Scientific research from within and beyond academia continues to provide the justification and the knowledge for policy developments directed toward migration and integration governance. A proliferation of scholarship aims to study, pilot, and investigate the ‘best practices’ for facilitating integration, which is then taken up in advice to policy makers. Many authors have written about this science-policy nexus (Boswell 2009; Penninx, Garcés-Mascareñas, and Scholten 2005; Scholten et al. 2015; Verbeek, Entzinger, and Scholten 2015) These works have also engaged in critical reflection, problematizing this nexus and demonstrating how funding structures draw researchers not only into addressing short-term policy goals, but also into reproducing some of the essentialist worldviews that come with methodological nationalism (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002) and the ‘national order of things’ (Malkki 1995). Yet, the colonial legacies and dis/continuities of these logics in integrationism have not received much attention so far.The paper takes a critical lens on the implications of the science-policy complicity in reproducing colonial logics of ‘cultural distance’, based on perspectives and empirical research from different national (Netherlands and Switzerland) and supra-national (EU) contexts. We analyse texts which shape the civic integration programme in the Netherlands, the genealogy of the integration requirement to respect the values of the constitution in Switzerland, and the EU framework on migrant integration. This combined analysis brings forth the role scientists and knowledge producers play in (re)producing the colonial logics within integrationism, and their contributions to the regime of truth within which integration discourse operates. Throughout this article, we draw on examples from these different contexts to display that integration and its migranticized (Dahinden 2016) subjects are constructed through practices deemed as scientific or objective expertise, building on important work by Schinkel (2018) on integration research as “neocolonial knowledge production” and Favell’s (2022) critical reflections on integration indicator frameworks. As we demonstrate, the “idea of integration as an issue of cultural distance is rendered imaginable in and through colonial legacies and scientific practices from which policy draws legitimacy. We show how cultural distance is produced in the scientification of migrants’ assimilability in a ‘Western work ethic’, in measurement of migrants’ adherence to liberal values, and through constructions of integration drawing on social imaginaries of national and European identity. Importantly, we argue that by presenting this cultural distance as a product of objective, scientific processes of empirical observation, the notion of cultural distance is normalised and depoliticized, which ultimately legitimizes integrationism as a mode of governance.The present study builds on important contributions (by Schinkel 2017; Favell 2022; Korteweg 2017; Bonjour and Duyvendak 2017, and others) in attempting to destabilize the normalization of integrationism as the widely accepted mode of governance of ‘immigrant’ or ‘ethnic’ populations and their inherent and problematic ‘distance’. The content and structure of this summer school in post-colonial Amsterdam would allow us to continue our critical reflexive discussions to better understand the colonial logics at play and how they operate in multiple contexts and at multiple levels of governance, in and beyond integration
LINK
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the bidirectional relationship between policy and data reliability has been a challenge for researchers of the local municipal health services. Policy decisions on population specific test locations and selective registration of negative test results led to population differences in data quality. This hampered the calculation of reliable population specific infection rates needed to develop proper data driven public health policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-023-00377-y
MULTIFILE
The development of legal frameworks for social enterprises in the Netherlands is described and analysed in this paper, focusing on 2015-2021. The Netherlands are the largest EU member state in population size without a specific legal form or status for social enterprises. A form of legal recognition is in development, but far from finished. Six lessons can be learned from the process: 1) Even in a thriving ecosystem based on ‘bottom up’ development, there is need for a legal framework. 2) Local government initiatives spur national government into action. 3) International examples prove inspirational, but the legal framework needs to fit the local context. 4) Finding balance between rule-based and principle-based elements is difficult. 5) Clarifying advantages for social entrepreneurs proves challenging. 6) Tenacious pioneers are crucial to keep the process going. Pressure on the national government to provide a legal framework that fits the Dutch cultural, political and entrepreneurial landscape remains.
The overall purpose of this consultancy was to support the activities under the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in developing the 7th pan-European environmental assessment, an indicator based and thematic assessment, implemented jointly with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and in support of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The series of environmental assessments of the pan-European region provide up to-date and policy-relevant information on the interactions between the environment and society. This consultancy was to:> Draft the input on drivers and developments to chapter 1.2 of the assessment related to the environmental theme “4.2 Applying principles of circular economy to sustainable tourism”.> Suggest to UNECE and UNEP the most policy relevant indicators from UNECE-environmental, SDG indicators and from other indicator frameworks such as EEA or OECD for the environmental theme for the sub-chapter 4.2.> Assess the current state, trends and recent developments and prepare the substantive part of sub-chapter 4.2 (summary - part I) and an annex (part II) with the detailed analysis and findings.
The projectThe overarching goal of DIGNITY, DIGital traNsport In and for socieTY, is to foster a sustainable, integrated and user-friendly digital travel eco-system that improves accessibility and social inclusion, along with the travel experience and daily life of all citizens. The project delves into the digital transport eco-system to grasp the full range of factors that might lead to disparities in the uptake of digitalised mobility solutions by different user groups in Europe. Analysing the digital transition from both a user and provider’s perspective, DIGNITY looks at the challenges brought about by digitalisation, to then design, test and validate the DIGNITY approach, a novel concept that seeks to become the ‘ABCs for a digital inclusive travel system’. The approach combines proven inclusive design methodologies with the principles of foresight analysis to examine how a structured involvement of all actors – local institutions, market players, interest groups and end users – can help bridge the digital gap by co-creating more inclusive mobility solutions and by formulating user-centred policy frameworks.The objectivesThe idea is to support public and private mobility providers in conceiving mainstream digital products or services that are accessible to and usable by as many people as possible, regardless of their income, social situation or age; and to help policy makers formulate long-term strategies that promote innovation in transport while responding to global social, demographic and economic changes, including the challenges of poverty and migration.The missionBy focusing on and involving end-users throughout the process of designing policies, products, or services, it is possible to reduce social exclusion while boosting new business models and social innovation. The end result that DIGNITY is aiming for is an innovative decision support tool that can help local and regional decision-makers formulate digitally inclusive policies and strategies, and digital providers design more inclusive products and services.The approachThe DIGNITY approach combines analysis with concrete actions to make digital mobility services inclusive over the long term. The approach connects users’ needs and requirements with the provision of mobility services, and at the same time connects those services to the institutional framework. It is a multi-phase process that first seeks to understand and bridge the digital gap, and then to test, evaluate and fine-tune the approach, so that it can be applied in other contexts even after the project’s end.Partners: ISINNOVA (Italy), Mobiel 21 (Belgium), Universitat Politechnica deCatalunya Spain), IZT (Germany), University of Cambridge (UK), Factualconsulting (Spain), Barcelona Regional Agencia (Spain), City of Tilburg(Netherlands), Nextbike (Germany), City of Ancona (Italy), MyCicero (Italy),Conerobus (Italy), Vlaams Gewest (Belgium)
Client: COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Funder: COST is an intergovernmental framework for European Cooperation in Science and Technology, allowing the coordination of nationally-funded research on a European level This project is based on bringing together principles of ecosystem services (ES), which focus on life support systems, with more non-material services such as culture, health and wellbeing through tourism. It aims to link research on wellbeing provided by ecosystems and their use via tourism, leisure and recreation activities. The underpinning issue of this proposal is to produce new and collaborative research on how and in what way can tourism be a catalyst for improving human health and wellbeing, by using in a symbiotic and sustainable way natural resources and services provided by ecosystems, as well as exploring the challenges of (e)valuation of such services. This will be achieved by creating a collaborative European network of research centres based around four key working groups, namely (a) theoretical relationships between tourism, wellbeing and ES ; (b) empirical and methodological research challenges and approaches; (c) interrelations between ageing, wellbeing and ES; and (d) policy frameworks' analysis and research-informed policy making
