Search

This thesis explores the process of social inclusion of adult migrant learners enrolled in integration education programs. It reveals the Inclusectionalities denoting the intersections of inclusion and exclusion through which liminal spaces are revealed that position migrant students as between and betwixt belonging and othering. The study is based on research findings obtained during multiple case study fieldwork in Finland and Canada between 2015-2017 consisting of in-depth and group interviews with migrant students and staff as well as extended periods of participant observation. The Finnish case studies consist of Swedish for Immigrants (SFI) programs at The Swedish Adult Education Institute (Arbis) in Helsingfors and The Civic Institute (Medis) in Mariehamn, on the Åland Islands, while NorQuest College’s Language Integration for Newcomers to Canada program (LINC) in Edmonton represents the Canadian case. Anti-oppressive methodologies (AOP), as well as perspectives integrated from Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS) and Critical Migration Studies (CMS) with their ideals of challenging structural racism and working for social change inform the theoretical framework of critical social inclusion as well as the study’s research design. The empirical findings show that social inclusion within the educations was tangled, episodic, and far from uniform or straightforward. Its negotiations revealed the presence of widely contradictory and conflicted responses which oscillated between Civic Integrationism’s striving to inculcate a “coherent” national narrative and Transformation Inclusion’s more “incoherent,” critical and egalitarian interpretations. The findings, presented in three main themes: Inclusion Within the Walls, Inclusion Beyond the Walls and (Colour) Blind Spots, also reveal that both enabling and disabling factors emerged in implementing critical social inclusion within the case studies’ different educational, social and national environments. Educational programs where integration was myopically equated with host country language acquisition often lost sight of the breadth and depth – the “real life” focus – broader social inclusion demanded. Secondly, where an integrationist normative narrative – as in, “aren’t we supposed to teach them how to live here?” – justified prevailing power and racial hierarchies, it stood in the way of reciprocal learning and student agency in reshaping curricula and inclusion efforts. A third factor concerned how willing staff, administrators and other stakeholders were to turn the majority gaze inwards in interrogating their own role in maintaining cultural and structural inequalities as well as white entitlements. By diverting this gaze, the white social frame grounding these inequalities became institutional background and “common sense” views of culture, learning and integration eluded critical analysis. The fourth factor refers to the prevailing social and political climates in which integration education programs were embedded. Where these climates emphasized controls and compliances which racialized and othered migrants, they accentuated students’ abjection from the social body. Lastly, social inclusion necessitates robust expressions of joint political agency yet implementations of LINC and SFI were generally characterized by a politics of apoliticality. Because programs were not developed around critical citizenship foundations but emphasized more “neutral” incarnations of language and cultural learning, they extended limited sanctioned opportunities for teachers and students to collectively challenge social and structural injustices. A key discursive and cognitive transposition is the study’s contention that if critical perspectives of social inclusion are to become a lived reality for “all” program participants, then majorities must also be subjected to the “integration spotlight.” Turning the majority gaze from the migrant inwards, presumes a sea change in attitudes, aims and program implementations. How one answers the question of who serves as an arbiter over which expressions of migrant diversity are judged as beneficial or as obstacles to inclusion is crucial here. Denna avhandling undersöker processen av social inkludering av vuxna migrantelever som är inskrivna i integrationsutbildningsprogram. Den klarlägger inklusektionaliteter, d.v.s. skärningspunkter mellan inkludering och exkludering, där de liminala utrymmen som placerar migrantelever emellan tillhörande och andrefiering framträder. Studien är baserad på ett omfattande material som samlades in genom flerfallstudiefältarbete i Finland och Kanada mellan 2015–2017, bestående av djupgående enskilda och gruppbaserade intervjuer med migrantelever och personal samt perioder av deltagande observation. De finländska fallstudierna består av Svenska för invandrare (SFI) utbildningsprogrammen vid Svenska arbetarinstitutet (Arbis) i Helsingfors och Medborgarinstitutet (Medis) i Mariehamn på Åland, medan NorQuest Colleges Language Integration for Newcomers to Canada program (LINC) i Edmonton utgör det kanadensiska fallet. Antiförtryckande praktiker (AOP), samt perspektiv integrerade från Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS) och Critical Migration Studies (CMS) har med sina ideal att utmana strukturell rasism och att arbeta för social förändring format både teori och forskningsdesign. De empiriska resultaten visar att den sociala inkluderingen inom utbildningarna var rörig, tillfällig och långt ifrån enhetlig. Försöken att implementera social inkludering blottade motsägelsefulla och motstridiga reaktioner som växlade mellan försök att införa en ”enhetlig” nationell berättelse (Civic Integrationism) och mer ”osammanhängande,” kritiska och jämlika tolkningar (Transformation Inclusion). Resultaten – presenterade i tre huvudteman, Inkludering inom murarna, Inkludering bortom murarna och (Färg)Blinda fläckar – avslöjar att både möjliggörande och begränsande faktorer uppstod vid konceptualiseringen och implementeringen av kritisk social inkludering inom de olika pedagogiska, sociala och språkliga miljöerna. Program där integration likställdes med värdlandsspråkförvärv saknade det bredare perspektivet och fokus på ”det verkliga livet” som en konkret medborgarinkludering kräver. För det andra, i de fall rådande makt- och rashierarkier motiverades inom en integrationistisk normativ berättelse, så som ”ska vi inte lära dem att leva här?”, blev ömsesidigt lärande och studenternas egen agens svårare att förverkliga. En tredje faktor var hur beredd personal, administratörer och andra aktörer var att vända majoritetsblicken inåt för att granska sin egen roll i upprätthållandet av kulturella och strukturella ojämlikheter och vita privilegier. Bristen på introspektion sedimenterade dessa orättvisor som institutionell bakgrund inom ett vitt socialt ramverk, och ”självklara” uppfattningar om kultur, inlärning och integration undgick kritisk granskning. Den fjärde faktorn berör det rådande sociala och politiska klimatet inom vilket integrationsutbildningsprogrammen existerar. När dessa förhållanden betonade kontroll av migranter och krav på anpassbarhet förstärktes elevernas fjärmning från samhället. Trots att verklig social inkludering kräver kraftiga åtgärder för en gemensam politisk agens, kännetecknas implementeringar av LINC och SFI vanligtvis av apolitiskhet. Eftersom programmen inte utvecklats utgående från en grund i kritisk medborgarskap, utan betonade mer "neutrala" former av språk- och kulturinlärning, gav de lärare och studenter begränsade möjligheter att kollektivt utmana sociala och strukturella orättvisor. En av studiens centrala slutsatser är att ifall de kritiska perspektiven på social inkludering skall bli en levd verklighet för ALLA programdeltagare, måste en diskursiv och kognitiv omtolkning möjliggöras genom att även majoriteter granskas av ”integrationsstrålkastaren.” Att vända majoritetsblicken inåt, och från migranten, förutsätter en genomgripande förändring av attityder, mål och programimplementeringar. Svaret på frågan om vem som beslutar över vilka uttryck för migrantdiversitet anses fördelaktiga eller utgöra hinder för inkludering är avgörande här.

This chapter explores how an anti-oppressive practice (AOP) perspective can inform contested understandings of social inclusion within the LINC (Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada) integration program at NorQuest College in Edmonton, Canada. Based on research findings obtained during case study fieldwork, it examines how inclusion is negotiated by program participants and juxtaposes this with anti-oppressive practice principles. In so doing, it offers valuable perspectives for critical and anti-racist discourses in adult education. The data for this studies includes in-depth individual interviews with LINC teachers, administrators and counsellors, group interviews with students and 1.5 months of participant observation. Interview transcripts and observation logs were analysed using inductive content analysis. The empirical findings illustrate the need for educational providers seeking to implement policies of inclusion to transcend their institutional boundaries by adopting structural, cross-sectorial and distinctly political responses. These include creating more egalitarian educational partnerships with all stakeholders comprising teachers, students and community organisations involved in LINC. Responses further entail re-examining institutional procedures, curricular mandates, as well as promoting public education programs and collective political mobilisation to address the structural factors circumscribing the lives of migrant students. A complementary finding in furthering inclusion suggests that components of social criticism and critical citizenship focusing on students’ own experiences should become more entrenched within NorQuest’s integration educations.

This article represents a synopsis of research find-ings obtained during multiple case study field-work in Finland and Canada (2015-2017) exam-ining implementations of critical social inclusion in integration educations, specifically Swedish for Immigrants (SFI) and Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC). Anti-oppressive methodologies (AOP), as well as perspectives inte-grated from Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS) and Critical Migration Studies (CMS) with their ideals of challenging structural racism and working for social change inform critical social inclusion as well as the study’s research design. The empirical findings show that social inclusion within SFI and LINC programs was tangled, episodic, and far from straightforward. Its implementation de-pended upon a number of enabling and disabling factors such as the role ascribed to language ac-quisition and critical citizenship perspectives in curricula, interrogations of civic integrationism and institutional whiteness within programs, as well as the prevailing political climates outside of the classroom. A pivotal conclusion is that if crit-ical perspectives of social inclusion are to become a lived reality for all program participants, then majorities must also be subjected to integration regimes.