Responding to the Dutch Asylum Crisis: Implications for Collaborative Work Between Civil Society and Governmental Organizations

Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 DOI: 10.17645/si.v7i2.1954

Article Responding to the Dutch Asylum Crisis: Implications for Collaborative Work between Civil Society and Governmental Organizations

Robert Larruina 1,*, Kees Boersma 1 and Elena Ponzoni 2

1 Department of Organization Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; E-Mails: [email protected] (R.L.), [email protected] (K.B.) 2 Department of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; E-Mail: [email protected]

* Corresponding author

Submitted: 14 January 2019 | Accepted: 9 April 2019 | Published: 27 June 2019

Abstract Between 2015 and 2016, the Netherlands experienced an asylum crisis, one that directly affected organizations working with refugee reception and integration. Besides civil society and governmental organizations (CSOs and GOs), the period also saw individuals coming together to form emergent CSOs (ECSOs). We look at these organizations to determine whether their work brought a shift in Dutch practice and policy with regarding refugee reception. We also examine literature con- cerning crisis governance, participatory spaces, and refugee reception governance. Finally, we investigate the views and experiences of individuals from selected organizations that played an active role during the crisis. This explorative research is based upon a qualitative and interpretative study involving panel discussions, document analysis, and interviews, conducted between 2017 and 2018 by the Refugee Academy at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. We show circumstantial and interorganizational elements that enhanced and hampered interactions between ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs. We argue that shared activities during the crisis may have created possibilities for durable forms of collaboration and for the inclusion of civil society groups in a debate mostly dominated by GOs.

Keywords asylum crisis; civil society organizations; collaboration; crisis governance; governmental organizations; participation; refugee reception

Issue This article is part of the issue “The European Refugee Controversy: Civil Solidarity, Cultural Imaginaries and Political Change”, edited by Gert Verschraegen (University of Antwerp, Belgium) and Robin Vandevoordt (University of Oxford, UK/University of Antwerp, Belgium).

1. Introduction Nury, 2018; Youkhana & Sutter, 2017). During this period, European authorities failed to respond to the higher Between 2015 and 2016, the relatively steep increase number of individuals requesting asylum and the societal in the arrival of asylum seekers in Europe affected the discontent this caused. This situation was characterized ecology of organizations working with refugee recep- by a lack of clear legislation or coordination of efforts tion. Organizations that, until then, were seemingly de- among EU members (Boersma et al., 2018; Braun, 2017; tached from each other because of their differing aims Feischmidt, Pries, & Cantat, 2019; Youkhana & Sutter, and missions came together and worked towards an effi- 2017). As Betts and Collier (2017) argue, the refugee re- cient reception of refugees. Simultaneously, citizens ob- ception system was “broken”, full of weaknesses and in- jecting to EU reception policies and citizens welcoming congruences and unable to manage increasing numbers refugees spontaneously organized themselves to assist of refugees. What was called a “refugee crisis” was in new arrivals (Boersma, Kraiukhina, Larruina, Lehota, & fact an asylum system crisis due to the inability to deal

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 53 with refugees’ displacement and subsequent arrival in no exception. In addition, the increase in refugee num- Europe. Crisis governance literature shows that once a bers accelerated a process that had been activated a situation is categorized as a crisis, it is treated as a situ- few years earlier. Before the crisis, the adverse effects ation that needs to be controlled (Van Buuren, Vink, & of the institutionalized reception of asylum seekers in Warner, 2016). The Netherlands received 44,970 asylum the Netherlands were addressed in diverse academic and applications in 2015 (up from 24,495 in 2014 and around policy papers (ACVZ, 2013; Larruina & Ghorashi, 2016; 13,000 in 2012 and 2013), most of which concerned Ten Holder, 2012; WRR, 2015). Many of these critical refugees from Syria, Eritrea and Iraq (Eurostat, 2019). works were acknowledged by official authorities, and This sudden inflow meant that emergency shelters and there was a consequent shift in public and policy dis- asylum request processing facilities were urgently re- cussions and in the actual reception and integration of quired (Boersma et al., 2018). The swift establishment of refugees. The main critique was that under the Cen- temporary asylum seeker centres was soon followed by tral Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA), public outcry in some areas. These circumstances gave newcomers lacked early integration opportunities, and added importance to the contributions of civil society or- the long waiting times and uncertainty caused further ganizations (CSOs) already working in refugee reception, stress to their already complex situations (ACVZ, 2013). especially since collaboration between them and govern- Debates began addressing the early inclusion and soci- mental organizations (GOs) was crucial for effective crisis etal participation of asylum seekers and refugees, and management (Boersma et al., 2018). brought together CSOs and GOs as active contributors Crisis and disaster studies have acknowledged that (ACVZ, 2013; Ten Holder, 2012; WRR, 2015). We argue citizen volunteers play a major role during crises (Drabek that the increased flow of refugees during 2015 and 2016 & McEntire, 2003; Dynes, 1994; Helsloot & Ruitenberg, had a direct impact on this growing public discourse pre- 2004; Schmidt, Wolbers, Ferguson, & Boersma, 2017). cisely because it increased the profile of these organiza- The importance of citizen involvement can be seen when tions and introduced a multitude of new actors into the citizens converge to assist in damage assessment or pro- field, mostly in the form of ECSOs. vide general support to GOs (Kendra & Wachtendorf, Feischmidt et al. (2019, pp. 1–6) elaborate on the cri- 2003; Schmidt et al., 2017). The Disaster Research sis in Europe by outlining four characteristics that encap- Center differentiates four types of organizations: es- sulate the main features of this period and delineating tablished, expanding, extending, and emergent (Dynes, the current state of refugee reception. First, refugee ar- 1994; Schmidt et al., 2017). Established organizations are rivals entered the European public discourse. Refugees traditional response organizations carry out their regu- were in Europe, and they gave new insight into transna- lar tasks (e.g., the army). Expanding organizations have tional problems and challenges that until then had ap- small permanent staffs who can mobilize large numbers parently remained outside the continent. Second, civil of volunteers when needed (e.g., the Red Cross). Extend- society emerged as a central actor in practically all Eu- ing organizations are those that perform tasks outside ropean countries (Pries, 2018). While it is well known their intended roles (e.g., church groups). Emergent orga- that organizations were active prior to the crisis, they nizations have an unsteady group of volunteers perform- extended and adapted their missions during this period. ing non-regular tasks or regular tasks in an improvised At the same time, other groups appeared and organized manner. During the asylum crisis, emergent civil society themselves spontaneously (Youkhana & Sutter, 2017). organizations (ECSOs) involved groups of individuals who Third, the interplay between micro- and macro-level ac- came together for a specific purpose because the estab- tivities increased, and it included network of organiza- lished CSOs were too formalized to provide support for tions. These networks integrated personal involvement their particular concerns. These groups often gave rise to with new moral and political mobilizations and conducted new foundations or grass root organisations with small activities that ranged from local and small-scale assis- financial aid from funds or local governments. Note that tance to media appearances. Lastly, the asylum crisis was in this article, “CSO” has two meanings: when we discuss a learning opportunity for all the involved actors. Individ- GOs and CSOs together, it is an umbrella term with two uals who became active in assisting often entered a pro- subcategories—established CSOs and emergent ECSOs; cess of politicization after learning about the broader con- however, when we discuss CSOs alone, it refers to estab- text of the crisis, but state authorities and organisations lished CSOs only. The interaction between CSOs (the um- also learned from their mutual positioning and interac- brella term) and GOs is key to successful crisis manage- tions (Pries, 2018). Civil society perceived state responses ment and governance (Boersma et al., 2018; COA, 2017; to refugee arrivals as the outcome of failing refugee re- Drabek & McEntire, 2003; Jong & Ataç, 2017). ception systems, while states recognized the value of civil Across the EU, however, governmental responses to society’s contributions (Boersma et al., 2018). the influx of refugees led to formal, top-down “command The asylum crisis caused polarized reactions in Eu- and control” types of crisis management, with reduced ropean and Dutch society alike. Some were based on understandings of how to integrate the knowledge and public anxieties, while others stemmed from something expertise of civil society actors into a coherent plan of more promising in the dynamism of these new players action (Boersma et al., 2018). The Dutch response was and initiatives. Alongside the more traditional and es-

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 54 tablished actors in the field—municipalities, governmen- nancial system failures to dramatic changes in refugee tal agencies, established CSOs—many others acted: busi- movements and numbers. According to Boin, ‘t Hart, nesses, neighbourhood residents, social entrepreneurs, Stern and Sundelius (2016, p. 5), a crisis occurs when and bottom-up socio-cultural initiatives (Jong & Ataç, “a social system, a community, an organization, a pol- 2017). Many of these initiatives were active in creating icy sector, a country…experiences an urgent threat to opportunities for refugees and Dutch people to meet. For its basic structures or fundamental values, which har- example, there were alternative Dutch language teach- bours many ‘unknowns’ and appears to require a far- ing programmes, mentoring schemes, and employment reaching response”. Crisis governance, then, concerns projects (Rast & Ghorashi, 2018). how government works to control a perceived crisis Roger Zetter (cited in Sigona, 2018 p. 456) argues (Boin et al., 2016). It includes governments working to- that in this era of globalization and forced migration, two wards remediating a crisis but also towards enhancing parallel processes are taking place: the proliferation of community resilience for future critical situations. Crisis bureaucratic categories that seek to encapsulate forced governance appears as a set of intertwined governance displacement and the increasing precarity of the rights challenges in which all the relevant organizations play and entitlements of displaced people. These processes a role. During crises, ruling authorities often rely on in- restrain refugees’ movements towards the Global North, strumentation of the chaos, command, and control gov- and to a certain extent, they also define and frame the as- ernance model (Drabek & McEntire, 2003; Dynes, 1994; sistance that newly arrived refugees receive from both Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004). However, in recent years, civil society and governmental organizations (Sigona, that model has been weakened by the emergence of al- 2018). As seen during the asylum crisis, the work of safe- ternative forms of cooperation among different parties, guarding refugees relies on civic involvement and organi- and the emergence of advising institutions, all of which zational networks (Feischmidt et al., 2019; Pries, 2018). has led to the continuity, coordination, cooperation cri- It is therefore particularly important to understand how sis management model. This model suggests that gov- the rise of ECSOs and their interplay with established ernmental organizations should aim at solving the issues CSOs altered the ecology of refugee reception during the that generated the crisis rather than avoiding those is- crisis. As Pries (2018) points out, there is a need to bet- sues, even if that means working through an initial pe- ter understand the patterns, but also the desirability, of riod of disorder or confusion (Drabek & McEntire, 2003; both horizontal and vertical cooperation between differ- Dynes, 1994; Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004). Doing so al- ent local groups, established NGOs, and state authorities lows governments to respond with greater flexibility and (that is, between ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs). inventiveness so they can adapt to the changing nature By examining the experiences and perceptions of in- of social and organizational dynamics during different dividuals actively involved with these three types of or- stages of a crisis. Effective responses, with synchronized ganizations during the crisis, this study contributes to the forms of preparation and improvisation, can be assured literature on crisis governance, collaborative governance, by creating response structures that are ready to be trig- and CSO participation (both established and emergent). gered when needed. We use a crisis governance lens to call for greater attention to the emergent, bottom-up, and indeed, connective 2.2. Collaborative Governance actions ECSOs have with established CSOs and GOs. A crisis governance lens enables us to give meaning to and to Refugee reception in the Netherlands is an established understand the roles of informal networks, spontaneous and highly institutionalized process (Geuijen, 1998; volunteers, and emergent organizations—in other words, Larruina & Ghorashi, 2016; Ten Holder, 2012). To clar- the ways that people organize themselves in times of ify whether the asylum crisis brought new opportuni- crisis when formal authorities fall short. After a theo- ties to achieve durable collaboration between different retical discussion of crisis and collaborative governance stakeholders in refugee reception, it is useful to examine and participatory spaces, we provide a brief outline of the concept collaborative governance. Theories of col- our methodological approach. Based on our qualitative laborative governance help to further conceptualize the and interpretative study conducted in 2017–2018, we relation between ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs because they address the following questions: what were the experi- provide elements for understanding the complexity of ences of ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs during the 2015–2016 interactions between heterogeneous stakeholders. Col- asylum crisis? Did their cooperation help bring about a laborative governance allows different organizations to more fundamental shift in Dutch refugee reception? work together and agree on solutions while assisting policymakers and practitioners in targeting problems and 2. Theoretical Framework delivering action more effectively. According to Thomp- son (as cited in Thomson & Perry, 2006, p. 23), collab- 2.1. Crisis Governance oration is an informal or formal process of negotiation between independent actors. It enables the creation of Crises are disruptions to peace and order in society; they structures to define and manage their relationships and manifest in diverse forms, from natural disasters and fi- how they act on the issue that brought them together. In

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 55 the specific case of collaborative governance, it is a prac- synergy between the state, the private sector, and volun- tice that brings multiple stakeholders together in spaces tary resources (Skinner & Fleuret, 2011). where public agencies engage in a general agreement- Neoliberal policy studies have generated much litera- oriented and decision-making process (Ansell & Gash, ture evaluating the risks and advantages of a more promi- 2008, pp. 543–544). Stoker (as cited in Ansell & Gash, nent role for community engagement in social support 2008) refers to collaborative governance as the rules systems. The merits of community participation projects around collective decision-making. Gray (1989, p. 5) ar- include smaller-scale operations, more pluralized forms gues that collaboration is a process in which actors who of support, improved responsiveness to local needs, and have different perspectives on a problem can explore increased capacity to build, engage, and empower local their differences and seek answers that go beyond their communities (Mitchell, 2001; Trudeau, 2008). However, own interests and understandings. The asylum crisis cre- these virtues can be compromised when community en- ated a favourable environment for the formation of tem- gagement becomes a tool of welfare support, leading porary, emergent collaborations between ECSOs, CSOs, to the risk that CSOs become an arm of the state ap- and GOs. Burke and Morley (2016) note that where there paratus (Hanlon, Rosenberg, & Clasby, 2007; Peeters & is a new and complex environment, temporary collab- Drosterij, 2011; Trommel, 2009). Cooperation assets that orations connecting different organizations to a shared are shared between CSOs and GOs should thus be orga- goal often prove to be effective (Burke & Morley, 2016). nized to preserve CSOs’ capacities to act as spaces of re- However, such collaborations usually lack planning and sistance, and to ensure “openness to alternative stand- therefore tend to rely on spontaneous actions to coordi- points and active incorporation of different, marginal- nate activities (Beck & Plowman, 2014, p. 1235). Emer- ized voices from the periphery into a sector tradition- gent collaboration appears in a context where organiza- ally dominated by society mainstream groups” (Wolch, tions are under pressure to respond to conditions that 1999, p. 29). This requires a critical reconsideration of require contributions from multiple stakeholders (Beck participatory spaces and cooperative assets between & Plowman, 2014, p. 1235). These collaborative arrange- CSOs, and GOs, one that attends to questions of power ments progress rapidly during critical situations, and the (Hardy & Clegg, 2006; Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998) interactions between actors develop organically through in its analysis of the relations between these groups the immediate exchange of information and resources. and stakeholders. Gaventa (2006) elaborates on three types of par- 2.3. CSOs and Participatory Spaces ticipatory spaces for citizen initiatives: closed spaces, invited spaces, and created spaces. Closed spaces are To understand the role of CSOs in the broader context of where decisions are taken by policymakers without in- refugee reception and integration, it is important to note put from other stakeholders. Invited spaces constitute a their capacity to participate and the possible obstacles to shift from closed to open spaces. Here other stakehold- their participation in an environment mostly dominated ers are invited to take part and contribute their views. by GOs. According to Rast and Ghorashi (2018), refugee Created spaces are devised by those with less power or reception through the active engagement of newcomers influence over a particular issue. Cornwall (2002, p. 17) in CSO activities offers a more inclusive approach than refers to created spaces as “spaces that emerge more or- that usually used by GOs. However, such initiatives face ganically out of sets of common concerns or identifica- numerous internal and external challenges that limit in- tions….These may be ‘sites of radical possibility’ where clusive practices. For example, despite the proliferation those who are excluded find a place and a voice”. The of new opportunities for citizen engagement in different interplay between closed, invited, and created spaces policy processes (Gaventa, 2006; Rast & Ghorashi, 2018), presents challenges to the interactions between ECSOs, participation alone does not always result in better inclu- CSOs, and GOs. To contest closed spaces, ECSOs and sion in a specific policy sector, in this case, that of mi- CSOs may demand greater transparency and account- grants and refugees. The development of CSOs’ role in ability, as well as more democratic structures (Gaventa, refugee reception appears to be in line with what is usu- 2006). Invited spaces might require that these organiza- ally described as the Dutch participation society (RMO, tions negotiate and collaborate while seeking a degree of 2013). However, community engagement is often seen independence. However, they should be able to decide as a replacement for government action and funds (RMO, when to enter and leave such spaces, which would pre- 2013; Skinner & Fleuret, 2011). In continental Europe, serve their capacity to operate in different spaces and government withdrawal has resulted in an increased em- generate change in each. phasis on the responsibility of citizens—and voluntary Both crisis and collaborative governance provide ele- organizations, as the most direct expression of citizens’ ments to understand the relations between ECSOs, CSOs, commitment—without funding and/or assigning those and GOs. Collaborative governance allows different or- organizations the formal task of service delivery. In other ganizations to work together on specific problems while words, state reductions in welfare and social support assisting policymakers and practitioners. Similarly, the tend to be accompanied by policy discourses centred on interaction between different participatory spaces puts pluralism, citizen responsibility, and a celebration of the questions of power at the heart of any engagement be-

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 56 tween CSOs and GOs (Hardy & Clegg, 2006; Hardy & relevant interviewees identified through contacts from Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998). Thus, it is important to reflect on the Refugee Academy. We created a list of 45 potential the experiences of ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs during the asy- respondents based on their organizations and roles dur- lum crisis in order to see if those engagements brought a ing the crisis. Of these, 15 individuals did not reply, 18 did change in dynamics between organizations dealing with not see enough connection between their work and the refugee reception. potential interviews, and 12 agreed to be interviewed. Crisis governance employs a multi-actor perspective However, these 12 were mainly from CSOs and, of those, to study crisis preparation, prevention, response, recov- mostly ECSOs. While GO respondents were open to dis- ery, and accountability. It also studies the role that cit- cussing their experiences during the crisis in the first izens and new technologies can play in different crisis Refugee Academy meeting (in June 2017), by the sec- phases (Drabek & McEntire, 2003; Dynes, 1994; Helsloot ond meeting four months later, they proved harder to at- & Ruitenberg, 2004). Furthermore, participation as joint tract. By January–March 2018, none of our GO contacts, consultations or practices through which different actors including those who had taken part in previous activi- can contribute to crisis remediation is an important angle ties, were willing to be interviewed. Paradoxically, many for studying the dynamics between different organiza- of these organizations were still eager to contribute to tional actors. Such participation opportunities give space other activities organized by our research group, just not for more pluralized forms of support and the capacity to those activities concerned with the asylum crisis and re- build, engage, and empower local communities (Mitchell, lated questions. The interviews were conducted in Dutch 2001; Trudeau, 2008). and followed an interview guide created to consider the operationalization of the central concepts of this study. 3. Research Approach and Methods The aim was to identify recurring topics and develop an overview of the different perceptions, views, and opin- This article is drawn from a case study involving indi- ions. To systematize and analyse the data gathered, we viduals from ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs taking part in re- used the grounded theory approach, which allows the- search activities at the Refugee Academy, a part of the ory to be developed from the data, instead of the op- Institute for Societal Resilience at the Vrije Universiteit posite. This inductive method (e.g., from the specific to Amsterdam. The study’s objectives were to identify crisis the general) guided rather than determined our analysis response practices that could be applied to the asylum (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013). The interviews were crisis and other crisis situations and to determine if those transcribed and translated into English by native Dutch responses would contribute to a more fundamental speakers. The empirical findings are based on selected shift in Dutch refugee reception. As exploratory research quotes from the meeting reports and the interviews that conducted within the academy’s Refugee Crisis Gover- show common patterns, topics, and subjects. nance research stream, the project was based primarily on qualitative and interpretative methods (Denscombe, 4. Results 2014; Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2015). These included the analysis of data from two meetings with panel dis- 4.1. Setting the Scene: Dutch Refugee Reception during cussions, twelve semi-structured follow-up interviews, the Crisis and document analysis (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Panel discussions allowed us to bring in different actors with Whether emergent or established, CSOs assist refugees extensive knowledge and expertise on the asylum cri- through advocacy, the provision of extra services, and sis. Semi-structured interviews offered informants a re- the help of volunteers (Fleischmann & Steinhilper, 2017). laxed and personalized approach, which provided flexi- They may include experts who can act to represent the bility in how discussion topics were introduced. Lastly, interests of refugees without the regulatory constraints document analysis enabled the contextualization and tri- of GOs. CSOs can provide a degree of flexibility and angulation of our research (Bowen, 2009). We corrob- adaptability that GOs cannot. Moreover, these organi- orated findings by analysing data collected through dif- zations play a key role in refugee reception and inte- ferent methods. In June 2017, during its first meeting, gration because they assist refugees after their arrival the Refugee Academy organized a roundtable on the gov- (Garkisch, Heidingsfelder, & Beckmann, 2017). Not only ernance of the 2015–2016 asylum crisis. It was moder- do CSOs adapt to immediate refugee needs and possibili- ated by one of this article’s authors, an expert in crisis ties, but they play a useful role in connecting refugees to governance and organization sciences. Of the nine other other relevant individuals and organizations. CSOs aim participants, two were from different local governments, to be a bridge, a link between their experiences and three from other universities, two from ECSOs, and two futures in the host society (Fleischmann & Steinhilper, from CSOs. In November 2017, another meeting on cri- 2017; Larruina & Ghorashi, 2016; Rast & Ghorashi, 2018). sis governance was organized. It had a panel with indi- During the crisis, ECSOs supported or interacted with viduals from three ECSOs, two CSOs, and two GOs and CSOs such as the Dutch Council for Refugees or the Red was moderated by one of the authors. During February– Cross (Boersma et al., 2018). Some ECSOs collected do- March 2018, follow-up interviews were arranged with nations and sent aid packages to Greece and other Euro-

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 57 pean countries. Other organizations focused on improv- 4.2.1. Location and Anticipation ing refugees’ integration in local communities, greeting and assisting refugees when they arrived in town, or facil- During the Refugee Academy meetings, participants itating temporary stays for refugees with Dutch host fam- from ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs discussed their impressions ilies. Some other ECSOs provided community housing and experiences of the asylum crisis. This was one of or opportunities for encounter and connection with the the few opportunities they had to talk about the topic neighbourhood, both in physical spaces and through on- with people from other organizations. Their shared im- line communities. The key Dutch GOs involved were the pressions related to the predictability of the crisis and its COA, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND), perception as mostly an urban experience: and the local governments. CSOs were asked to assist GOs with the reception of What was striking was that there was a lot of talking refugees during the crisis. Starting in September 2015, about the crisis, while I was thinking by [sic] myself, if the accommodation of asylum seekers took place in new we have a crisis, it is a crisis of organizations and how locations because the COA’s centres lacked the capac- we fix things and in what way we are prepared and not ity (Boersma et al., 2018). Though the law stated that prepared to [sic] things that, from my view, we could applicants should receive a decision on their residency have seen coming. (Respondent 6, interview) status within six months, the time to complete the process was prolonged during the crisis, and refugees had The crisis did not come as a surprise to most respon- to be accommodated in temporary reception centres. In dents. In fact, they noted several conditions that were Amsterdam, the city government set up four emergency present before the increase in refugee arrivals, and they shelters and requested assistance from the Salvation had foreseen subsequent developments and implica- Army. By April 2016, the COA had increased its capac- tions. This foreknowledge made respondents critical of ity, and it took over management of all the Amsterdam the actual refugee crisis, but many agreed that although shelters (Boersma et al., 2018). Finally, in May 2017, the handling of the crisis was clearly unfortunate, it had, the COA announced that its operations would be re- nonetheless, brought positive outcomes. Some said the duced due to lower occupancy and expectations for re- crisis was a “blessing in disguise” (ISR, 2017a). This was duced refugee inflow in the future (COA, 2017). However, clearly realized by the coming together of independent while some initiatives were scaling down, other stake- individuals and local initiatives that otherwise would holders expressed less certainty about future refugee have never interacted. numbers. This was clearly expressed by COA chairman Gerard Bakker, who spoke of both the experience of 4.2.2. Assessment of Needs and Definition of Roles community groups and the need to remain ready for future developments: Respondents representing CSOs that had been present in Dutch society for a few years reflected on the impact of We learned a lot from each other, and therefore we events portrayed in the media and the subsequent surge became locally involved in this movement, with cities, in calls to inquire about volunteering opportunities. This volunteers, and locals. We will not just close the door hindered the already overburdened workload of estab- behind us, because we will need each other again if lished organizations. At times, it created new obstacles the number of asylum seekers grows again unexpect- or contradictory situations: edly. (COA, 2017; authors’ translation) Certain events portrayed in the media stirred public Additionally, the Advisory Committee on Migration opinion and helped to increase the numbers of volun- Affair’s (ACVZ, 2018) work plan for 2017 focused on what teers willing to help established local community orga- the Dutch Minister of Justice called “Migration Manage- nizations and projects, or in the launch of new initia- ment 2030”. Indeed, authorities remained concerned tives. Established NGOs/charity organizations [CSOs] about future migration and sought advice on how to de- sometimes viewed the sudden increase in new volun- velop a stable long-term migration system that would as- teers and initiatives [ECSOs] as interfering with their sist them in planning their work and services accordingly. work. (ISR, 2017b)

4.2. Circumstantial Elements and Crisis Governance During the roundtables, participants spoke of their frus- tration with the lack of resources not only for receiving Our findings reveal circumstantial (specific to an organi- refugees but for integrating them into the community as zation’s context) and interorganizational elements that soon as possible. They often elaborated on their roles played a crucial role in the work of ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs during the crisis, but they also discussed how they might during the crisis. It is clear that their experiences require address this issue: a shift in our attention to what we call meso- and micro- level organizational dynamics. For all organizations, it is important to know how to give help, but also to provide refugees with the re-

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 58 sources for self-help wherever possible. To achieve Though GOs and CSOs had started coming together be- the latter, it is essential to recognize what abilities fore the 2015–2016 period, this process accelerated people already have and build on them. This re- during the asylum crisis. Paradoxically, this sometimes- minds workers, in turn, to listen to refugees—their produced unintended consequences, as the previous ex- views, experiences, and contributions—as a means of ample indicates. By funding new projects, local govern- making refugee reception more just and sustainable. ments sometimes stimulated competition between dif- (ISR, 2017a) ferent initiatives. The respondents emphasized not only the contact be- All respondents noted the importance of achieving a gen- tween different types of organizations (GO and CSO), but uine understanding of refugee needs rather than mak- also the interactions between organizations belonging to ing assumptions that do not include the perspectives of the same sector (CSO–CSO or GO–GO). In the following refugees themselves. Many felt that the involvement of example, we see evidence of strained relations between new actors—ECSOs—would facilitate better communica- established and emergent CSOs: tion with refugees and, therefore, better needs assess- ments. This might be achieved by bringing together like- There appeared to be little recognition of the long ex- minded organizations and individuals to enhance learn- perience and knowledge built within the NGOs them- ing and cooperation activities: selves. For that reason, it is crucial to rethink and re- design the relations between established NGOs, like Many participants noted that we often tend to or- Vluchtelingenwerk [Dutch Council for Refugees], and ganize initiatives for refugees rather than with them. more “fluid” community initiatives [ECSOs] so that the We need a great deal more reflection on this. It is positive potential of the latter is realized and intercon- time to see part of our work as listening to and in- nected with the experience of the first. (ISR, 2017b) volving refugees in our discussions, decisions, and projects. All participants agreed [ECSOs, CSOs, and Where lines of communication between CSOs and GOs GOs]. (ISR, 2017b) were inadequate, collaborative efforts sometimes suf- fered or ended in conflict. One respondent described a In the report from the second meeting (ISR, 2017b), lack of support from relevant organizations and the bu- there is a clear realization that organizational and individ- reaucratic rules that obstructed clear communication: ual learning processes should involve not only the host society but refugees themselves, and as soon as they ar- Sometimes there was a clear guideline communicated rive. The concept of co-ownership may prove interest- from the national organizations to the local ones. ing in this context, insofar as it suggests a shift from Then there is someone you know and that you can providing help by just giving to providing help by ask- call. But the bureaucracy was very burdensome; there ing what is needed. In other words, there is a growing is someone behind a desk who says, “Rules are rules”. understanding that reception and integration are two- (ECSO Respondent 3, interview) way processes. Our research shows that where horizontal cooperation 4.3. Interorganizational Elements: Opportunities for and collaboration occurred, experienced organizations Collaborative Governance? could assist the less experienced in establishing themselves and launching their programmes. 4.3.1. Working Separately to Achieve Similar Aims 4.4. Opportunities for Change through ECSO and CSO When asked what the organizations had experienced dur- Participation ing the crisis in relation to other stakeholders, participants recognized that GOs interacted with and learned Although the circumstantial and interorganizational ev- from the work and practices of ECSOs, CSOs, or other gov- idence show elements that limited the work of CSOs ernmental counterparts: and GOs, the Refugee Academy meetings and the interviews indicate the beginning of a shift towards en- Governmental organizations learned a great deal by abling CSOs’ inclusion in an organizational ecosystem going into the field and working with initiatives and composed mostly of GOs. This change is seen mainly in municipalities. This is a process that had started be- the sharing of best practices and the focusing on local fore the refugee crisis, but it was developed further rather than central governments. and faster during this period. On the other hand, there was evidence that the good intentions of local govern- 4.4.1. Opportunities for Change at the Meso-Level: ments can sometimes produce unintended (negative) Unexpected Partners and Local Governments results. For instance, the actions of municipalities often foment competition and/or conflict between ini- Respondents acknowledged that the asylum crisis pre- tiatives [mostly ECSOs]. (ISR, 2017b) sented an opportunity to rethink approaches to refugee

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 59 reception. They highlighted the importance of under- ences between organizations, all stakeholders should fo- standing the need for different organizational roles as cus on connections between individuals or groups that part of a larger set of stakeholders and processes. This work well together and pursue the same goals: could be applied to the relation between homogenous or heterogeneous organizations (i.e., the interplay among Regardless of the (type) of organization, there are al- organizations belonging to the same or different sec- ways people you can connect with, who can make a tors) but also to the relationship between organizations difference. Working together towards an inclusive sys- and refugees: tem boils down to finding those people and keeping in touch with the network one establishes. We should First, this opportunity [the asylum crisis] brought invest in creating structures in which people can find onto the organizational stage local and private initia- each other and build durable networks. (ISR, 2017b) tives [ECSOs] dealing with different issues regarding refugees. Second, municipalities are more involved in Moreover, many respondents recognized the benefit of refugee reception than before; they are taking respon- tailoring their actions to specific situations rather than sibility and initiative. These elements are generating following a generic procedure. Others underlined the the conditions for a larger shift in thinking about the importance of networking to seek solutions to prob- meaning and effects of greater public participation. lems or possible points of collaboration. One respon- (ISR, 2017a) dent highlighted the importance of personal contacts not only to facilitate their work but to connect refugees Many of the interviews stressed the relevance of estab- with the larger host society. As another individual ob- lishing and sustaining a good relationship with local gov- served, “networks” might refer to other organizations or ernments, often noting that the relatively small size of to individual volunteers. Some networks might even in- the municipalities allowed them to interact and obtain clude employees from GOs. However, active collabora- immediate answers to their needs and requests: tion with GOs proved more elusive due to their bureaucratic challenges: Yes, in some municipalities it is a bit easier because they are smaller. That makes it easy to get to them, If you don’t know how to find each other, a lot of time to reach them. Everything I say isn’t about my interac- and energy will be lost….If you are all doing the same tion, but what I see in the field. I have a pretty good re- thing and you don’t know it. You need some sort of lationship with the municipality….They are also open coordination, and you have to find each other. (ECSO to processes and new things. (CSO Respondent 5, Respondent 11, interview) interview) Our research shows that to obtain a quick answer or solu- Regarding the specific actions taken during the crisis, par- tion to a problem, respondents regularly used their net- ticipants mostly agreed that traditional decision chan- works to reach the right person in the relevant organiza- nels should be modified, from being top-down to being tion. Despite, or perhaps because of, these informal tac- bottom-up. Both Refugee Academy meeting reports also tics, such contact often led to greater collaboration and acknowledged the necessity of collaborative spaces and more positive outcomes. a better definition of roles, which might clarify respon- While these reports and interview fragments present sibilities and help to draw an organizational map show- patterns observed in a specific setting, they have much ing all the relevant stakeholders and their relation to one to tell us about how ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs interacted another. In this context, most respondents defined their during the asylum crisis and what their reflections and roles by focusing on what could have been done bet- considerations reveal about the larger Dutch response. ter and in what manner. The interorganizational connec- Our evidence suggests that these interactions hold the tions that emerged during the asylum crisis were central, potential for future collaboration and, more specifically, and participants identified three conditions required to for more inclusive practices regarding CSOs. The impli- facilitate those connections: focusing on positive people, cations for refugee reception and organizational ecology having a can-do attitude, and local governments assum- are addressed in the next section. ing a coordinating role. 5. Conclusion 4.4.2. Opportunities for Change at the Micro-Level: Human Capital and Tailored Actions This research examined the differing roles and experiences of ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs during the Dutch asy- While acknowledging the conditions required to facili- lum crisis. Our data shows that the coming together tate governance and share best practices, respondents of these organizations may mark the beginning of a elaborated on how this could start at the micro-level. shift that enables the inclusion of ECSOs and CSOs in They particularly emphasized the importance of personal an organizational ecosystem that before the crisis, was alliances. One respondent felt that, despite the differ- mostly dominated by GOs. This change occurred mainly

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 60 because of a focus on local rather than central govern- added urgency to the need for civil society and government initiatives and because stakeholders sought to net- ments to work together during non-crisis periods so they work, collaborate, and share best practices. The crisis can be ready for any future asylum crisis. provided an opportunity to reconsider the challenges Future research needs to determine to what extent of refugee reception, where the participation of ECSOs, our findings apply to other policy sectors and/or stages of CSOs, and refugees themselves could be invited and ac- a (asylum) crisis. In addition, because of the differences tively encouraged. between ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs, research should allow From a crisis management perspective, understand- for the fact that each may present differently depend- ing the contributions of ECSOs and CSOs could assist ing upon whether it is considered separately or with the GOs in moving away from the command-and-control ap- others. In other words, considering them together may proach to crisis and towards better planned and coor- mask internal or external factors that might otherwise dinated practices. In a crisis management model that be visible. With that caveat, we argue that by examin- favours coordination, new opportunities for collabora- ing micro- and meso-level opportunities between ECSO, tion and resource optimization between ECSOs, CSOs, CSOs, and GOs, it is possible to identify the conditions and GOs would be possible (Boersma et al., 2018; Drabek for a change in Dutch refugee reception. This change can & McEntire, 2003). This could enable interactions be- be contextualized in an organizational ecology that in- tween heterogeneous stakeholders while making the cludes the effort and commitment of individuals, most of most of their human, social, and logistical resources. Al- whom share a desire to assist refugees without bureau- though incorporating new actors can sometimes hamper cratic constraints. Their work and indeed this research the work of established actors, a well-supported plan are made more important because they coincide with of action/interaction could help mitigate early difficul- current and highly polarized public debates about the re- ties, with much to be gained as actors learn to work to- ception and inclusion of refugees. gether. Therefore, it is arguable that after a crisis, or indeed during any non-crisis period, there is an opportu- Acknowledgments nity to put inclusive and collaborative relations (Rast & Ghorashi, 2018) into place in anticipation of future needs. We would like to thank everyone who took part in this What we can say with certainty is that the asylum crisis research through the Refugee Academy (VU Amsterdam) brought a new awareness of the importance of collabo- activities. We are also grateful to Lyssa Hogeboom (MSc) rative assets. and Syebe Rienks (MSc) for contributing complementary More specifically, our empirical findings suggest real data and to Prof. Dr. Arjen Boin, Dr. Jeroen Wolbers and possibilities for CSOs and local GOs to work together. Arjen Schmidt (MSc) for their feedback and ideas at dif- This could be achieved in part because municipalities ferent stages of the study. Earlier versions of this arti- are smaller and less bureaucratic than the central gov- cle were presented at the Northern European Emergency ernment, often making it quicker and easier for ECSOs and Disasters Studies Congress (NEEDS 2018) and the and CSOs to access decision makers and resources. In- International Humanitarian Studies Association Confer- deed, many respondents described micro-level interac- ence (IHSA); comments and suggestions from those par- tions that focused on, and reinforced, contacts and re- ticipants helped improve this article. We also are grateful lations in local government as well as other commu- to this issue’s editors and the three anonymous referees nity agencies. for their comments. Finally, we thank Ms. Mariana Pires, Turning to the broad issue of participation, the asy- from Social Inclusion, for her assistance and full availabil- lum crisis created “closed spaces” where only govern- ity during the manuscript’s preparation. The views ex- mental organizations, such as the COA and the munici- pressed in this article are the authors’ own. palities, were involved (Boersma et al., 2018). These became “invited spaces” once CSOs were asked to assist. Conflict of interests However, while the promise to leave that “invited space” open for future interactions was clearly expressed in the The authors declare no conflict of interests. 2017 COA statement and in the Refugee Academy meeting it seems that the perception of ongoing collaboration References was not shared by all. As our study indicates, there are opportunities for col- ACVZ. (2013). Verloren Tijd. Advies over dagbesteding in laboration among ECSOs, CSOs, and GOs during both cri- de opvang voor vreemdelingen [Lost time. Advisory sis and non-crisis periods. Such collaborative governance report on activities in reception facilities for aliens]. could offer the possibility of shared spaces to exchange The Hague: ACVZ. best practices on a long-term basis, one that could foster ACVZ. (2018). Op weg naar 2030. Migratie een toekom- a sustainable form of refugee reception and integration stverkenning [Towards 2030. Migration, an ex- by contributing to policy changes and best practice guide- ploration of the future]. ACZV. Retrieved from lines. However, these opportunities are weakened by https://acvz.org/pubs/op-weg-naar-2030-migratie- seemingly divergent organizational priorities. This gives een-toekomstverkenning

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 61 Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in culture and a new dispositif of helping. Social Inclu- theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration sion, 5(3), 17–27. Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the space for change: A power Beck, T. E., & Plowman, D. A. (2014). Temporary, analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33. emergent interorganizational collaboration in un- Garkisch, M., Heidingsfelder, J., & Beckmann, M. (2017). expected circumstances: A study of the Columbia Third sector organizations and migration: A system- space shuttle response effort. Organization Sci- atic literature review on the contribution of third ence, 25(4), 1234–1252. https://doi.org/10.1287/ sector organizations in view of flight, migration and orsc.2013.0888 refugee crises. Voluntas, 28, 1839–1880. Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2017). Refugee: Transforming a Geuijen, K. (1998). Wonen en werken in een asielzoek- broken refugee system. London: Penguin Books. erscentrum [Living and working in an asylum seeker Boersma, F. K., Kraiukhina, A., Larruina, R., Lehota, Z., & centre]. Migrantenstudies, 14(4), 261–272. Nury, E. O. (2018). A port in a storm: Spontaneous vol- Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). unteering and grassroots movements in Amsterdam: Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes A resilient approach to the (European) refugee cri- on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research sis. Journal of Social Policy & Administration. https:// Methods, 16(1), 15–31. doi.org/10.1111/spol.12407 Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground Boin, A., ‘t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2016). for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- The politics of crisis management: Public leadership Bass. under pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Hanlon, N., Rosenberg, M., & Clasby, R. (2007). Offload- Press. ing social care responsibilities: Recent experiences of Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative local voluntary organizations in a remote urban cen- research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), ter in British Columbia, Canada. Health and Social 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Care in the Community, 15(4), 343–351. Braun, K. (2017). Decolonial perspectives on charitable Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. R. (2006). Some dare call it power. spaces of “welcome culture” in Germany. Social Inclu- In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, W. Nord, & T. Lawrence (Eds.), sion, 5(3), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v5i3. Handbook of organization studies (pp. 754–775). Lon- 1025 don: Sage. Burke, C. M., & Morley, M. J. (2016). On temporary orga- Hardy, C., & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1998). The power be- nizations: A review, synthesis and research agenda. hind empowerment: Implications for research and Human Relations, 69(6), 1235–1258. practice. Human Relations, 51(4), 451–483. COA. (2017). Jaarplan 2017. COA. Retrieved from https:// Helsloot, I., & Ruitenberg, A. (2004). Citizen response www.coa.nl/nl/actueel/nieuws/opvangcapaciteit- to disasters: A survey of literature and some practi- coa-voor-eind-2017-naar-31000-plaatsen cal implications. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Cornwall, A. (2002). Locating citizen participation. IDS Management, 12, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Bulletin, 33(2), i–x. j.0966-0879.2004.00440.x Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide: For ISR. (2017a). Refugee academy meeting, June 2017 (Re- small-scale social research projects (5th ed.). London: port). Amsterdam: Institute for Societal Resilience, Open University Press. VU Amsterdam. Drabek, T. E., & McEntire, D. A. (2003). Emergent ISR. (2017b). Refugee academy meeting, November phenomena and the sociology of disaster: Lessons, 2017 (Report). Amsterdam: Institute for Societal Re- trends and opportunities from the research litera- silience, VU Amsterdam. ture. Disaster Prevention and Management: An Inter- Jong, S. D., & Ataç, I. (2017). Demand and deliver: national Journal, 12, 97–112. Refugee support organisations in Austria. Social Inclu- Dynes, R. R. (1994). Community emergency planning: sion, 5(3), 28–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/si.v5i3. False assumptions and inappropriate analogies. Inter- 1003 national Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of re- 12, 141–158. silience after the World Trade Center disaster: Recon- Eurostat. (2019). Asylum and first time asylum appli- stituting New York City’s emergency operations cen- cants by citizenship, age and sex: Annual aggre- ter. Disasters, 27(1), 37–53. gated data (rounded). Eurostat. Retrieved from Larruina, R., & Ghorashi, H. (2016). The normality and http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do? materiality of the dominant discourse: Voluntary dataset=migr_asyappctza&lang=en work inside a Dutch asylum seeker center. Journal of Feischmidt, M., Pries, L., & Cantat, C. (2019). Refugee Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 14(2), 220–237. protection and civil society in Europe. Cham: Palgrave Mitchell, K. (2001). Transnationalism, neoliberalism, and Macmillan. the rise of the shadow state. Economy and Society, Fleischmann, L., & Steinhilper, E. (2017). The myth of apo- 30(2), 165–189. litical volunteering for refugees: German welcome Peeters, R., & Drosterij, G. (2011). Verantwoordelijke vri-

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 62 jheid: Responsabilisering van burgers op voorwaar- asielzoekers [Small steps of great significance. A den van de staat [Responsible freedom: Responsibi- new perspective on the humane reception of asy- lization of citizens on conditions determined by the lum seekers]. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amster- state]. Beleid en Maatschappij, 38(2), 179–198. dam/Report voor De Werkelijkheid. Pries, L. (2018). Refugees, civil society and the state: Euro- Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration pro- pean experiences and global challenges. Northamp- cesses: Inside the black box. Public Administration Re- ton: Edward Elgar Publishing. view, 66, 20–32. Rast, M. C., & Ghorashi, H. (2018). Dancing with ‘the Trommel, W. A. (2009). Gulzig bestuur [Greedy gover- other’: Challenges and opportunities of deepening nance]. The Hague: Boom/Lemma. democracy thought participatory spaces for refugees. Trudeau, D. (2008). Junior partner or empowered Social Inclusion, 6(1), 188–198. community? The role of non-profit social service Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research providers amidst state restructuring in the US. Urban practice: A guide for social science students and re- Studies, 45(13), 2805–2827. searchers. London: Sage. Van Buuren, A., Vink, M., & Warner, J. (2016). Construct- RMO. (2013). Terugtreden is Vooruitzien: Maatschappeli- ing authoritative answers to a latent crisis? Journal of jke veerkracht in het publieke domein [Withdrawing is Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, looking forward: Societal resilience in the public do- 18, 70–87. main]. The Hague: RMO. Wolch, J. R. (1999). Decentering America’s non-profit sec- Schmidt, A., Wolbers, J., Ferguson, J., & Boersma, F. K. tor: Reflections on Salamon’s crises analysis. Volun- (2017). Are you Ready2Help? Conceptualizing the tas, 10, 25–35. management of online and onsite volunteer conver- WRR. (2015). No time to lose: From reception to inte- gence. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Manage- gration of asylum migrants (WRR Policy Brief 4). The ment, 25(4), 338–349. Hague: WRR. Sigona, N. (2018). The contested politics of naming in Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2015). Interpretation Europe’s “refugee crisis”. Ethnic and Racial Studies, and method: Empirical research methods and the in- 41(3), 456–460. terpretive turn (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Skinner, M. W., & Fleuret, S. (2011). Health geography’s Youkhana, E., & Sutter, O. (2017). Perspectives on the voluntary turn: A view from western France. Health European border regime: Mobilization, contestation and Place, 17, 33–41. and the role of civil society. Social Inclusion, 5(3), 1–6. Ten Holder, F. (2012). Kleine stappen van grote beteke- http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/si.v5i3.1127 nis. Een nieuw perspectief op humane opvang van

About the Authors

Robert Larruina (MSc) is a PhD candidate and teacher in the Department of Organization Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, at VU Amsterdam. His research is affiliated with and the Department of Organization Sciences and the university’s Refugee Academy (Institute for Societal Resilience). Since 2011, he is interested in refugee reception and integration in the Netherlands and the role that (emergent and established) civil society, governmental, and refugee-led organizations play in these processes. Currently, he is focusing on multi-stakeholder collaboration and co-creation processes in refugee policymaking and entrepreneurship.

Kees Boersma (PhD) is Associate Professor at the VU Amsterdam in the Department of Organization Sciences. His research interest is in crisis management, disaster studies, and safety and security. He is the coordinator of the NWO project “Enhancing Smart Disaster Governance: Assessing the Potential of the Net-Centric Approach”. He is an elected board member of the ISCRAM (Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management) association, and a member of the editorial board of Organization Studies and the International Journal of Emergency Services. Homepage: www.keesboersma.com

Elena Ponzoni (PhD) is currently working as a Post-Doc researcher at the Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, and at the Department of Child and Family Studies, Department of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, of VU Amsterdam. Her work is situated in the fields of Diversity and Inclusion, Philosophy of Language and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. She is coordinator of the Refugee Academy (Institute of Societal Resilience, VU), an academic platform that aims to connect societal and academic actors working on the inclusion of refugees in the Dutch society.

Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 53–63 63