Keywords

Introduction

In the 1950s to the early 60 s, Sweden attracted labour immigrants from the Nordic countries. However, in the 1960s it was mainly labour immigrants from southern Europe, particularly Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia. However, by the late 1960s, due to economic recession, the Swedish labour union lobbied the government and succeeded in curtailing labour immigration. Since the 1970s, asylum seekers have dominated immigration to Sweden. In the 1970s, refugees and asylum seekers came from Chile, Poland, and Turkey dominated person seeking protection in Sweden; in the 1980s it was persons, from Chile, Ethiopia, and were main groups of asylum seeker and asylum seekers. In the 1990s Asylum seeker were dominated by persons from Somalia, Iraq, and Yugoslavia (Bevelander, 2004, p. 8); and since 2000, from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria, and Somalia. Sweden became a popular destination for refugees which was so dramatically evident in 2015 that it led to Sweden adopting draconian policies to reduce this type of immigration. In Sweden today anybody seeking asylum is given temporary protection if their refugee status is recognised. From the onset, I would like to stress that there is t is still no universal consensus on the definition of immigrant. The International Organization for Migration defines a migrant as a person who has left their country of origin for different reasons (IOM, 2019). In this chapter, the term ‘immigrant’ refers to individuals from non-EU/ESS countries who have come to Sweden for different reasons. I exclude other immigrants from Nordic and EU countries because they have extensive rights due to their EU and Nordic citizenship. For instance, unlike other types of immigrants, the vocations of EU and Nordic citizens are automatically recognised in Sweden. In other words, an immigrant’s country of origin is critical to their accessing their vocation in Sweden. In the study, I focus on the policy and intervention measures that define Swedish integration policy. Both policy and intervention measures reflect not only the intersubjective understanding of the ‘problem’ of integration of Swedish political-administrative actors (politicians and grassroot bureaucrats) but also how the problem ought to be dealt with. These policies and initiatives are programmes of action which are intended to mitigate the “problem” migrants encounter in the Swedish labour market. Although, within the EU, the Nordic countries, and Sweden, despite longstanding debate on the integration of immigrants and refugees, there is still no consensus on what characterises successful integration, while the term itself is pliable and is ascribed different meanings (Phillimore, 2020).

This chapter will address the following questions: (1) How is the problem of integration constructed in Swedish policy? (2) How do these constructions shape integration practice in Sweden? (3) What are the consequences for individuals subjected to these measures? The third question will be addressed in light of an empirical study that examined a project on “migrants who have successfully attained their vocation in Sweden”. These national policies are constructed to facilitate the integration of refugees into the Swedish labour market and function as instruments for assessing, categorising, and classifying immigrants and refugees and constructing them as competent or incompetent in the Swedish context (Osman, 2006; Andersson & Osman, 2008). Many studies have shown that some immigrants are racialised (e.g., De los Reyes, 2022; Törngren, 2022) while others are not. In other words, there is an ‘ethno–racial hierarchy’ of immigrants in Sweden that affects their position in the Swedish labour market and in society. In addition, these racialised group(s) are to a large extent stigmatised in the everyday discourse of migration and integration in Sweden and are subjected to racism and discrimination. Historically, however, racialisation of groups has had a temporal dimension. For instance, the Irish, Italians, and Poles were racialised groups in the United States and UK.

Scholarship on racialisation has traditionally examined these processes in terms of the black/white racial binary. While centring the analysis of anti-black discrimination remains salient, researchers have increasingly attended to examining the experiences of exclusion of white racialised groups (Sime et al., 2022, p.4528).

In other words, racism and racialisation as a source of exclusion can cover any category of people that is constructed as different from the dominant group, based on ethnicity, race, minority, biology, history, or migrant status (Sime et al., 2022). In addition, from a sociological point of view, the marginalisation of immigrants and refugees is often attributed to different forms of deficits, for example, language, relevant social and cultural capital, etc., and this shapes the policies and practices aimed at facilitating the integration of refugees.

Integration Measures as a Form of Governmentality

In the introduction, I stressed that the main objective of this chapter was to delineate the implicit and explicit knowledge of others embedded in the integration initiatives and their implications for the individuals targeted by these measures. Simply put, the endgame of these measures is to affect change and guide individuals towards a desired end. But in order to achieve this end, the initiative has to distinguish the ‘problem’ or the challenges afflicting a group and its individual members – which, in the case of refugees, is their exclusion from Swedish society. In other words, without this knowledge of the specific obstacles refugees encounter in Swedish society, it is difficult to create a policy and programmes to mitigate these obstacles. Thus, in order to make sense of the measures and to challenge the rationale on which they are based, it is not enough to simply delineate this knowledge of the ‘other’ embedded in the practices but also to understand the consequences of the measures for the person or groups the measures target.

Foucault’s theoretical construct of governmentality is useful here. Foucault developed the idea of governmentality into a theory focusing on the practice of governing or govern-mentality. The notion of governmentality is examined from two vantage points, according to Edwards (2002, p. 356):

One is framing within which to analyze the practices through which governing in general takes place… the focus here… is the disciplinary power invested in nation states and their management of the economy and populations through the practices of health, education, housing and punishment. The second sense of governmentality is specific to the practices within advanced liberal democratic states. Here it is argued that governing is concerned less with disciplining the population than in enabling individuals to develop their capacities to look after themselves. (Edwards 2002, p 356)

The second notion of governmentality, thus, is the approach I find most useful for making sense of the measures examined in this chapter. I view the measures as a site where refugees’ subjectivity is shaped, and their competence recognised or misrecognised. In other words, it is through these measures that the self-regulating capacities of immigrants and refugees are shaped and normalised by so-called experts, constituting them as competent and experienced, or incompetent and, thus, as included or excluded.

To achieve this end, the policy and measures function as instruments for assessing, categorising, and classifying immigrants and refugees in relation to a norm. This norm can be the Swedish system of education or other norms in which the immigrant typically has a lack, etc. This process will be evident to the reader in the empirical sections. The differences and gaps identified in this process are then identified as deficits which are then used to rank – hierarchise – immigrants and refugees in relation to the norm and, thus, used to identify who is desirable. Furthermore, these measures identify what behavioural changes, norms, or values the targeted individuals ought to internalise to be integrated into Swedish society. This process of subjectification in the Foucaudian sense of self-making and being-made is a part of the power relations that bring into being recognition of embodiment of the schema of relations such tastes, ways of being, etc., through systems of surveillance, discipline, control, and administration. The outcome, according to Bryant et al. (1997), is the constitution of the subjectivity of the other – that is, “one becomes the way one is identified and identifies oneself” (p.56).

The self-regulating capacities of individuals are shaped and normalised through institutional experts constituting the subject as competent and experienced or incompetent and, thus, included or excluded from the common good. These power relations or systems of discipline, control, administration, are essential in the construction of citizenship, whereby the state as a cultural project, through its moral mission of regulation homogenises what in reality is the multi-faceted and diverse experience of different groups in society (Corrigan & Sayer, 1985). Bryant et al. (1997), Mabille (2019), and Edwards (2002) stress that governing in advanced liberal democracies has little to do with social reform and more to do with inculcating a certain cultural ethos based on certain norms and values.

The norm provides the basis for sorting, classifying, creating boundaries and exclusion, and specific orderings of space-time… the power of normalization imposes homogeneity; but it also individualizes by making it possible to measure gaps, to determine levels, to fix specialties and to render the differences useful by fitting them to one another (Edwards 2002, p.362).

Thus, the measures examined in this study are conceived as a form of governmentality to enhance and facilitate the employability of refugees within their areas of competence in the Swedish labour market. They are social technologies – instruments that both exclude and include refugees in Swedish society to create both a competent and an incompetent immigrant subject. My analysis of the measures is inspired by this understanding of governmentality. I use the following questions to interrogate the measures: Whose voices are heard and whose experiences are valued? Who is excluded and how? What are the effects of the measures on the individual and societal levels? These issues can be summarised by viewing the measures as forms of governmentality – a kind of patriarchy of the people, by some of the people, for some of the people.

The Swedish Policy of Integration: The Construction of the Problem of Integration

Before the 1970s, immigrants came to Sweden primarily to labour and were expected to return home once their contracts expired or when they retired, and there was no need to develop a policy and programme to integrate them into Swedish society. By the 1970s, however, asylum seekers began to outnumber labour migrants, changing the demographic character of Swedish immigrants, which led to the demand for integration policies and interventions (integrationsåtgärder) to facilitate the incorporation of refugees into Swedish society.

The 1980s is usually described as the decade when immigration to Sweden shifted to non-European and refugee immigration. This is also the decade when the Swedish government reformed the system for the integration of refugees. In Sweden, on both policy and operational levels, there is a distinct separation between the reception of asylum seekers and the integration of refugees and their families. While the reception of asylum seekers has always been the responsibility of the state, between 1985 and 2010 the reception of refugees was transferred from state to local authorities (Righard & Öberg. (2020, p.5)

Thus, irrespective of the political and academic struggle over the meaning of the term integration, the policy target primarily refugee immigrants, and is also refer to or is an umbrella term for programs/project for different types of institutional activities intended to facilitate the social inclusion of immigrants in Sweden.

In Sweden, refugee and immigrant integration policy has shifted focus since the mid-1970s. The first policy had three core principles rooted in the Swedish welfare state model: equality, freedom of choice, and partnership. The policy is based on a corporatist perspective of ‘welfare-state, and the notion citizenship’. Citizenship here aiming to inculcate belonging via social rights, which coloured the process of receiving immigrants. The core principles of this first policy (Swedish multicultural policy) are: (a) Equality, (b) Freedom of choice, and (c) Partnership. Schierup and Ålund (2011) noted that the Swedish multiculturalism policy was a rejection of the ‘guest worker’ strategy for importing labour and that the policy’s objective was to ensure social equality among ethnic groups, respect for immigrants’ cultures, and resources for immigrants and ethnic minorities to participate in the political life of the host society. Hammar (1985, p.33) sums up the core purpose of this multicultural policy thus: Equality in this policy meant immigrants’ had the same standard of life as Swedish citizens. The goal of freedom of choice is that public policies and measures ensure that immigrants and ethnic and linguistic minorities have a choice between maintaining their cultural identities or assimilating. The goal of partnership is that immigrants, minority groups, and the native population benefit from working together. Tawat (2019) identifies several reasons why Sweden adopted a multicultural policy. The Swedish government wanted to align domestic immigration policy with their related foreign policies: those which enshrined the right of Swedish communities abroad to preserve their Swedish culture, and those which championed universal human rights and supported various civil rights movement around the world. Tawat also underscores the role of Social Democratic Party ally the Swedish Labour Union (LO), whose influence ensured that immigrants would be granted equality and the freedom to choose between assimilation and maintaining their own culture. It is worth noting that since the 1990s, the idea of multiculturalism had been declared dead by German chancellor Angela Merkel, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, and French president Nicholas Sarkozy, who all argued that multiculturalism had been a divisive force in previously coherent national societies (Faist, 2013). However, despite the abandonment and critic of multicultural policy the right for immigrant and refugees to practice their religions and cultural practices, mother tongue (the right to mother tongue assistance when engaging with authorities etc), religious burial grounds, participation in the political life of the host society (voting) was maintained (See Faist, 2013).

Policies targeting immigrants, according to Schierup et al., (2006), are inspired by the experiences of inclusionaryFootnote 1 strategies and policies from the United States and other European countries. In the United States as well as in Sweden, the promoting of diversity is justified by a set of intertwined discourses, one of these being the discourse of competitiveness (quality) and profit. This discourse stresses how the ‘problem’ of integration is conceptualised by the different political administrative actors in the Swedish context. For companies to compete in a global market, they need to diversify their labour force. The assumption is that a diverse work force brings together people with different perspectives, which gives companies and organisations a competitive edge in the global market. The same raison d’être is found in diversifying the work force in public institutions. The discourse stresses the importance of delivering quality of service to multi-ethnic clients. A second discourse that commonly legitimises diversity is social justice and equality. However, the notion of diversity/multiculturalism is controversial and has been criticised by Appiah (1994), Brah (1992), and Mattsson (2001), among others. In Sweden, the policy was discredited in a number of intertwined discourses. For instance, according to Borevi (2014), multicultural policy was criticised on the grounds that it supported migrants’ ethno-cultural identities, thus jeopardising their integration into Swedish society: “The discussion resulted in a declaration, in a government bill from 1986 that the immigrant policy ‘does not aim at supporting immigrants as collective identities.” (Ibid; 713–714). In 1997, the policy was replaced by one of integration, which according to Borevi (2014) was considered a paradigmatic shift. One of the changes in this policy was the rescinding of the policy the whole Swedish strategy and refugees were were given the option to move to any place in Sweden.

The main justification for the policy was that it would facilitate the integration of immigrants by making it easier for them to get a job and to adjust to Swedish society with the support of relatives and acquaintances who were already living in Sweden (SOU 1992:133). The policy change was expected to encourage asylum seekers to take greater responsibility for their lives. In addition, economic support was shifted to support resource-weak asylum seekers and new arrivals. However, the unintended effect of the change led to a large number of asylum seekers and refugees moving to the biggest cities in Sweden. Borevi (2014: p.714) says that the policy “constituted little more than a confirmation of the change in course that had already been made in the 1980s” and stresses that the policy did not rescind past practices but built on the measures introduced by the multicultural policy of the 1970s. For instance, mother tongue teaching, support for migrant associations (ethnic associations) and Swedish as a Second Language (SFI) which was introduced in the 1970s (Lgr 69, Suppl. 2, 1973), were not discarded.

Since 2010, the reception of refugees and their families has been the responsibility of the Swedish Employment Service, while the reception of asylum seekers is still managed by the Swedish Migration Agency. In 2015, there was an extraordinary spike in the number of asylum seekers in Sweden. In practice, it created several challenges, such as organising their reception and housing, which forced the government to reduce the pressure on the system by restricting the number of asylum seekers. For instance, the border between Denmark and Sweden was closed for people without valid ID documents. In June 2016, to make Sweden less attractive for asylum seekers, Sweden introduced a temporary residence permit for refugees, and a more restrictive policy and practice on family reunion for individuals with refugee status. But this shift did allow asylum seekers the possibility of ‘changing track’ from being asylum seekers to being labour migrants, even though, to qualify, they had to be unionised or at least have a alary based on the norm negotiated by the union. In Sweden, until this reform, the core principle in Swedish asylum and integration policy was providing individuals with permanent residence permits and family reunification rights.

The shifts in integration policy shaped how integration practice was conceptualised and the focus of integration shifted to facilitating and shortening the time it took for migrants to access their vocations or find employment (Osman 2006; Andersson & Osman, 2008). To achieve this goal, the government introduced a battery of measures, such as The Establishment Programme (Etableringsprogrammet), The Short Way (Kortavägen), and The Fast Track (Snabbaspåren). The Short Way and Fast Track programmes were introduced during the 2015 ‘migration crisis’. Most of these programmes, however, (with the exception of The Short Way) target refugees and their families and are not available to other groups of migrants.

To summarise, the objective of Swedish integration policy has always departed from the idea of equal rights, obligations, and opportunities for everybody irrespective of their ethnic or national background (Emilsson, 2014). The policy emphasises individual obligations and self-support through employment (Borevi, 2014). In 2010, integration policy was sharpened through the development of programmes and practices to facilitate migrants’ and refugees’ employment.. Integration policy introduced a battery of measures to facilitate immigrants’ and refugees’ access to the Swedish labour market, and ultimately to facilitate their inclusion in their vocation in Sweden. Since 2015, all newly arrived immigrants (read refugees) are obligated to: register for Swedish language courses, register with the public employment services (PES), and register for the intensive, targeted Fast Track introduction programme to facilitate their reintegration into their vocation. The principal focus, explicit in the policy shifts, but also implicit in the structure of support that targets immigrants, is on facilitating the speedy integration of refugees into their previous vocations. In the polices and the practices of the various Swedish integration measures, inclusion and integration are synonymous with employment.

Societal Structure of Support for Migrants to Access Their Vocations in Sweden

Since the mid-1970s, Sweden has implemented several integration policies to facilitate migrants’ access to their vocations, and these policies have changed over time. The shifts in general shaped various integration initiatives (the structure of support) where one of the main focuses was on expediating the process of accessing their vocations (Osman 2006; Andersson & Osman, 2008), and the government initiated a series of measures that will be briefly described, below.

The Establishment Programme

The objective of this programme is to provide newcomers with a quick introduction to Swedish working life, enable the conditions for their self-sufficiency, and strengthen their active participation in working life and society. The two-year programme, which targets adults between the ages of 20 and 65, has been mandatory since 2018. It is an individualised, tailored plan that the refugee develops with a public employment officer (PEO). This umbrella programme demands full time participation – 40 hours a week – and includes the following activities: language training through Swedish for Immigrants (SFI), a social orientation course, courses at different levels to develop or build on existing skills, work experience placement (practicum), job-seeking support, help and guidance to start a business, and validation of prior education (Andersson & Osman, 2008).

Once individuals are admitted to the programme, the employment officer maps their educational, training, skills, and work experience. The programme caters for both refugees with limited educational backgrounds and those with strong educational credentials. The latter have strong possibilities for establishing themselves in the labour market and are expected to enrol in programmes such as The Fast Track, which targets professions experiencing a shortage of qualified labour. The programme consists of activities such as Swedish for Immigrants (SFI), social studies, education at different levels, internships, support when applying for jobs, support and advice for those looking to start their own business, and validation of skills. Although the programme itself is flexible, some parts are not (Celik et al., 2020, p. 6). If the participant is unable to find work or continue with their studies, the PEO will recommend a relevant programme (Osman, 2006).

The Fast Track Programme

This programme was initiated in March 2015 as the result of a tripartite agreement between labour, employers, and government to identify the measures needed to effectively facilitate the inclusion of migrants into their vocations. The programme targets migrants and refugees with skills and education in vocational areas that require qualified personnel, and offers access to 40 vocations and professions such as teacher, doctor, nurse, and electrical and mechanical engineer.

The PEOs coordinate the programme by mapping prior skills, assessing and validating abilities, and recommending and organising compensatory education and/or training (Celik et al., 2020). The focus of the programme is, however, not training or education itself; it is on identifying what the individual needs to do to access their vocation in Sweden and how to apply for and secure a job. For instance, in 2016, the Fast-Track programme for teachers was introduced through an agreement between Almega (the Employers’ Organisation for the Swedish Service Sector), SKR (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions), The Teachers Association, The National Teachers Association, and the PES. Since its inception, only three Swedish studies have examined any aspect of this programme. One study by Bengtsson and Mickwitz (2022) looked at how refugees with a teaching background became qualified teachers. Economou and Hajer (2019) examined the integration of Syrian refugee teachers into the Swedish labour market and then how migrant teachers negotiated their new teaching identity. Reports and evaluations of the programme have been conducted by the PES, but these were not scientifically grounded.

The Short Way Programmes

This programme similarly targets refugees and migrants. To be eligible, one should (a) be registered with and assessed and certified the PES, (b) have at least two years’ university-level education, and (c) have good Swedish language skills. The duration of the programme varies between 12 and 26 weeks. Participants are helped to identify and assess their academic skills, get a qualified internship (called praktikplats) at a company within their field, and improve their Swedish language skills through specialised Swedish courses. Professional coaching and shorter job-training programmes are also part of the offerings. Almost all Swedish universities participate as well as some private organisations such as Academicum, and associations such as Folkuniversitet. In general, the programme and admission to the various electives have a similar modus operandi. Participants are interviewed, and once admitted to a programme are informed of the various professional tracks and offered professional coaching and study guidance. This is followed by mapping and assessment of their academic competence. Career-specific Swedish language training proceeds at the academic level. Instruction is teacher led but there is also the possibility of studying Swedish during the workplace-based part of their course, where participants get an idea of how their competence matches the needs of employers in the labour market. Participants are also provided with compensatory education or training to get their licence to practise. These compensatory courses are organised by relevant institutions. Accessing the compensatory course, however, is contingent on Swedish National Board of Social Affairs and Health confirmation that the degree is recognised, approved knowledge of Swedish in accordance with the provisions for basic eligibility (Swedish 3, with the lowest allowed grade E). At the end of the programme, the participants have to take a Swedish eligibility test to qualify for a Swedish nursing licence to practise.

In this context, it is important to stress that validation of prior learning has become a crucial practice in Swedish integration initiatives and leads to two primary outcomes: either (a) an individual’s competence is misrecognised, which means that they must re-train from scratch, or (b) the institution that conducted the validation recommends compensatory training based on their interpretation of the results. For teachers, this is the Swedish National Agency for Education, for the health and medical sector it is the Swedish National Board for Health Welfare. These agencies do not recommend specific courses or content; instead, it is left to each university to tailor the compensatory programme according to their own specific admission criteria.

Temporality as a Mechanism for Classification and Construction of the Other as Competent or Incompetent

In this section, I will present the encounter of three trained nurses with Swedish integration initiatives and show how each initiative in combination with an educational institution can construct immigrants as competent or incompetent. Two of the nurses are from Eritrea and one from Iran. The two Eritrean women came to Sweden through the family reunion programme, while the Iranian woman came with her husband and applied for asylum. The Iranian couple spent six years in a Swedish refugee camp before being granted asylum. L is now a single mother. he three women (L from Iran, Asha from Chad and M and D are from Eritrea) had relatively extensive nursing experience from their countries of origin. M had also worked as a nurse in Sudan:

In Eritrea, I worked in the paediatric and emergency department for four years. In 2009 I moved to Sudan as an emigrant, and I also worked for seven years in different departments. In general ward, gynaecology for two years, and emergency department for the last three years before I moved here.

L, like M, had had extensive experience working in different capacities in the Iranian health sector. After her training, she had to work as a nurse for two years, while she also worked as an administrator in the hospital procurement office.

  • (I): Why did you work in two different jobs?

  • (L): Because we didn't get a lot of money as a nurse and there are a lot of shifts. I have worked in a private hospital. But it was difficult for me. I worked in the hospital, the private hospital, and the procurement office in the hospital.

On the one hand, (D), one of the Eritrean women, had no working experience. She moved to join her husband after her nursing training.

  • (D): I came to Sweden as a recent graduate.

  • (I): Okay. You haven't worked in your home country?

  • (D): No.

As in any nursing education, (D) did her internship in various hospital departments.

  • D): I did internships in different departments in the hospital.

  • (I): Okay. And how long was the internship?

  • (D): I don't remember exactly but it was a very long time, I think. every year we have an internship. Two to three months.

All these nurses came to Sweden at different times. D came to Sweden in 2017, M in 2015, both through the family reunion programme. L and her husband came to Sweden in 2009. When they applied for asylum she said that “everything came to a stop with this process”.

  • (I): Everything stops, what do you mean?

  • L): Yes, I couldn't work. I'm waiting for my residence permit…. And then I thought okay, I'll get my residence permit then I'll work as a nurse or join my vocation in Sweden. But it takes a lot of time and took a lot of time and I, maybe it was my fault.

  • (I): How long did you wait for a residence permit?

  • (L): Six years. Ah., it was the worst six years of my life because I can't sit and not work.

  • …After six years we got a residence permit and I started SFI. I completed SFI in six months. The Employment Agency decided that we should study on the Fast-Track course, The Short Way. I was enrolled in the programme from 2017 to 2018.

Despite different times of arrival and different circumstances, these women all experienced major barriers to their accessing their prior vocations in Sweden. D, L, and M were enrolled in the fast track programme, but not Asha (the programme was not available when she arrived). D and M joined the programme within two years of arriving and L after six years. M became pregnant shortly after arriving in Sweden but continued to study Swedish as a second language while on maternity leave. After her language programme, L applied for a supplementary programme at Karolinska Institute, but could not be admitted because she had not worked as a nurse for nearly seven years. Although both L and D had had substantial nursing experience, this experience was not taken into consideration. Here we see that when it comes to regulations governing enrolment in supplementary education, the time that has elapsed since the applicant worked in their vocation strongly influences their likelihood of being enrolled, which seems to work against the very purpose of the initiatives, and the work of PEOs. This is a clear example of how misaligned inter-institutional mechanisms can work to construct an immigrant as incompetent.

Language as a Mechanism of Constructing the Other as Incompetent or Competent

The narratives of the three women make it clear that learning Swedish was critical for accessing their vocation in Sweden and attaining a certain level of Swedish was a prerequisite for enrolling in the supplementary courses critical for accessing their vocation in Sweden. Certainly, working in healthcare requires the ability to communicate with patients, and D makes clear that this was a priority for The Establishment Programme:

As soon as I got here, after two weeks, I started studying SFI. I also got pregnant at the same time so after nine months I went on maternity leave. After two months of maternity leave, I started studying Swedish in the evening class. So yes, I completed my basic SFI [levels] C, B, D while on maternity leave.

On the other hand, M was directly enrolled in The Short Way programme two weeks after she arrived.

  • (I): What training have you done?

  • (D): I have done as I said The Short Way. Language training.

  • (I): Is it SFI or?

  • 8D): No, it is not SFI.

  • (I): Okay, you never did SFI?

  • (D): I've done SFI maybe two weeks or something. So, I don't count it.

Thus, Although D had the language credentials to apply for a supplementary programme, she enrolled in The Short Way programme whose focus is language training and providing immigrants with a sense of what it means to work in their previous vocation.

  • (I): How long is The Short Way programme?

  • (L): One year. Almost a year, or a year test.

  • (I): One year. So, you learned the language for a year?

  • (M): Exactly.

  • (I): It's just language and how to work as a nurse in Sweden?

M stressed that “it is not the knowledge that is a problem but the language”. D also maintained that in a language programme the focus should be on everyday language skills – communication with the patient – and not the formal academic language.

Knowledge Construction and Experience as a Mechanism for Inclusion and Exclusion

Integration initiatives, such as The Short Way do not themselves provide the supplementary offerings which are delivered by relevant educational institutions, which also have their own specific admission requirements (a point we will come back to later). In general, however, to enrol in the supplementary programme the candidate must fulfil the following: Swedish 3 or Swedish as a Second Language 3 from a municipal upper secondary adult education programme (Komvux), or Swedish Level C1 in accordance with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Equivalent proficiency in Norwegian or Danish is also accepted (Socialstyrelsen 2020). Although the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare considers Iranian and Eritrean nursing education to be equivalent to a Swedish nursing education, qualified nationals from these two countries are nevertheless required to take an additional one-year course and pass the Swedish national examination for nurses in Sweden (kunskapprovet). In this context it is important to point out that different universities have different requirement to access their supplementary program. For instance, at Gothenburg University, applicants admitted to the supplementary programme must take a language placement test which consists of two parts, oral and written. Those who pass the oral test can then take the written test and if they pass both, receive the relevant credits which lead to a short training period. Those who fail the placement test are enrolled in a Swedish language programme, which focuses on professional Swedish for nurses (this also applies to those who do not take the placement test).

If an applicant lacks documentation of formal qualifications or believes that due to other merits they meet the qualification or prior knowledge requirements, for example, through other forms of education or professional experience, they are validated. Supplementary courses are only offered at certain higher education institutions, and only one, Luleå Technological University College, offers a supplementary distance course. This is a major limitation for immigrants, as L and D stress. L says:

In 2018, I applied (for the supplementary programme) at Kalmar University College, and I was admitted, but as a reserve. My situation was a problem – I have a daughter and she goes to school here. These programmes are only available in Stockholm, Kalmar, Gothenburg, and the only distance programme is Luleå Technical University College, and this year they have cancelled the programme. The course is only available in three places. Not everyone can move, everyone has family, children and they can't move, they can't commute.

She applied to a university in Stockholm, but despite her language credentials from Komvux being accepted by both Kalmar and Luleå, they were not accepted in Stockholm.

…when I applied for it in Stockholm and I found out that the course I had studied at university didn’t work, I was surprised. Why was I at Komvux then? And the university would not accept the language course I took in Komvux. I thought I could start in Stockholm because I can commute to Stockholm.

Like L, D was a mother of two small children and she could not attend the supplementary programme in a town or city she could not commute to:

I have two children and I cannot commute to Stockholm or Kalmar, so, so I just thought that I should be able to take the distance programme at Luleå University. But the course was cancelled.

Family situation, different institutional regulations, and restricted sites of offering were real obstacles for some of our informants. M enrolled in the supplementary programme at Kalmar University College because, unlike L and D, she had no children and so could move to wherever necessary in Sweden. During the interview, L seemed to have given up on accessing her vocation in Sweden.

I have a lot of experience as a nurse. Now I have not worked in my vocation for 10 years. 10 years without work, you forget a lot. Education is changing, new knowledge. They (PEO) won't help, only the first PEO we had, he was very nice and maybe because he was Persian, I don't know, he was the same. …he immediately found jobs for both of us, me and my husband. And that was the last support we received. Ah. And then I got no help, no support. …I got, ah, I got support to find a job here in the hospital as an assistant nurse .

M was the only one of the women who went on from a short course to a supplementary programme; the only one with the experience of accessing her profession in Sweden. She maintains that the theoretical part of the supplementary programme was not difficult, and she passed easily. She suggests that the process could be made even shorter – instead of taking courses, it would be better if the supplementary programme became an internship:

  • You can reflect on your journey.

  • (M) We have already studied the theory part but what we need is how the system works. We need to learn the routine in nursing wards. So why do we need to sit and

  • study rules, regulations, and summaries and so on.

In this context, what M is proposing is similar to what Asha experienced. Asha’s prior knowledge was validated by Karolinska Institute, and then she took the examination and got her licence to practise. The experiences of accessing their vocations is shaped by several factors, one of which is the structure of opportunity they encounter, and particularly the rationale on which this structure is constructed. As evident in the experiences of these three nurses trained outside the EU/EES, the focus of the structure of opportunity is on the Swedish language and theoretical and practical knowledge. There are two dimensions related to the impact of language and the perception of language on the structure of opportunity – formal academic language and everyday communicative language. From the perspective of the three nurses, these initiatives generally focus on academic language to the detriment of communicative language skills. And they felt that the latter was critical in their everyday work and encounters with patients. This focus on language in the Short Path initiative reflects not only on academic actors’ understandings, but also political and administrative actors’ understandings of why some immigrants have problems accessing their vocations in Sweden. In other words, there is an intersubjective understanding among different actors in this regard, and this is reflected in the initiatives to facilitate the inclusion of skilled immigrants into their vocations. This intersubjectivity partly reflects the research on integration. In general, for instance, immigrants’ difficulties accessing their vocations and the Swedish labour market are rationalised by a deficit model. But there is also body research that attributes the problem to discrimination and racism.

Discussion

Swedish integration policy and practice, as evidenced above, reflects academic and political administrative actors’ intersubjective understanding of why the integration of immigrants (particularly those from outside EU/EES countries) is problematic. Simply put, the point of departure of the Swedish structure of opportunity is that immigrants lack the relevant cultural capital (Examina, language and network) to access their vocations in Sweden. This focus, I stress, ignores or at best underplays combinations of several of factors, including racism and discrimination, knowledge hierarchies, and discourses about immigrants, particularly in relation to non-European immigrants whereby they are constructed as a “problem”. Another neglected aspect is immigrants’ vocational experience, which in fact often works to their disadvantage when combined with the time it takes for asylum seekers to be granted residence permits, as in the case of D. It is also important to point out that the structure of opportunity does not take into account the family situation of young women with children. For instance, some of the informants could not participate in the supplementary programmes because they were reluctant to uproot their children to enrol in a compensatory programme in another city which they were unable to commute to. Where one lives and other individual circumstances, particularly with regard to young women with children can present insurmountable obstacles to entering programmes that could facilitate migrants’ access to their vocations in Sweden.

None of the informants experienced difficulties meeting the knowledge and (academic) language criteria for enrolling in the supplementary programmes of various higher education institutions. However, implicit in the structure of opportunity is an intersubjective understanding of the context-specific knowledge and competence hierarchy which is evaluated according to the Swedish norm. This results in the validation, maintenance, and reproduction of a cultural capital hierarchy. More importantly, it privileges the cultural capital (examina) acquired in Sweden, the Nordics, and EU countries, reflecting prevailing global power relations. The process of accessing the structure of opportunity in itself is an assessment of the knowledge and competence of immigrants even before the structure of opportunity itself is reached (Fast Track, or The Short Way). And even if the PEO deems one sufficiently qualified to access these programmes, the institutions that offer the training can independently reject your application based on specific institutional entry requirements.

The structure of opportunity, as evident above, thus functions as a control mechanism for classifying, categorising, and ordering immigrants’ knowledge and competence, but more importantly, for inculcating in immigrants the perception that their knowledge and competence is irrelevant, or at best only partly relevant in relation to accessing their vocations in Sweden. This is ‘confirmed’ to migrants since the assessments are conducted by so-called experts. The practice in other words creates exclusionary boundaries, which enforce homogeneity, but at the same individualise the exclusion or subordinate inclusion through ‘objective validation’ that measures gaps in knowledge and competence. The mechanism of individualising immigrants’ knowledge and competence through the structure of opportunity is not only a control mechanism but also a mechanism for disciplining and directing the individual to accept their inclusion or exclusion when trying to access their vocation. From the perspective of the informants, knowledge is not a ‘problem’. All those who had the opportunity to validate their qualifications and take the Swedish nursing examination passed with little problem. However, some pointed out that language was a problem even once they had earned their licence to practise and had begun to work. They experienced difficulties in their everyday communication with patients, and stressed that while they understood that the focus on academic language had been necessary, a language programme focusing on everyday patient interactions was called for.

Serendipity seems to be a red thread running through the informants’ narratives of how they accessed their vocations. All, in different ways, gave credit to individuals who supported them in their journeys. In the case of L, D, and M it was chance meetings. M was ‘lucky’ to have a supervisor at the local public employment office who helped her, while L and D were ‘unlucky’ to have a local employment officer who was unhelpful and unsupportive. To my knowledge, there is no research that has examined the significance of serendipity in immigrants’ process of accessing their vocations in Sweden.

In conclusion, the structure of opportunity, particularly the intersubjective understanding of the challenges immigrants and refugees face when accessing their vocations in Sweden, is primarily a mechanism that controls rather than facilitates their inclusion. It functions as an instrument for assessing, categorising, and classifying immigrant and refugee competency and knowledge in relation to the Swedish norm; it is an instrument for identifying gaps in their knowledge and abilities. In other words, the abilities and competences acquired outside Sweden are judged in relation to Swedish educational norms with a focus on what they lack. This mechanism thus works to include or exclude them from their vocations in Sweden, encouraging them to accept their subordinate inclusion or exclusion. Where immigrants live also may impact negatively or positively on the integration process. Future studies must investigate how local resources impact on immigrants in different parts of Sweden.