Cultural diversity
2020-2021
Inhoud
Week 1 introduction: migration and multicultural society.....................................................................3
Hoorcollege........................................................................................................................................3
Bonjour & Scholten – European immigration: a sourcebook, The Netherlands.................................5
Crul & Schneider – Comparative integration context theory: participation and belonging in new
diverse European cities.......................................................................................................................8
Kağitçibaşi – Family and human development across cultures: a view from the other side.............11
Super & Harkness – The developmental niche: a conceptualization at the interface of child and
culture..............................................................................................................................................13
Week 2 introduction: culture and identity...........................................................................................16
Hoorcollege......................................................................................................................................16
Henrich – The weirdest people in the world?...................................................................................17
Velez-Agosto – Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory revision: Moving culture from the macro
into the micro...................................................................................................................................22
Verkuyten – Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: A social identity perspective.....25
Week 3 Early childhood education and care........................................................................................32
Hoorcollege......................................................................................................................................32
Huijbregts – Cultural diversity in center-based childcare: childrearing beliefs of professional
caregivers from different cultural communities in the Netherlands.................................................34
Prevoo – Parenting and globalization in western countries: explaining differences in parent-child
interactions.......................................................................................................................................36
Rosenthal – Quality in childhood education and care: a cultural context.........................................37
Week 4 street culture...........................................................................................................................42
Hoorcollege......................................................................................................................................42
Chalhi – Assembling the irreconcilable: youth workers, development policies and ‘high risk’ boys in
the Netherlands................................................................................................................................43
El Hadioui – Hoe de straat de school binnendringt...........................................................................45
H7 De pedagogische driehoek: een trampoline of een gevangenis..............................................45
Voronov & Singer – The myth of individualism-collectivism: a critical review..................................47
Week 5 Parenting support....................................................................................................................50
Hoorcollege......................................................................................................................................50
Rogoff – The cultural nature of human development.......................................................................52
H4 Child rearing in families and communities..............................................................................52
, Harkness – Individualism and the “Western mind” reconsidered: American and Dutch parents’
ethnotheories of the child................................................................................................................54
Van Beurden – How Moroccan-Dutch parents learn in communities of practice: Evaluating a
bottom-up parenting programme....................................................................................................56
Van Mourik – Parents’ belief about the cause of parenting problems and the relevance of
parenting support: Understanding low participation of ethnic minority and low socioeconomic
status families in the Netherlands....................................................................................................58
Yaman – Parenting in an individualistic culture with a collectivistic background: the case of Turkish
immigrant families with toddlers in the Netherlands.......................................................................60
Week 6 school......................................................................................................................................63
Hoorcollege......................................................................................................................................63
Andriessen & Phalet – Acculturation and school success: a study among minority youth in the
Netherlands......................................................................................................................................65
Cummins – Inclusion and language learning: pedagogical principles for integrating students from
marginalized groups in the mainstream classroom..........................................................................68
Wubbels - Teacher interpersonal competence for Dutch secondary multicultural classrooms........71
Vervoort – Ethnic composition of school classes, majority-minority friendships, and adolescents’
intergroup attitudes in the Netherlands...........................................................................................72
Week 7 radicalization...........................................................................................................................76
Hoorcollege......................................................................................................................................76
Aiello – Preventing violent radicalization of youth through dialogic evidence-based policies..........77
Leeman & Wardekker – The contested professionalism of teachers meeting radicalizing youth in
their classrooms...............................................................................................................................80
Sikkens – Parental influence on radicalization and de-radicalization according to the lived
experiences of formed extremists and their families.......................................................................83
Young – Translating conceptualizations into practical suggestions: what the literature on
radicalization can offer to practitioners............................................................................................86
Week 8 Youth services and care...........................................................................................................92
Hoorcollege......................................................................................................................................92
Fassaert – Acculturation and use of health care services by Turkish and Moroccan migrants: a
cross-sectional population-based study...........................................................................................94
Stevens – Mental health in migrant children....................................................................................96
Verhulp – Lay beliefs about emotional problems and attitudes toward mental health care among
parents and adolescents: exploring the impact of immigration.....................................................100
Zwirs – Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among children of different ethnic origin..................103
,Week 1 introduction: migration and multicultural society
Hoorcollege
The relevance of cultural diversity is:
- Migration and globalization lead to
o Increased diversity in all current societies
o Diverse perspectives on human development, and child
development
- Does this mean we have to design specific interventions or cultural-
sensitive approach?
- There may be specific issues related to cultural diversity:
o Multilingualism (different languages at home and school)
o Shifting between two cultures
o Discrimination
- The studies are based on middle-class western families. Can we assume
these apply to other children?
If you look from a global perspective, most of the refugees/asylum seekers are
located in different parts of the world instead of the Netherlands.
13,7% non-Western and 10,5% Western minorities in the Netherlands (2020)
Migration history in the Netherlands:
- Second half of the 19th century:
o Migration from former Dutch colonies (Surinamese- and Antillean-
Dutch)
o Migration since 60s as guest workers (Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch)
- Since ‘00
o Labour and economic migrants (Eastern Europe)
- Fluctuating waves of migration from conflict areas
Policy perspective:
- Until 1980: immigration as temporary phenomenon
o Focused on temporary accommodation and welfare measures
o Focused on preservation of own culture
- 1980s: ethnic minorities policy
o Drop idea of temporariness (guest workers minorities)
o Multicultural approach (promoting integration in host society)
o Promote participation in society
Economic difficult times high unemployment rate
Participation rates in (post) secondary education drop out
First initiation of marginalization
- 1990s: Civic integration policy (inburgering)
o Mandatory language and integration classes (but this was really
hard and had poor quality)
o High unemployment and reliance on social policy provisions
o Segregation in society and schools in particular
Pillarized school system (Islamic primary schools, black and
white schools)
o High delinquency rates among certain groups
- Towards the beginning of 2000:
o Higher employment rates
, o Success of second generation
- 2000s: policy towards assimilation
o (inter)national events (9/11, killing of Pim Fortuyn)
o Public debate on integration and failure in this
o Changing political (populist) discourse “Dutch” identity
Strong shift towards assimilation (= you do not only
participate, but you have to fully adapt to the Dutch norms
and values), so it is no longer about integration (= cultural
groups are allowed to hold on to their cultural heritage but at
the same time participate in the society). This is growing
polarization is society, because people do not want to lose
their cultural heritage.
o Culturalization
Growing emphasis on Islam as cause for all problems
Fear of radicalization
Public opinion growing mistrust between Muslims and non-
Muslims
o Polarization: growing divide in society
- From 2011/2012 onwards
o Small shift towards labour migration
Berry’s acculturation model
We say “people are not integrated” but
maybe we mean “assimilated” because
we want them to lose their culture. In
the long run integration is better for
children then segregation and
assimilation
There is a difference between countries
and educational systems. Some children
that start later need time to catch up.
Tracking = different levels, children
need to choose. The later the better.
Role of social and political discourse: acceptance towards immigrants differs
between countries. The political climate, stereotypes and hierarchies can play a
role in how people feel and do.
Individualism & collectivism (Kağitçibaşi)
Based on IBM study in the 60s and 70s organization psychology
They came with different dimensions for cross-cultural communication:
- Individualism/collectivism
- Power distance
- Uncertainty-avoidance
- Masculinity-femininity
Individualistic = culture of separateness autonomous-self
Collectivistic = culture of relatedness relational-self
People migrate from cultures that are collectivistic to individualistic. Sometimes
there might be a mismatch. It can be useful if you think about migration related
issues.
Flaws of individualistic/collectivistic model:
, - This model is schematic and stigmatizing
- Most cultures combine individualistic and collectivistic features
- This model does not capture the mechanisms of migration
- Is it always the case that the Dutch society is individualistic? (teamsport)
- Are non-Western societies always collectivistic?
o Are all migrants collectivistic? 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation?
- Continuum instead of dichotomy
o Co-existence: heterogeneity within society and within individuals
- Independence vs interdependence
Developmental niche (Harkness & Super)
This framework tries to integrate the concept of culture
into human development.
- Cultural construction of human development
o Combining developmental psychology and
anthropology
- 3 components of a system:
o Physical and social setting
Relation with family, family
structures
Parental roles
Educational system
Danger in near physical environment
o Culturally regulated practices and habits
Sleeping arrangements
Social traditions
o Parental ethnotheories (beliefs)
Parental beliefs (metaphor) about children and processes of
development and education
Beliefs about milestones or ‘developmental timetables’
Socialization goals, cultural values
Beliefs on effective parenting
- This system is aimed at homeostasis (=stability, these components
interact with each other, meaning that change in one of the components
affects the other components as well)
Bonjour & Scholten – European immigration: a sourcebook, The
Netherlands
In this chapter, they discuss how the tumultuous developments of the last
decade have affected migration trends policies and debates in the Netherlands.
In the early 1990s, Dutch politicians had abandoned their famous ‘ethic minority’
policy for a ‘migrant integration’ policy which emphasised socio-economic
participation rather than cultural rights. They strove to curtail immigration
through a series of restrictive reforms of asylum and family migration policies, as
well as by excluding irregular migrants from almost all public services. After
2000, Dutch public and political debate on immigration and integration took a
radical turn. This portrayal of Dutch migration and integration politics as radically
restrictive should be qualified in two ways:
- Although a number of highly significant policy changes have been
implemented over the last decade, overall policy change has arguably
been more modest than the intensity of political debates might suggest.
- In spite of restrictive tendencies, yearly immigration rates have continued
to rise.
,The intense public and political debate about immigration over the last decades
has resulted in restrictive policy reforms especially in the field of family
migration. With regard to labour migration and asylum however, policy reforms
have targeted efficiency and selectivity rather than closure. In all areas of
migration policy, the impact of the European Union has increased substantially.
The Europeanisation (EU laws on asylum and migration has been introduced) has
limited the room for manoeuvre of Dutch policymakers in way they had neither
intended nor foreseen. The Netherlands has been obliged for instance to lower its
income requirement for family migrants, to stop returning asylum seekers to
Greece, to lower the administrative costs of residence permits, and to exempt
Turkish citizens from obligatory civic integration programs. The Rutte I cabinet
(2010-2012) stated in its coalition agreement that it would strive to renegotiate
most of the EU asylum and migration acquis. The Rutte II coalition seems less
ambitious, but it continues to lobby for restrictive reform of EU law especially on
family migration.
Family migration policies:
Since the early 2000s, family migration has become to be considered the most
problematic type of migration, not only because it constituted the largest inflow
but also because of the vulnerable socio-economic position of many family
migrants. Moreover, family migration was considered a symptom of problematic
cultural and religious differences between native Dutch and Muslim migrants.
75% of young people of Turkish and Moroccan background chose a partner from
their country of origin. This was considered a symptom of failing integration into
Dutch society. As of 2006, family migrants from ‘non-Western’ countries were
obliged to pass an exam about Dutch language and society before being granted
entry.
Asylum policies:
As asylum inflows decreased substantially since the early 2000s, asylum no
longer dominates public and political debates. However, the Dutch government
has continued its efforts to shorten and simplify asylum procedures. Asylum
seekers must be granted a ‘rest and preparation period’ (meeting with legal
counsel, a medical examination, and document and identity checks) of at least
six days before the actual procedure starts. The ‘general asylum’ procedure
takes no more than eight working days. Only complicated cases may be referred
to the ‘extended procedure’ of six months. In 2007, the Balkenende IV
government implemented a ‘Pardon Regulation’ whereby all persons who had
filed and asylum application before April 2001, had since stayed in the
Netherlands and had not committed a crime, were eligible for regularisation.
Labour migration policies:
In 2011, a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry was installed to specifically study
‘recent labour migration’ and concluded that ‘the Netherlands has been unable to
manage the inflow of labour migrants from Central and Eastern Europe’,
expressing concern in particular at the housing situation and the number of mala
fide employment agencies.
The Netherlands’ immigrant population and migration trends:
The population exists of Turkey, Morocco, Surinam, Indonesia, Germany, Dutch
Antilles and Aruba, Belgium, Poland, and former Yugoslavia. The immigration
rates to the Netherlands have risen steadily since 1995, interrupted by a short
decrease in the early 2000s, but increasing again after 2005. The drop is
,explained by the sharp drop in asylum inflow after 2001, as well as the less
dramatic decrease of family migration after 2003. The rise in overall immigration
rates after 2005 is explained in small part by the modest rise of family migration
after 2007, but most of all by the steep increase in labour migration after 2007.
The steep increase in Polish immigrants since 2004 is the most significant
development in recent migration trends to the Netherlands.
Immigrant rights and their participation in public life:
Access to rights and citizenship for newcomers is regulated by the Civic
Integration Act as part of Dutch civic integration policies (inburgeringsbeleid).
Permanent residency is granted only after immigrants have passed a civic
integration test (since 2006). Besides newcomers or newly arriving migrants
applying for a permanent residence status, settled migrants (even with
citizenship) can also be asked to take part in civic integration courses in case of
dependency on welfare state benefits. Since 2010, passing this post-entry test is
also a requirement for naturalization. Naturalisation is seen as the end-result of
successful integration. Dutch citizenship can only be acquired if the applicant has
a permanent resident status, has stayed in the Netherlands for at least five years
without interruption and has successfully completed the (post-entry) civic
integration test.
Recent data shows that the labour participation of immigrants has been hit
particularly hard by the economic crisis in the Netherlands. One of the
explanations for the weak situation of migrants in the Dutch labour market is
their involvement in flexible work relations, as they often work with temporary
contracts. Not only do especially non-western migrants live on relatively low-
income levels, their dependency on welfare state benefits is also relatively high.
There is a persistent concentration of migrant groups in the large urban regions
of the Netherlands. Education is often considered the key sector for migrant
incorporation. Although non-western migrants are still behind their native peers
in terms of educational achievements, there is clear evidence that the gap
between migrants and natives in the educational sphere is decreasing. Data
suggest a clear relationship between the language that children speak at home
and their scores in language proficiency in primary education, explaining part of
the lower scores of non-western migrants. Data shows that the percentage of
individuals that has ever been suspect of police investigation is three to four
times higher for specific migrants when compared to natives. That shows how
vulnerable the state of migrant integration is in the Netherlands. Some studies
have argued that the sharp tone of the public and media debate on migrant
integration since the early 2000s has negatively affected mutual perceptions of
migrants and natives. This has contributed to an ‘integration paradox’ where in
spite of modest progress on some objective indicators of integration, the
subjective perception of the state of integration has deteriorated.
Public and media discourses about migration:
In 2000, a broad national minorities debate was triggered by a media article on
‘The Multicultural Tragedy’ by the public intellectual Paul Scheffer. However, the
tone of the debate intensified significantly in what has become known as ‘the
long year of 2002’ in Dutch politics, when the populist politician Pim Fortuyn
made immigrant integration the centre of public and political attention.
The Verweij-Jonker Institute refers to the government’s immigrant integration
policies becoming more responsive to public opinion on immigration integration
as an emerging ‘articulation logic’ in Dutch politics = politicians strive to
articulate the problems and feelings of society and ensure that the ‘voice from
the street’ is taken seriously. Prins describes this in terms of ‘hyperrealism’, ‘in
,which the courage of speaking freely about specific problems and solutions
became simply the courage to speak freely in itself’.
The changes in discourses on integration and those on immigration are strongly
related. In the 1990s, the relation between migration and integration was framed
in terms of limiting immigration to allow for the effective integration of present
migrants. In the early 2000s, this relation was reframed in a way that positioned
integration measures such as the pre- and post-entry integration tests as tools to
limit immigration, especially of particular groups of family migrants. Since about
2011-2012, the Dutch debate on migration and integration seems to have
entered a new stage: on the one hand, controversy over integration and Islam in
particular seems to have gradually faded off the political and media agendas. On
the other hand, public and media discourses are increasingly picking up on
(mostly labour) migration from CEE countries in particular.
Conclusion: the Netherlands only partially lives up to its new international
reputation of an assimilationist, anti-immigrant country. Restrictive policy reform
has been more moderate than the intense debates about migration and
integration might suggest. Cultural difference and fear of Islam no longer
dominate Dutch public and political agendas. The migration debate in the
Netherlands has a new focus: the immigration and incorporation of labour
migrants and their families from Central and Eastern Europe. In these debates,
the increasing impact of the European Union on Dutch migration politics is felt
more sharply than ever.
Crul & Schneider – Comparative integration context theory:
participation and belonging in new diverse European cities
This article challenges established notions of ‘newcomers’ and ‘natives’, explores
the ‘remaking of the mainstream’ and argues for the investigation of mobility
pathways for a better understanding of integration or assimilation as on-going
processes.
The central idea of segmented assimilation theory is that there is more than one
way to assimilate into American society.
The authors of new assimilation theory convincingly show that the dominant
stream remains ‘straight-line assimilation’, perhaps not in all regards in the
second, but at least in the third.
From the perspective of Crul & Schneider, advancement and stagnation do not
need to be mutually exclusive. Among the second generation in Europe the
dominant trend is a remarkable upward mobility, but there are also portions of
each group that lag behind.
Both American theories also point to the importance of context. This refers to:
- The reception context (the different treatment of illegal migrants
compared to invited political refugees)
- The societal context (the level of racism in the US toward certain ethnic
groups)
- The different aspects of local context (neighbourhood and economy)
- The importance of networks in (heterogeneous) communities
The second generation: the established group in the city
The term ‘second generation’ in the strict demographic sense refers only to those
born in the country of immigration, and we believe that it is important to
distinguish clearly these two groups. Second and in-between generations differ
,radically in at least one central aspect: the second generation is born into the
society of immigration and, unlike their parents and the children of the in-
between generation, they do not have a migration experience. They do not need
to adapt in a society new to them. “If the second generation does not need to
integrate or assimilate into society, the common opposition between ‘the society’
(natives/ autochthonous/ residents) on the one side, and immigrants as
‘newcomers’ on the other, does not apply to the second generation.”
Second-generation youngsters are member of the society from the day they are
born and we can look at them as being part of (or participating in) a plurality of
social organizations.
The TIES data show their biographical continuity – they were born, grew up and
are still living in the same city. In contrast, many respondents of native-born
parents moved from other part of the country to the major cities. When we look
at attachment and involvement at the neighbourhood level, as a result we find
stronger involvement among the second generation than among age peers with
native-born parents.
The second generation: professional roles and other sub-cultural identities
The idea of super-diversity presented by Vertovec describes the growing
diversification among city dwellers. We would add that super-diversity is also
becoming visible across ethnic lines, sometimes challenging the existing ethnic
hierarchies.
The second generation: ‘remaking the mainstream’
It is a relatively new phenomenon that the formerly clearly defined ethnic
majority group is becoming a minority group like the other ethnic groups. The
fact that they are losing their numeric majority position in the younger cohorts of
larger cities does not mean that the ‘majority group’ would necessarily also lose
its status as the most dominant group in social and economic terms. there are
three groups that mostly interact with their own ethnic group members:
- Higher educated of native parentage: this is the continuation of the status
quo before and a reflection of lower ethnic diversity in the higher streams
of society
- Less well educated of native parentage: this is more problematic, because
their more limited networks potentially harm their access to better
education, work and housing.
- Less well educated of the second generation: this is more problematic,
because their more limited networks potentially harm their access to
better education, work, and housing.
‘reconsidering the mainstream’ thus may radically shift the focus on which group
is more or less ‘assimilated’ or ‘integrated’. Children of native-born parents with
no connections outside their own group may find themselves outside the
multicultural ‘mainstream’.
Comparative integration context theory: theoretical and methodological
implications
Taking the institutional arrangements of a country for granted or as given can
seriously affect the way we perceive problems of participation and belonging
among the second generation. Comparing different ethnic groups in the same
local or national contexts automatically sets the focus on the immigrant group
themselves.
The impressive differences between the educational performances of Turks
across several European countries can largely be explained by the different
educational institutional arrangements in each country. Among these the most
influential factors are starting age in school, age of first track selection, the
, upward permeability within secondary education and the existence of a long or
indirect route to higher education through the vocational stream.
To look at participation in key institutions in different European cities requires
two different perspectives: from the societal perspective it means to look at the
national and local ‘institutional arrangements’ facilitating or hampering
participation and access, reproducing or reducing inequality. The second
perspective includes the agency of individuals and groups, actively developing
options and making choices, challenging given opportunities and structural
configurations.
The context of social and political discourse:
Independent of their direct impact on policies and institutional practices,
government rhetorics have an influence on the political and social climate,
directly affecting immigrants’ and their children’s quest for a place and position
in the host society. On the one hand, integration practices are shaped and pre-
structured by specific institutional context. On the other hand, integration
practices are shaped by rules and ‘habits’ in establishing and taking care of
social relations and social interaction in a given societal setting.
We distinguish three basic types of discursive contexts:
- political discourse
- social discourse of everyday communication and interaction
- media discourse
the discursive context represents a complex field, in which the feelings of
belonging in the second generation are in constant tension with political, media
and social representations of their position in society. For Moroccan second
generation claiming to be Dutch seems far more problematic than being Spanish
or Belgian. Interestingly, citizenship seems not to play a major role here: the
number for dual and host-country nationality do not significantly differ for
second-generation Moroccans in the three cities. This is an indication that the
discursive context is the most important determinant here. At the same time we
see that local identity can be a sort of ‘substitute’ for national identity. The
differences between ‘national’ and ‘local’ belonging point to the importance of
the ‘discursive legitimacy’ of specific ‘labels’.
In summary, with the comparative integration context theory, we argue that
participation and belonging in new diverse European cities is strongly dependent
on the integration context. Differences in integration contexts include
institutional arrangements in education, the labour market, housing, religion and
legislation. Differences in the social and political context are especially important
for social and cultural participation and belonging.
Comparative integration context theory: methodology
How do people in practice deal with the challenge of finding a place and position
in this new diverse urban reality. Only by bringing in the process is it possible to
link the outcomes at different stages of school career to the institutional
arrangements, like early selection and the possibility of moving up from lower
vocational education.
Although some lower-class ethnic minority groups may find better ways to
overcome the inequality of opportunities in American schools than others, the
results in the US, above all, reflect the American way of integrating children into
educational institutions. These observations should caution us about transferring
American assimilation theory to other national contexts. Even if in other countries
we find similar segmented outcomes, the mechanisms and institutional settings
