Keywords

Introduction

In the context of migration, academic, public and political discussion are deeply embedded in various historical, social and political circumstances and visions of society. There are three intertwined discourses around the integration of migrants: public, political and academic. In the Swedish context, some public voices claim that integration is ‘broken’ or unsuccessful. For example, Ali Shafiei, an interpreter, claims in his article in Aftonbladet (April 18, 2021) that the idea and goals of integration programmes (called ‘establishment programmes’ in Sweden) are good in theory but not working in practice. Also, in their article in Dagens Nyheter (October 6, 2022), researchers Jonsson and Mood claim that the public debate on integration has gone astray. Discourses focus especially on rapid, mandatory establishment and integration through employment as the key to success The political parties of Sweden, however, have different approaches to multiculturalism (emphasising either respect for migrant cultures or adaptation to the host culture), language and education (as key to successful integration), social cohesion (as promoting equality), and in recent years migration as a security issue and the relationship between migration and crime (e.g., Cetrez et al., 2020).

Academics have also fervently discussed integration, acknowledging it as a contested concept. Grillo (2011) calls integration a ‘fuzzy’ concept with multiple interpretations, and Schinkel (2018) describes discussion about it as a ‘conceptual quagmire’. In its narrow meaning, integration means migrants must conform to the norms and values of the dominant majority. However, this view has been sharply criticised by Penninx and Garcés-Mascareñas (2016), who call for a broader definition of integration where migrants are engaged in multiple fields or systems. They observe that, in migration studies, “the term integration refers to the process of settlement, interaction with the host society, and social change that follows immigration” (Penninx & Garcés-Mascareñas, 2016, p. 11). Researchers are, then, asserting the procedural and non-normative nature of integration by not specifying its meaning or requirements.

Even though there is no uncontested definition of integration, all definitions have something to contribute to this complex phenomenon. Thus, researchers need to be transparent about the concepts they use, and explain them fully in their studies. The use of concepts is highly contextual and academic, and public and political discourses are connected. Some concepts are more related to structural and institutional conditions, such as labour markets, while others are more related to individuals, such as skills and competences. Sometimes, it seems that public and political discourses can strengthen the narrative that integration has failed. Therefore, to identify and understand the concepts used in various discourses (especially in academic research), it is necessary to examine what concepts are, from which perspective they come, and how best to use them.

The aim of this chapter is to explore the concept of integration and examine its uses in migration research by focusing on skilled migrants’ integration into the workplace. Skilled migrants are those with a vocational or professional education and/or work experience from their countries of origin. The analysis of this chapter seeks to answer how the concept of integration was defined, described and used in the selected studies.

The structure of this chapter is as follows. After the introduction, various approaches to concepts in academic research are presented. The following section explains the method of analysis, which was inspired by conceptual analysis (CAM). Thereafter, the results of the analysis are presented. Finally, there is a discussion about the approaches to the concept of integration and how they were used in the studies.

Definitions and General Meanings of the Concept of Integration

Etymologically, the word ‘integration’ stems from the Latin integer, meaning ‘unscathed whole’. It is defined in the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary of Academic as “the act or process of combining two or more things so that they work together” or “the act or process of mixing people who have previously been separated, usually because of colour, race or religion” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary of Academic, n.d.). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary sees integration as “the act or process or an instance of integrating” or the “incorporation as equals into society or an organization of individuals of different groups” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d.). Both definitions see integration as an act or process. The word ‘act’ can be a noun, referring to a thing someone does or an act of something, or it can be a verb, referring to someone doing something or behaving in a particular way. The word ‘process’ refers to a series of actions someone does to achieve a particular result (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary of Academic, n.d.).

Both definitions also include ‘combining’ in order to work together, ‘mixing’ people who have been separated, and ‘incorporating’ them as equals into society. So, as a general term, integration means an amalgam and an activity or process to achieve the goal of incorporating at least two different parties. There is thus the definition that describes the condition as an amalgam and then there is this goal-oriented, value-laden definition of incorporating as equals. Traces of this meaning can be detected also in academic discussions and definitions in the area of migration research, as Penninx and Garcés-Mascareñas (2016) characterisation shows. Schinkel (2018) states integration as neo-colonial knowledge production and reminds us that the history of the concept [of integration] lies on an organicist tradition in which the social was conceived as an integrated body. Integration, in that sense, had to do with the internal adjustment of the parts of a whole, but it was ultimately a property of the whole.

Approaches to Concepts

As Havila and Tähtinen (2019) assert, concepts in research are theory-, domain- and context-related. They also state that conceptual clarity is needed for theory building and to avoid conceptual confusion in research. Knuuttila (2005) points out that scientific models and concepts are epistemic artefacts and tools for researchers. Therefore, it is important to look at what kinds of tools concepts are and how they are formed.

Vygotsky (1934/1987) studied concept formation and thinking and speech in childhood, highlighting two types of concept: spontaneous or everyday concepts with direct connections to a child’s experiences, and true or scientific concepts that do not come from direct experience in a child’s everyday life, but are learned as a result of instruction. In addition, everyday concepts can become scientific concepts and vice versa.

The public discourse uses the concept of integration as an everyday concept like Shafiei, who had direct experience with it when working as an interpreter for different authorities. This everyday concept is something visible in daily life, in neighbourhoods, schools and workplaces, but researchers use it as a scientific concept. It is interesting to note that Vygotsky (1934/1987, p. 224, 226) also wrote about a ‘system of concepts’ or relationships between concepts, stating that “Scientific concepts have a unique relationship to the object. This relationship is mediated through other concepts that themselves have an internal hierarchical system of interrelationships” (p. 188). In relation to integration, for example, the concept of inclusion is used – sometimes even as a synonym.

Taking this idea of the system of concepts and hierarchies a bit further, and away from the development of concept formation in childhood, one of the problems with the concept of integration might be that it is part of different systems of concepts, and even part of different practical activities. A concept, according to Blunden (2012, p. 279), “is only really understood when we can identify its source, and the relation of all the actions by means of which it is realised will make sense.” For example, the concept of integration is part of a scientific system of concepts and part of scientific activities in various disciplines in research, academic debates and scientific publications. It is also part of a political system of concepts and political activities, part of an educational system of concepts and educational activities in various training programmes, educational discussions and publications, or part of a journalistic system visible in the media, just to name a few systems and related practical and social activities. It is not always clear in discussions from which perspective and system of concepts integration is being looked at, which adds confusion in debates.

Greeno (2012), following Vygotsky’s work on concept formation, divides concepts into formal concepts (formal uses of concepts) and functional concepts (functional uses of concepts). Formal concepts refer to “a cognitive entity that has a reference class that is determined by an explicit definition and that is used in a system of formal deductive reasoning”, whereas functional concepts are “a cognitive entity that has meaning in a kind of activity, in which it contributes to the way participants organize their understanding of what they are doing” (Greeno, 2012, p. 311). Following Greeno’s suggestion and looking at the concept of integration, both formations are visible, i.e., as a formal concept, researchers may offer a definition of it, and as a functional concept they may describe the uses of it. However, the use of concepts in academic research is not only connected to discourses, but especially to theoretical approaches and frameworks used in studies.

The Concept of Integration in Migration Research

Traditionally, integration has been seen as a two-way process between the migrant and the host society. However, in recent studies, a three-way process has been acknowledged, involving the country of origin as a third party (Penninx & Garcés-Mascareñas, 2016; Osman, 2012). There are other terms and concepts used to illuminate this phenomenon, such as “adaptation, acculturation, and assimilation have tended to be focused on the cultural dimension of immigrants’ settlement, others, such as accommodation, incorporation, and inclusion/exclusion, have shifted the focus to the host society and concentrated on the legal-political and socio-economic dimensions” (Penninx & Garcés-Mascareñas, 2016, p. 12) These researchers go on to say that all these concepts and approaches are highly contested in academic debates and that the concept of integration is used in different ways, for example, as culturation, identification or belonging. From this perspective, the integration dynamics and tempos are different for each dimension, and processes of structural marginalisation and inequality become key.

Rytter presents a critical reflection on the use of the concept, concluding that “Integration is not the solution, it is a significant aspect of the problem” (2019, p. 691). He further points out that integration is used differently in different contexts and that it is closely related to the vocabulary of the nation state. He continues that the concept “is based on and promotes specific perspectives on the nation, migration and the relationship between majorities and minorities” (Rytter, 2019, p. 680). Rytter further argues that, because integration is embedded in specific national social imaginaries, it needs to be studied as such. “Integration may refer to anything from social integration in certain neighbourhoods or educational institutions to economic integration understood as participation in the labour market; political integration seen as participation in general elections and local associations; and cultural integration measured by the extent to which migrants and refugees have maintained traditions, identity or notions of belonging connected with their first homeland” (Rytter, 2019, p. 681).

Spencer and Charsley (2021) summarise the recent critique of the concept of integration into five core areas: normativity, negative objectification of migrants as ‘other’, outdated imaginaries of society, methodological nationalism and a narrow focus on migrants in the factors shaping integration processes. They propose an alternative view and a heuristic model of integration (2021, p. 15), taking into consideration wider aspects of integration and state: “We cannot separate integration processes from the complexity of broader socio-economic processes of change, nor from their historical, spatial, temporal and transnational dimensions”. They go on to propose the following definition of the concept, taking into account the five abovementioned critiques by focusing on the processes of integration: “Processes of interaction, personal and social change among individuals and institutions across structural, social, cultural and civic spheres and in relation to identity; processes which are multi-directional and have spatial, transnational and temporal dimensions” (p. 16). Furthermore, they offer a heuristic model of integration, both for theoretical reflection and empirical analysis. The model consists of five dimensions in which integration takes place (social, structural, cultural, civic-political and identity), and it depicts five sets of what they call ‘effectors’, which have an impact on integration processes (individuals, families and social networks, opportunity structures in society, policy interventions and transnational effectors) (pp. 16–17).

The Conceptual Analysis Method

The conceptual analysis method (CAM) is a tool to systematically analyse concepts and terms used in research. It is especially useful for looking at concepts used in multiple ways, or those from emerging research areas. It is carried out through a systematic literature review, but focuses only on concepts or terms and how they are defined and used in studies (Tähtinen & Havila, 2019). Researchers state that CAM underlines the importance of conscious conceptual language (ibid., p. 353). Tähtinen and Havila (2019, p. 538) propose six steps for CAM analysis: (1) collecting the data, (2) evaluating the conceptual status in the studies, (3) categorising the meanings and boundaries of the concept, (4) tracing the theoretical roots of the concept, (5) outlining the conceptual map, and (6) deconstructing the concept.

The CAM method was chosen here because it allowed a focus on the concept of integration and offered a toolbox for the analysis. The steps followed in this study are described next. The literature search was conducted by trying different search word combinations (integration, inclusion, migration/migrants, skilled) in the EBSCO host database, which resulted in several thousand hits. The following combination was used in the review: search words in the subject terms: integration and migra* or immigr* and skilled and workplace. The inclusion criteria were: fit to search words, published in peer reviewed academic journals in English during the years, 2012–2022. This resulted in 15 articles (Appendix 1). One of these articles (Pesch et al., 2023) was in press at the time of the data collection but is now available with exact reference and shows year 2023.

The next step in the analysis was reading the articles thoroughly to form an overall picture of each and evaluate how they defined and used the concept of integration. Also identified were the author(s), country, year of publication, name of the journal, and context of the study (see Table 7.1). The next step was to categorise the concept of integration used in each article by establishing the focus of the integration, who were supposed to integrate, and what means of integration were proposed in the study (see Table 7.2). The last step was to form an overall picture of how the concept of integration was used in the study, which is shown in the results section of this chapter.

Table 7.1 Reviewed articles and the context and concept of integration
Full size table
Table 7.2 Who is in focus and means to facilitate integration
Full size table

Regarding the limitations of the analysis, the sample was very focused and it should also be acknowledged that the review method had its limitations (Snyder, 2019). A small sample may offer a narrow view of the concept of integration. Another limitation was that concepts are very context dependent in different disciplines and their meanings change over time, and this review focused only on the years 2012–2022. The last limitation is that the steps of CAM were not followed rigorously, but were used as a structure and inspiration for the analysis. This was because additional information was required, such as who was the focus of integration and what kind of measures were offered in the studies to promote integration (see Table 7.2).

The Concept of Integration in the Reviewed Studies

All the studies were based on empirical material. Four of them related to Australia, one to Brazil, Japan and Israel, and all the others were done in Europe (one each in Sweden, Germany, Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Norway, Finland and Spain). This showed that skilled migrants were working in many different countries. The context of use of the concept of integration was mostly for workplaces such as hospitals or small and medium enterprises. The concept was also used to reflect integration into professional practice such as nursing, into labour markets, and into host societies and new countries. The idea was that, through workplace integration, integration into labour markets and societies also occurred. Finotelli (2021) reported that the context was organisational level, while Alaraj et al. (2019) explored the use of internships for integration into the university workplace. Since the aim of this review was to focus on skilled migrants, it was not surprising that the workplace was the most common context and that integration was a multilevel phenomenon occurring on the meso and macro levels.

The articles approached integration in different ways, and not all of them presented a clear definition of it. Tran et al. (2022) wrote that “We also understood that migrants’ workplace integration in the host country is a dynamic process involving multi-disciplinary factors” (p. 338). Describing their idea of integration, Versiani and Neto (2021) explained: “The term integration here is seen as the process experienced by subjects of foreign origin (refugees) within another society (from the sociological point of view)” (parentheses in original, p. 253). The process perspective was used in almost all the studies, and the authors referred to integration in many ways, such as ‘social embeddedness’ (Farivar et al., 2022), ‘inclusion’ (Finotelli, 2021), ‘a process of mutual accommodation between migrants and the host society’ (van Riemsdijk & Basford, 2022), ‘experience of knowledge transfer and development in an organisation’ (Alaraj et al., 2019), ‘transformation’ (Al-Hamdan et al., 2015), ‘a learning process’ (Lahti, 2013), and ‘employment’ (Pesch et al., 2023). Thus, in the studies, the concept of integration was seen as a multidirectional, complex process through which skilled migrants become part of the workplace, labour market and society.

The Use of the Concept of Integration in the Reviewed Studies

In terms of the subjects of integration (Table 7.2), i.e., who was the focus of the studies, it was mostly skilled migrants being referred to as ‘humanitarian and labour force migration’. Versiani and Neto (2021), Pesch et al. (2023) and Alaraj et al. (2019) all studied refugees, Li (2020) studied Chinese graduates, and several others studied health care professionals (e.g., Bobek & Devitt, 2017; Finotelli, 2021). Some authors took into account in all workers at workplaces, such as Al-Hamdan et al. (2015) who looked at native workers. van Riemsdijk and Basford (2022) used the term ‘host society’. In the studies, integration was depicted as a two-way process but mostly directed at skilled migrants who needed to integrate.

Most of the authors focused on workplace integration at the micro and meso levels. Taking the organisational focus into account, Finotelli (2021) emphasised the role of the work community in the integration process. Some of the authors observed that, through micro- and meso-level integration, the skilled migrants were getting access to the host society and the new country (Al-Hamdan et al., 2015).

The authors suggested several means of integration (see Table 7.2). Some focused on supporting individual skills and competences such as language learning (Finotelli, 2021), cultural knowledge, and how to apply for jobs (Tran et al., 2022). The authors also mentioned organisational means such as diversity management, employer support to migrants, hiring cultural diversity officers (Bobek & Devitt, 2017), and awareness of ethnic and racial discrimination (Versiani & Neto, 2021). Pesch et al. (2023) also highlighted skills and competence identification, and support for refugees’ self-reliance and career growth. Van Riemsdijk and Basford (2022) reported that actors dealing with integration operated at different levels and they had different measures: international job fairs (e.g., EURES) at the international level, various migration policies at the national government level, employers offering various mentor programmes at the meso level, and co-workers offering practical assistance at the individual level. The studies also suggested several other practical measures for workplaces on how to promote skilled migrants’ integration.

Looking at what was missing from the reviewed studies, it would be reasonable to ask whether there was a direct connection between integration, workplace, labour market and society; all authors assumed that there was such a connection. On the one hand, if one has a job, one is on the labour market and is a productive member of society. On the other hand, one can question whether that is what integration really is, i.e., getting a job and working. While getting a job can be the start of integration, many authors thought of integration as a process – sometimes a lifelong process. Another thing that was missing from the reviewed studies was a critical stance on the concept of integration, or alternative conceptualisations. Some studies equated it to inclusion, but more frequently the concept of integration was given multiple meanings.

Discussion

This section will reflect the results of the literature review in relation to concepts generally, and to the concept of integration used in the migration research presented in previous sections. The results suggest, from a conceptual point of view, that the concept of integration was used in the studies in multiple ways and, to use Vygotsky’s (1934/1987) terms, as kind of an intermediate concept between an everyday concept connected to our experiences and a scientific concept connected to formal education. The concept was not directly defined in the studies, as the authors assumed the meaning was self-evident to readers. The concept was also used as a part of a conceptual system, in this case as part of the various working activities and actions, but also as a part of a scientific system as a focus of research actions. As it was not clearly defined in the studies, one cannot say whether it was treated as a formal concept or a functional concept, i.e., it found its meaning through various activities (Greeno, 2012). This could be due to one of two explanations, i.e., whether the concept of integration is seen as an overall or a ‘fuzzy’ (e.g., Grillo, 2011) concept, which can be understood as it meaning what the researchers want it to mean. Another explanation may be that different disciplines approach concepts in different ways. For example, in sociological studies, integration may be understood and used in a different way than in educational studies. Therefore, researchers need to be transparent with the concept and explain fully what they mean by it.

When examining migration studies in relation to in this review, it was clear that treating integration as a process of settlement and interaction into the new environment was the dominant approach (Penninx & Garcés-Mascareñas, 2016). Rytter (2019) points out that integration can refer to social, educational, economic and political processes of integration. This was also visible in the viewed material, even though the main focus was on workplace integration.

Referring back to Spencer and Charsley’s (2021) five types of critique in relation to the concept of integration, the normative use of the concept was found in the reviewed studies, where workplace integration was seen as a positive aim and outcome of integration. The objectification of migrants as ‘other’ and a narrow focus on migrants as needing to integrate with the majority were also identified in the studies. Imaginaries of society, however, were not found. Some studies focused on one national group of skilled migrants, which may support methodological nationalism. However, while aspects of Spencer and Charsley’s (2021) heuristic model can be identified in the reviewed studies, the model is more comprehensive than the concept of integration used in the studies, and would be an interesting framework for future studies of integration of skilled migrants into workplaces.

In conclusion, the concept of integration is described and used in multiple ways in the reviewed studies. Therefore, researchers need to be more careful in their definition and use of concepts generally (not just integration), and be open with readers about what is meant by them and how they are being used.