Prof. Raivo Vetik

1. Workshop:
Russian
minori+es
and
Russian
migrants
–
integra+on
challenges
and
perspec+ves
in
Estonia
and
Norway
Prof.
Raivo
Ve+k,
Tallinn
University,
Estonia
Prof.
David
Lackland
Sam,
Bergen
University,
Norway
Marianna
Makarova,
Tallinn
University
/
Integra7on
and
Migra7on
Founda7on
Our
People,
Estonia
Interna+onal
conference
„Integra+on
Challenges
in
a
Radicalizing
World“
29
–
30
November
2016,
Tallinn,
Estonia

2. Comparison of acculturation outcomes
among Russian minority and native majority
in Estonia and Norway
Raivo Vetik, Jüri Kruusvall
Tallinn University

3.
Contents
1. Introduc3on
to
the
DIMA
(Determinants
of
Inclusive
Migrant
Accultura3on)
project
2. Theory:
different
defini3ons
of
the
research
object
and
units
–
the
Chicago
school,
Berry
and
DIMA
project
3. Empirical
results:
comparison
of
adapta3on
outcomes
among
different
subject
posi3ons
in
Estonia
and
Norway
received
along
the
rela3onal
accultura3on
model.

4.
1.
Introduc+on
• DIMA
is
financed
by
the
Norwegian
Research
Council
• Schedule:
September
2013
–
2016
• Estonian
team:
Raivo
Ve3k,
Maaris
Raudsepp,
Jüri
Kruusvall,
Larissa
Kus-­‐Harbord,
Aune
Valk,
Marianna
Makarova,
Triin-­‐
Ketlin
Siska,
Marii
Haak,
Madli
Raudkivi
• Partners
at
the
University
of
Bergen:
David
Lacland
Sam,
Valeria
Markova,
Arsenii
Markov
31/01/17
4

5.
Objec+ves:
• to
compare
accultura3on
processes
and
outcomes
among
Russians
and
na3ve
majority
in
Estonia
and
Norway
• to
contribute
to
the
larger
MIRIPS
project,
based
on
a
psychological
model
of
Berry
• to
expand
the
psychological
model
by
introducing
the
field-­‐
theore3cal
(Bourdieu)
concept
‘asymmetrical
accultura3on
field’

6.
Representa3ve
samples
in
Estonia
(n=1000)
and
Norway
(n=750)
The
basic
concept
of
the
DIMA
project:
‘structural
asymmetry
of
the
accultura+on
field’:
‘Integra3on
strategy
requires
non-­‐dominant
groups
to
adopt
the
basic
values
of
the
larger
society,
while
at
the
same
3me
the
dominant
group
must
be
prepared
to
adapt
na+onal
ins+tu+ons
(e.g.,
educa3on,
health,
labor)
to
beeer
meet
the
needs
of
all
groups
now
living
together
in
the
plural
society’
(Berry
1997).

7.
2.
Different
defini+ons
of
the
research
objects
• Gordon
(Chicago
school):
one-­‐direc3onal
sociological
model,
in
which
adapta+on
of
migrants
in
the
form
of
assimila3on
• Berry
:
two-­‐direc3onal
psychological
model,
in
which
four
types
of
accultura+on
aYtudes
among
minority/majority
groups
• DIMA:
two-­‐direc3onal
rela3onal
model,
in
which
two
types
of
social
boundary
construc+on
strategies
(bright
versus
blurred;
difference
versus
sameness;
equality
versus
inequality
etc.)
between
and
within
majority
and
minority
groups.

8.
Two
levels
of
social
boundary
construc+on:
1.
The
level
of
blocks
as
subject
posi+ons:
Construc3on
of
social
boundaries
between
majority/minority
blocks
as
wholes
2.
The
level
of
segments
as
subject
posi+ons:
Construc3on
of
social
boundaries
within
two
blocks
between:
a) vindicatory/self-­‐cri3cal
segments
(majority
group)
b) accusive/self-­‐cri3cal
segments
(minority
group)
Differen3a3on
between
these
two
levels
is
based
on
the
concept
‘asymmetrical
accultura3on
field’,
which
makes
such
comparisons
meaningful.

10.
3.
Empirical
results
The
DIMA
project
data
allows
comparisons
on
three
levels:
• the
level
of
na3ons
–
comparison
between
2
country
contexts
(thus,
we
need
to
study
also
the
histories
of
inter-­‐cultural
rela3ons,
respec3ve
laws,
policies
etc.)
as
well
as
paeerns
of
the
rela3ons
between
blocks
and
segments
• the
level
of
blocks
–
comparison
between
2
majority
and
2
minority
blocks
• the
level
of
segments
–
comparison
between
4
self-­‐righteous
and
4
self-­‐cri+cal
segments

11.
Distribu+on
of
subject
posi+ons
in
the
two
na3ons
(cluster
analysis
was
carried
out
on
the
baeery
of
ques3ons
on
social
boundary
construc3on
regarding
ethnic
inequality
in
labor
market):
Estonia
• Estonians:
vindicatory
sp
72%
and
self-­‐cri3cal
sp
28%;
• Russians:
accusive
sp
100%
(very
accusive
sp
57%
and
moderately
accusive
sp
43%,
i.e.
no
self-­‐cri+cal
clusters
among
Russians!!!)
Norway
• Norwegians:
vindicatory
51%
and
self-­‐cri3cal
49%;
• Russians:
accusive
sp
68%
and
self-­‐cri3cal
32%.
Thus,
the
cross-­‐country
comparison
between
Estonia
and
Norway
highlights
the
role
of
na+onal
context
in
accultura+on
processes!!!

12.
Socio-­‐economic
adapta+on
(means
in
the
Lickert
scale
and
percents)
Est
EstRus
Nor
NorRus
vind
s-­‐c
sig
acc
s-­‐c
sig
vind
s-­‐c
sig
acc
s-­‐c
sig
Life
sa+sfac+on
3,3
3,5
2,5
2,9
***
4,0
3,9
3,5
4,0
***
Family
socio-­‐
economic
situa+on
is
good
56
45
37
46
66
75
75
86
Socio-­‐economic
discrimina+on
2,4
2,8
***
4,3
3,7
***
3,4
3,6
3,1
2,6
***
Job
does
not
correspond
to
educ.
30
21
48
34
29
30
41
29
Unemployed
during
last
5
years
17
17
20
12
14
17
41
45

13.
Na+onal
and
ethnic
iden+fica+on
(means
in
the
Lickert
scale)
Est
EstRus
Nor
NorRus
vin
d
s-­‐c
sig
acc
s-­‐c
sig
vin
d
s-­‐c
sig
acc
s-­‐c
sig
Belonging
to
na+onal
society
4,4
4,1
**
*
3,1
3,6
**
*
4,4
4,4
3.6
4.0
*
Ethnic
iden+ty
4,5
4,3
4,4
4,2
**
*
4,5
4,5
4.2
4.0

14.
Inter-­‐cultural
adapta+on
(percents
and
means
in
the
Lickert
scale)
Est
EstRus
Nor
NorRus
vin
d
s-­‐c
sig
acc
s-­‐c
sig
vin
d
s-­‐c
sig
acc
s-­‐c
sig
Feelings
towards
the
’other’
group
52
55
67
79
**
*
53
58
***
71
76
Trust
of
the
’other’
group
3,2
3,6
**
*
2.9
3.6
**
*
3,2
3,8
4,0
4,4
***

15.
Accultura+on
scales
(means
in
Lickert
scale)
Est
EstRus
Nor
NorRus
vin
d
s-­‐c
sig
acc
s-­‐c
sig
vin
d
s-­‐c
sig
acc
s-­‐c
sig
Minority
culture
maintenance
3,5
3,9
**
*
3,3
3,5
**
*
2,9
3,5
**
*
4,30
4,0
Adop+on
of
majority
values
and
tradi+ons
3,8
3,7
2,7
3,0
**
*
4,7
4,6
3,8
4,0

16.
Conclusions
1) The
level
of
na+ons
–
different
histories
and
paeerns
of
inter-­‐ethnic
polariza3on
impact
accultura3on
outcomes.
2) The
level
of
blocs
–
asymmetry
between
the
majority/
minority
statuses
brings
about
the
tendency
to
see
the
‘other’
in
terms
of
bright
inter-­‐cultural
boundaries.
3) The
level
of
segments
–
the
reasons
behind
the
tendency
to
construct
closed
inter-­‐cultural
boundaries
by
self-­‐
righteous
segments
have
to
do
with
their
lower
socio-­‐
economic
posi3on
in
society.

17.
Thus,
• integra3on
policies
should
tackle
insecuri+es
and
inequali+es,
which
exist
along
ethnic
lines.
However,
• insecurity
and
inequality
as
social
phenomena
implement
important
social
func+ons
(innova3on,
mo3va3on
etc.),
par3cularly
in
the
context
of
globalizing
world.

18.
Is
integra3on
a
mission
impossible?
Not
at
all.

19. For
more
conference
materials
and
presenta3ons
please
visit
www.misakonverents.ee