilium.europa.eu/en/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=15904

European Commission (2014) European Modules on Migrant Integration

Eurostat, Migration and migrant population statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics

Eurostat, Asylum statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics

International Organization for Migration, Key Migration Terms www.iom.int/key-migration-terms

UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education, adopted by the world conference on special needs education: access and quality. Salamanca, Spain.

UNESCO (2009) Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. UNESCO: Paris

UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965

Barth, F. (1969) Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget

Berry, J.W. (1980) Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In: Padilla, A., Ed., Acculturation: Theory, Models and Findings, Westview, Boulder, 9-25

Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal (2010) Towards an Interactive Acculturation Model: A Social Psychological Approach, International Journal of Psychology December 1(6):369-386

Cotter, D., Hermsen, J., Ovadia, S., Vanneman, R. (2001). The Glass Ceiling Effect. Social Forces, 80(2), 655-682

Dovidio, J. F.; Gaertner, S. L. (2004). "Aversive Racism". In Olson, James M.; Zanna, Mark P. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 36. pp. 1–52

Evans, L. (2—7) Inclusion, Routledge

76

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Kite, M. E. Whitley, B. E. (2016) Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination : 3rd Edition, Routledge

Laurent Lévy, Le spectre du communautarisme, Paris, éditions Amsterdam, coll. Démocritique, 2005

London, Continuum.

Reynolds, D. (2007) Restraining Golem and Harnessing Pygmalion in the Classroom: A Laboratory Study of Managerial Expectations and Task Design, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 6, No. 4, 475–483

Rus, C (2006). Multicultural versus intercultural approach towards minority rights. In F. Ruegg, R. Poledna şi C. Rus (Eds.) Interculturalism and Discrimination in Romania. Policies, Practices, Identities and Representations. Berlin: Lit Verlag

Rus, C. (2017) Intercultural Education. Intercultural Institute of Timisoara

Sam, D.L., & Berry, J.W. (Eds.) (2006). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silver, H. (2007) Social Exclusion: Comparative Analysis of Europe and Middle East Youth, Wolfefsohn Centre for Development, Dubai School of Government.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally Speaking : Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures.

Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Crisp, R.J., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D., & Gaertner, S.L. (2015) Imagined Intergroup Contact and Common Ingroup Identity An Integrative Approach. Social Psychology; Vol. 46(5):265–276