Summary of PhD Research ENG (1136534), страница 3
Текст из файла (страница 3)
Still, Belgiumremains one of the most popular destination countries for Russian-speaking immigrantsdespite considerable difficulties to obtain visas and work permits and high levels ofunemployment among immigrants relative to other EU countries (Bisin, Patacchini, Verdier,& Zenou, 2011; Corluy, Pina, & Verbist, 2015; OECD, 2008; 2015). I used the followingmeasures: ethnic identification and religious identification (Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007),acculturation preferences (Berry, 2011; Tatarko & Lebedeva, 2011), index of socioeconomic adaptation by the World Bank survey (Besevegis & Pavlopoulos, 2008), andsociodemographic variables inclining the time of stay in Belgium and language skills.In the second part of my research project (study 3 and study 4), using a personoriented approach, I addressed acculturation expectation profiles of Russian majority groupmembers (N = 576), aged from 15 to 79 years (M = 35.1, SD = 13.4), and relationshipsbetween these profiles and relevant intergroup attitudes.
On the whole, I referred a questionwhat consequences for endorsement of discrimination of immigrants the socioeconomicdomain by Russian majority group members have their different acculturation expectationand intergroup attitudes? I turned to the Russian population to study this question, giventhat this population is highly diverse and has been understudied (e.g., Jurcik, ChentsovaDutton, Solopieieva-Jurcikova, & Ryder, 2013); the Russian Federation is historically aplural society, comprising more than 190 ethnic groups, the territory of the RussianFederation includes 21 national republics. The United Nations estimated the RussianFederation to be the world's second-leading country in hosting most immigrants in 2013after the United States. After the European refugee crisis in 2015, Russia came on the thirdplace with a small margin (Lebedeva, Tatarko, & Berry, 2016).
Researchers, whoinvestigate intergroup relations in Russia in the framework of Mutual InterculturalRelations In Plural Societies (MIRIPS) project (see e.g., Lebedeva, Galyapina, Lepshokova,& Ryabichenko, 2017), noted that in spite of the variety in contexts (e.g., Central FederalDistrict of Russia or North Caucasus), a responsibility and leading role for improvingintercultural relations in Russia belong to the majority group; migrants and ethnicminorities prefer an integration strategy. However, the attitudes of Russians towardsmigration and migrants are rather negative in spite of some mainly obvious economic needfor labor migrants and the term 'migrants' is connected mostly with im/migrants fromCentral Asia and the Caucasus, who are often considered as a source of economic burdenand cultural threat (Lebedeva et al., 2017).
Also, there is still a lack of clear immigrationpolicies in Russia and any special programs for the mutual intercultural relation of majorityand minority groups, which should first of all focus on increasing of cultural, economic,and physical security of Russian majority group members, since all of this positivelyrelated to their acceptance of immigrants and adaptation to new polycultural realities ofRussian cities (Lebedeva & Tatarko, 2013). I used the following measures: dangerousworldview and competitive worldview (Duckitt, 2001), RWA (Altemeyer, 1996), SDO (Hoet al., 2012), multicultural ideology (Berry & Kalin, 1995), willingness to engage inintergroup contact (Halperin, Canetti-Nisim, & Pedahzur, 2007), endorsement ofdiscrimination of immigrants in the socioeconomic domain: the questionnaire containeditems asking for endorsement of behaviors that reflect discrimination of immigrants in theworkplace, labor market, rental housing sectors, and other domains focusing on thesocioeconomic domains deemed relevant in the literature (see Dancygier & Laitin, 2014;Mallender et al., 2014; OECD, 2013), acculturation expectations by the RAEM (Navas etal., 2005).In addition, the contribution of this study to the field is due to theoretical,methodological and empirical novelty:theoretical novelty- the conceptualization of the concept of "socioeconomic adaptation of immigrants"was carried out, what is socioeconomic adaptation of immigrants was defined, the factorsinfluencing it were classified, key indicators were identified and discussed, and thenecessity of considering socioeconomic adaptation in studies of acculturation ofimmigrants was grounded;- the rationale for the need to consider the mutual acculturation of immigrants and ahost population was vastly expanded taking into account the domain-specificity ofacculturation, e.g., the division into public and private acculturation domains.- to explain the endorsement of discrimination in the socioeconomic domain, modelsfrom the field of acculturation and intergroup relations were considered together, which isextremely rare for studies of this kind (see Ward, Szabo, & Stuart, 2017).
In particular, thedual-process model (Duckitt, 2001, Duckitt & Sibley, 2017) and the model of attitude ofmajority to cultural diversity (Berry, 2006, Berry & Kalin, 1995, Schalk-Soekar & van deVijver, 2008) were considered to establish how many predicted variance the models share,and to what extent each model adds a unique component to the prediction. The prospectsfor the integration of such models for explaining discrimination were discussed;methodological novelty- the combination of a variable-oriented approach and a person-oriented approach toacculturation was used. The advantages and disadvantages of each of them were showed,the consequences of the application were discussed and practical recommendations weregiven;- for the first time in acculturation literature, a person-oriented approach was used inconjunction with the measure taking into account the specificity in public and privateacculturation domains;- this research also has a significant contribution to the development of measures.Based on the literature on the topic (see Dancygier & Laitin, 2014, Mallender et al., 2014,OECD, 2013), the measure of endorsement of discrimination in the socioeconomic domainwas developed and tested, and a number of measures that are well-proven in acculturationand intergroup relations studies were translated (e.g., measures from the RelativeAcculturation Extended Model (Navas et al., 2005), SDO7 (Ho et al., 2012), willingness toengage in intergroup contact Halperin, Canetti-Nisim, & Pedahzur, 2007));empirical novelty- the empirical comparison of the integration hypothesis (e.g., Berry, 1997) and anecological acculturation framework (e.g., Salo & Birman, 2015) using a person-orientedapproach to socio-economic adaptation of Russian-speaking immigrants in Belgium wasconducted;- the model of socioeconomic adaptation of first-generation immigrants was testedcombining sociodemographic variables, acculturation preferences, and components ofsocial identity (ethnic and religious identification) on the Russian-speaking immigrants inBelgium was tested;- for the first time, a person-oriented approach was used to identify the profiles ofacculturation expectations of the host population in Russia.I describe each of my studies in more detail below.Part 1.
Study 1. Acculturation profiles of Russian-speaking immigrants in Belgiumand their socio-economic adaptationThe study by Grigoryev and van de Vijver (2017) investigated how various modesof acculturation of first-generation Russian-speaking immigrants in Belgium, aninfrequently studied group, were associated with their socioeconomic adaptation; morespecifically, the study addressed their orientation toward the host society (integration andassimilation), orientation toward their own ethnic group (separation) in the basic lifedomains, the duration of their stay in the host country, and interaction between thesefactors.It was hypothesized that the group of immigrants with a stronger orientation towardthe host society (assimilation and the integration) have a higher level of socioeconomicadaptation than the group of immigrants with the orientation toward the ethnic group(Integration, Assimilation > Separation).
Length of stay also matters; the group ofimmigrants with a longer stay have a higher level of socioeconomic adaptation (Long stay >Medium length of stay > Short stay). Taking into account possible time-specific ofacculturation (the interaction between acculturation and length of stay), the group ofimmigrants with both the orientation toward the host and ethnic group (integration) with alow length of stay have the highest level of socioeconomic adaptation among other groupswith a shorter length of stay because they can use both the resources of their own ethnicgroup and the resources of the host society (Integration + Short stay > Assimilation + Shortstay, Separation + Short stay). Finally, immigrants with a stronger orientation toward theethnic group (separation) are expected to gain least from staying longer in the host country(Integration + Medium or long stay, Assimilation + Medium or long stay > Separation +Long stay).The novelty of the study is a person-oriented approach was used by applying latentprofile analysis, an advanced exploratory statistical analysis that allows the identificationof groups of immigrants with similar acculturative characteristics.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
