Panels and conferences — MIGLOBA members

Conference 23-24 April 2025, Brussels

Keynotes by prof. Adrian Favell (University College Cork) and prof. Halleh Ghorashi (Free University Amsterdam)

In recent decades, few issues have been so intensively debated as the so-called “integration” of different groups of immigrants, including refugees and their families (Favell 2022; Gryzmala-Kazlowka & Phillimore 2018; Hinger & Schweitzer 2020; Joppke 2017; Phillimore 2021; Rytter 2019; Schinkel 2018). Across the global North, governments have introduced a variety of policies ranging from ‘civic integration’ to family reunification, and from social domains such as education and work to those of housing and health. While these policies are purportedly designed to strengthen migrants’ social inclusion, many seem to de facto reinforce the exclusion of specific groups (Bendixsen & Näre 2024). To some extent, this seems to be due to the notoriously complex nature of this branch of governance, as it involves multiple levels and competences within the state, and an amalgam of state and civil society actors who hold different views on what ‘integration’ is and how it works (Adam & Hepburn 2019; Joppke 2017). As a result, the multilevel governance of immigrant ‘integration’ tends to generate both ‘gaps’ and 'frictions', and opens up space for both collaboration and conflict (Campomori & Ambrosini 2020).

This political complexity is exacerbated by the fact that some of these policies are explicitly designed to discourage potential immigrants from settling in a given country by limiting their access to the welfare state (Hinger & Schweitzer 2020; Tallis 2022). Hence their rights are made contingent upon proof of their cultural assimilation and economic self-reliance (Schinkel 2015), they are redirected to precarious forms of employment (Castles 2015; Rytter & Ghandchi 2015), and they may be excluded from social rights altogether (Bendixsen & Näre 2024). At the same time, this complex, contradictory field of policies offers fertile ground for innovative practices of support at both local and transnational levels (Ataç al 2016; Ghorashi & Rast 2018; Larruina et al 2019; Wessendorf & Phillimore 2019; Vandermeerschen et al 2023; Vandevoordt & Verschraegen 2019). A wide range of actors thus constantly builds and rebuilds an ‘arrival infrastructure’ (Meeus et al 2020) that offers pathways of inclusion into different social domains such as housing, work, education, health, and into social and cultural life more generally. Together, this complex field of multi-level governance, the ambivalent aims of including and excluding migrants from the welfare state, and the constant re-emergence of arrival infrastructures, creates a contentious ‘politics of (dis)integration’ (Hinger & Schweitzer 2020) that is difficult to navigate by immigrants and everyone who supports them.

Within this contentious field, refugees and their families have moved to the centre of many debates. For a long time, refugee families have been conceived of as a particularly ‘deserving’ group of migrants, which is reflected in policy principles such as ‘non-refoulement’, in relatively flexible (temporary) criteria for family reunification, and in the ad hoc establishment of reception facilities in response to mass displacement crises such as those following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While this differential treatment continues to date, policy-makers have increasingly problematised the arrival and so-called ‘integration’ of refugees and their families (Debruyne 2024; Vandevoordt & Verschraegen 2019). As a result, refugees who seek to reunify with their families are subjected to conditions and criteria that are more flexible yet limited in time, as compared to the criteria imposed on other groups of immigrants. This creates specific challenges, both in terms of the reunification procedures (e.g. collecting official documents from war zones), and in terms of the psychosocial impact of family members’ exposure to war on refugees’ ability to deal with ‘civic integration’ policies after their arrival.

Nevertheless, the specific predicament of refugees cannot be disconnected from broader trends and problems in the governance of migrant families. Many countries have indeed raised the barriers to family reunification for several groups of migrants (Bonjour & de Hart 2013; Bonjour & Kraler 2015; Bonizzoni 2018; Desmet et al 2023). And while family concerns are known to shape how migrants navigate policies of ‘civic integration’, housing, work, and so on, these same policies tend to conceive of migrants as isolated individuals that need to be ‘integrated’ economically and culturally (Bauder 2019; Klok & Dagevos 2023; Van Acker et al 2022). In other words, families continue to play a crucial, but poorly understood role in mediating between migrants’ daily lives and the policies affecting them. If we want to better understand how different groups of migrants are affected by and navigate the ‘politics of (dis)integration’, we thus need to pay close attention to the experiences of different sub-groups of migrants (e.g. refugees, family reunification, labour migration,...) and, within these sub-groups, the different experiences of family members. 

This two-day conference will examine how the contentious ‘politics of (dis)integration’ shapes the social in/exclusion of different groups of migrants and their families, and how different actors navigate this complex, contradictory field of policies. We are particularly - but not exclusively - interested in contributions that zoom in on the specific sub-group of refugees (and their families), or that compare policies towards different groups of refugees (e.g. International Protection vs Temporary Protection Directive) and towards other groups of immigrants (e.g. family reunification, labour migration,...). 

More information:

This is the final conference of REFUFAM, an interdisciplinary consortium examining the impact of Belgian migration-related policies on the social inclusion of refugees and their family members. www.refufam.be 

Practicalities:

• Please submit a title, name(s) and abstract (250-300 words) to giacomo.orsini@ugent.be before 15 October 2024.
• Authors whose contribution is accepted will be notified by 1 December 2024.
• Registration fees are 50 EUR for regular participants, 20 EUR for practitioners, and 10 EUR for students.

Send proposals to eline.dejong@uantwerpen.be before Sunday, October 6th

Chairs: Zinaïda Sluijs (Uppsala University) & Eline de Jong (University of Antwerp)

Abstract

In recent years, welfare states have become progressively crisis-driven under neoliberal capitalism, and far-right rhetoric and ideology have increasingly come to dominate the political landscape. Consequently, this raises questions on how changes to welfare states impact practices of solidarity and the dynamics of in- and exclusion that these practices entail. This panel will critically examine how changes in European welfare systems, such as altered funding structures and new categories of welfare conditionality and deservingness, shape the experiences of different groups of migrants. The panel explores these questions through the lenses of feminist and de-colonial theory, which critically evaluate bordering practices and focus on the intersecting ways in which systems of in- and exclusion can operate. We aim to explore how crisis conditions exacerbate exclusionary practices, often resulting in differential access to welfare services based on criteria that intertwine with notions of race, class, and gender. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives from, amongst others, sociology, anthropology, and geography, the panel aims to engage with both theoretical frameworks and empirical case studies to illuminate how these exclusionary mechanisms operate in various contexts.

We invite papers that incorporate qualitative approaches, including ethnography and narrative analysis, to capture the lived experiences of migrants navigating these systems of exclusion. We welcome papers that interrogate policy- and organizational practices which enable or limit the inclusion of migrants. Through this, we seek to contribute to a nuanced understanding of how crisis-driven welfare states construct and enforce boundaries of belonging, ultimately shaping the contours of migrant solidarity and marginalization.

EASA2024: Doing and Undoing with Anthropology — Panel: Mothering times: experiences of motherhood in the process of migration 

Convenors: Aurora Massa (University of Pavia) — Amal Miri (University of Antwerp)— Milena Belloni (University of Antwerp)

This panel aims to explore different temporalities of being/becoming mothers and performing motherhood in the process of migration. Time/temporalities proved to be fruitful perspectives for investigating the experiences of mobile people, their struggle with border regimes, narratives of nostalgia and practices of belonging. Likewise, motherhood is an embodied social experience marked by the need to balance many conflicting times (for instance, the experience of aging with the decision of (re)becoming parents, the pace of mothering with everyday challenges of migrants’ lives). How do the divergent temporalities of migration and motherhood contribute to the doing and undoing of reproductive/non-reproductive practices across borders? How do they reshape mothering expectations, practices and experiences, and gender roles within familiar, transnational and diasporic networks?

We welcome ethnographic contributions in the following areas (but not exclusively):

• The temporalities of mobility: How does the migratory journey, as an embodied experience, shape women’s plans to become mothers and their aspirations for their children’s future?

• The temporalities of transnational families: How do geographic distance shape the experiences of time within separated families? How is migration perceived by women in relation to their role as mothers?

• Facing bureaucratic timing: How is the temporality of migrant family life understood by bureaucratic migration controls? How are bureaucracy and family times diverging or converging in migrants’ narratives?

• Affective citizenship and temporalities: Can caring for children and elders be debated as active citizenship? How is it represented in public discourse and in individuals’ claims about membership in society?

​EASA2024: Migrations, gender equality and empowerment in the EU

Discussant: Amal Miri (University of Antwerp)

The growing diversity across societies in Europe presents severe societal challenges because of the cumulative effects of multiple forms of discrimination related to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and others. Current public discourses concerning migrants often imply a return to traditional gender ideologies, thus threatening equity/equality policies and the empowerment of women and girls in general (a fundamental goal of the UN agenda for sustainable development). The literature on gender and migration has highlighted, not only the specificities of women in migration, but also how diversity within this group is relevant to integration (Kofman & Raghuram, in Scholten, 2022). However, notions of gender empowerment often rely on liberal or paternalistic approaches to ‘empower’ or ‘save’ female migrants (Cornwall, 2016; Abu-Lughod, 2013), which many policies and practices are built on. These perspectives do not reflect the heterogeneity and agency of migrant women and girls nor the barriers to equality and inclusion they encounter. In this panel we aim to address how this mismatch may reproduce dominant trends in public opinion and permeate the policies and practices of Civil Society Organizations working with migrant women and girls, leaving aside more complex debates such as those around cultural relativism, ethnocentrism or racist stereotypes. We welcome ethnographic works on gender studies, migration, and media/cultural studies. We encourage critical reflections applying intersectional approaches, European comparative works on gender and inclusion policies and the practices of CSO’s, or methodological reflections on the current challenges of doing research on gender and migration.

IMISCOE Conference LISBON 2024 — Transnational Family Dynamics panel​

Chair 1 : Karlijn Haagsman  — Maastricht University 

Discussant 1: Mieke Schrooten —Odisee University of Applied Sciences 

Abstract 

ISTR panel proposal: The critical role of the third sector in the Ukraine crisis across Europe​

Chair: Mieke Schrooten (Odisee University of Applied Sciences and University of Antwerp)

Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian territories on 24 February 2022 has triggered rapid, large‐scale migration of Ukrainian residents, both within Ukraine and to the European Union, leading to the displacement of nearly one third of all Ukrainians. The magnitude and rapidity of this inflow into Europe is unprecedented, making Ukraine’s war‐related forced migration Europe’s largest displacement crisis in decades.

As a response to this situation, the European Commission invoked the so‐called Temporary Protection Directive for the first time, automatically entitling Ukrainians fleeing war to a temporary protection status and guaranteeing access to shelter, the labour market, medical care, education for minors and social assistance in the cities, towns and rural areas to which they fled.

Across Europe, governments faced the task of mobilising resources to meet the housing and welfare needs of Ukrainian refugees. Social workers – and the third sector in general – were challenged to adapt their functioning to provide displaced Ukrainians with the support they are entitled to. In numerous countries, welfare providers encountered various obstacles in this support provision, including legal, practical and ethical ones. At the same time, this novel situation also lead to innovative practices in housing and support provision, often including the mobilisation of informal civil society. Exemplary are the private accommodation of people fleeing Ukraine in several countries across Europe and the many small social initiatives that try to meet their needs, often using social media and crowdsourcing platforms. The vast mobilisation of volunteers underlines the capacity and great willingness of local populations to help Ukrainian refugees.

Both the joint act of solidarity from the European Union and the scale of citizen‐based solidarity are unprecedented in migration‐related issues in the EU. This panel critically explores these acts of solidarity, as well as the role of the third sector in the reception, support and integration of displaced Ukrainians across European countries. First, Kata Fredheim (Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, Latvia) explores how the plans of Ukrainian refugees in Latvia evolved over time and how support from the third sector changed accordingly, evolving to a sophisticated support infrastructure. The second presentation, by Karina Melnyk and Hubert Kaszyński (Institute of Sociology of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland), examines the factors that played a role in the unprecedented hospitality in Poland for people fleeing Ukraine, presenting the findings from a mixed‐methods study. Also from Poland, Ryszard Necel investigates how Polish social workers perceived the cooperation with the local community during the Ukrainian crisis. In the final article, Tony Mickelsson Blomqvist (Södertörn University in Stockholm, Sweden) addresses the question raised by many – not in the least by many third sector actors – as to how Ukrainians are treated differently from other refugee groups at various levels.