... more than a decade of joint action to promote democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe ...
       



Presentation
Current Events
Activities
Today -
by Programme -
by Country -
Search -
Subcontractors and grantees
Contact
 
Print View
 
Sign in



Joint Programmes - Activities by Country
18 October 2019

Activity Details (ID# 32748)  

 
Hide Synopsis  
 
Title Intercultural Cities - Research meeting with specialists in intercultural integration 
Description One of the objectives for the 2011-2012 phase of Intercultural Cities is to gather or generate solid evidence of the benefits of intercultural integration, verifying its key hypothesis. The group will consider possible research methods and make recommendations on the best course of action. 
Status Completed 
Date 12/05/2011 
Location Paris - [Bureau of the Council of Europe], France
Countries Organisations: Council of Europe / European Commission
Groups: States Parties to the European Cultural Convention
  Multilateral
  Joint Programme Activity - Int-Cit3
Joint Programme EC/CoE
JP Int-Cit3 - Intercultural cities 2011-2013    (Logframe)  (Activities)
Project Purpose 1 - 2011/DG4/JP/2647   Intercultural cities - governance and policies for diverse communities
Expected Result 1.2 - To develop an evidence base to demonstrate the benefits of the intercultural approach for urban cohesion and development
 PoA
Council of Europe Programme of Activities
I – Democracy
Line of Action ⇒ III.3 – Promoting Democratic Governance and Stability
Programme ☆ III.3.5  Intercultural dialogue

Working Method

Organisation of meetings - Seminar 
Directorate (Service) Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport (Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage)
CoE Contact ,   email
Last Modified 22/02/2012 


Activity Synopsis (ID# 32748) (Hide Synopsis)

Objective(s)  
Output/Results A research project was launched within the framework of Intercultural cities in order to verify whether the concept of diversity advantage is supported by evidence. In other words, evidence is being sought as to whether intercultural policies are beneficial in terms of (perceived) social cohesion and social justice (employment and salary differences between migrants and indigenous citizens), political stability and conflict, perceptions of safety/crime, educational achievement, lower levels of discrimination etc.

A research group has been established. A first meeting of the group took place in Paris on 12 May 2011 and resulted in a road map for the research project. A second meeting took place in Brussels on 7-8 November 2011.

The research project involves the following phases

1. A review of literature related to the impact of diversity (in particular in the field of economy). A first review of literature has been carried out but it needs to be completed with North American literature on the link between ethno-cultural diversity and innovation in cities and regions, on the diversity and wealth production and the link between creativity and economic growth, and on the benefits of sameness – co-ethnicity, benefits of diasporas, co-ethnicity in the context of diversity, the benefits of sameness in intra-ethnic business.

2. A correlation analysis between the Intercultural cities index and other data sets – either data sets relevant to certain policy variables (e.g. PISA, Euro barometer, Urban audit, UK citizenship survey, the European social survey, Living standard survey, Bertelsmann on-line integration survey), or other city indexes. At least one regression test should be included,
pinpointing to a selected number of highly relevant explanatory factors (i.e. some explanatory variables carrying much more significance that others in explaining the Index's levels). The results of this analysis will be reviewed at the Brussels meeting on 7-8 November. The report of the correlation analysis is available and will be revised in the light of comments by experts.

3. Carry out case studies based on the results of the correlation analysis above, to try and understand the processes and dynamics that could explain the correlations. The brief for the case studies is in Appendix VI.

4. Possibly carry out a meta-interpretation of the quantitative study and the different case studies – identify national differences but also common global pressures and trends that apply to all, draw lessons and recommendations.

5. Look into possible improvement of the INDEX questionnaire (formulation of questions and answers, more examples).

6. Make INDEX data available to the research community to enable further research (data is already available upon request).

The research project is expected to result in a set of publications (on-line and possibly also in academic journals).
 
Conclusions/Follow Up Intercultural cities research meeting
12 May 2011, Paris

RESULTS


Objective of the meeting

Discuss research methods which could help to verify the key hypothesis of the Intercultural cities concept: that diversity represents, under certain conditions, an advantage for city development, on the one hand, and that a comprehensive, strategic approach to diversity management, based on the principles of interculturality helps to minimise the costs of diversity and realise the diversity advantage, on the other hand.

Key principles of interculturality in urban diversity management

These principles complement other key elements of diversity management such as non-discrimination, participatory governance,

- Public discourse explicitly celebrating diversity and its potential benefits
- Governance models promoting diversity of backgrounds, cultural competence, as well as joint up work across departments, policy specialisms, official and civil society, public and private actors;
- Effective conflict resolution and mediation mechanisms (specifically about cultural conflict)
- Encouragement of intercultural mixing and interaction in public space (through a range of policies including planning and urbanism, education, arts etc.)

Definitions

Diversity advantage: the hypothesis that ethno-cultural diversity, entails, under certain conditions, comparative advantages in terms of innovation and economic success.

Social costs of diversity: weaker community cohesion and less interpersonal trust, more conflict, lower willingness to support the welfare state and public services; lower quality of public services, etc…(to be completed).

Migrant: The UN Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights has proposed that the following persons should be considered as migrants: (a) Persons who are outside the territory of the State of which their are nationals or citizens, are not subject to its legal protection and are in the territory of another State; (b) Persons who do not enjoy the general legal recognition of rights which is inherent in the granting by the host State of the status of refugee, naturalised person or of similar status; (c) Persons who do not enjoy either general legal protection of their fundamental rights by virtue of diplomatic agreements, visas or other agreements.

Diversity: for the purposes of this research (and in the context of Intercultural cities), diversity is defined as a situation where in a certain territory (state, region, city), live people with different ethnic background, religion, and/or mother tongue.


Limitations

The Intercultural cities INDEX is about policy inputs. It does not tell us about the quality of the policies and their outcomes or about the interrelationships/correlations between different inputs/outcomes.

Data comparability across geography is a huge challenge. This will limit the ambition of the study. However, maybe there will a few ‘almost comparable data sets,” and perhaps comparisons should only be undertaken in specific ‘cohorts’ of cities that are ‘close’

Demonstrating causality in public policy is very difficult, it is complex enough in one country or city, almost impossible across geography, in particular given the time and resource constraints.

Demonstrating the effects of intercultural policy would require a long-term perspective and a very large-scale, costly research in order to be able to assert causality. Since this is not an option, more modest approaches need to be adopted, based on correlating existing data and looking into causalities via case studies.


Roadmap

1. Complete the review of literature (in particular with North-American literature) and bring out the conclusions that emerge in terms of conditions that help realised the diversity advantage.

2. Analyse existing information and data: city profiles, index reports, good practice examples in order to map issues and identify possible areas for case studies. Historic data may be used as well.

3. Carry out a correlation analysis between the Intercultural cities index and other data sets – either data sets relevant to certain policy variables (eg PISA, Eurobarometer, Urban audit, UK citizenship survey, the European social survey, Living standard survey, Bertelsmann on-line integration survey), or other city indexes. Add stronger statistical significance with at least one regression test, which could potentially substantiate quite strongly (and more conclusively) the research, pinpointing to a selected number of highly relevant explanatory factors (i.e. some explanatory variables carrying much more significance that others in explaining the Index's levels).

4. Select a number of case studies based on the results of the correlation analysis above, to try and understand the processes and dynamics that could explain the correlations.

5. Another possibility would be to cluster cities per country (eg. using data from national ICC networks, for instance Italy and Spain), look if they have similar problems, and study the approach they are taking, how successful they are on a range of variables and if there is a link between stronger intercultural orientation.

6. Meta-interpretation of the different case studies – identify national differences but also common global pressures and trends that apply to all, draw lessons and recommendations. Possibly include spatial data analysis.

7. Look into possible improvement of the INDEX questionnaire (formulation of questions and answers, more examples).

8. Make INDEX data available to the research community to enable further research.

Policy outputs which could be used as dependent variables and/or case studies

- Community cohesion
- Social justice
- Policy innovation
- Political stability and resilience to crises (levels of conflict)
- Perceptions of safety/crime
- Perceptions of community cohesion
- Educational success
- Employment
- Multi-level governance, relationship of local authorities with civil society, enterprises and other levels of government
- Communication (discourse analysis of public documents)…and impact on attitudes (crisis resilience, political stability). There is literature on the impact of the level of contact between groups and influence on attitudes to diversity.
- Links between intercultural and international strategy of the city, how can you mobilize the diverse population of the city to develop an international economic or cultural strategy.
- Other…


Issues which could possible be dealt with through case studies

Case studies will be selected on the basis of the mapping, the correlation exercise and the data available in cities. They can be based, in addition to documentation and interviews, focus groups and on-line questionnaires.

- Language: What competences would one expect from an intercultural individual? What is the impact of diversity in the evolution of language and what is the impact of this evolution on the community, business, arts etc.

- Hidden assets of cities: Forms of intangible heritage which are forgotten and unused (languages, personal memories, history narratives of different parts of the world, undocumented skills) and how they can be identified an brought out to enrich policy thinking and action in the city.

- Intercultural competence and intercultural learning linking to social justice and participation.

- Participatory budgeting

- Innovative solutions to common challenges

- Design and use of public space (correlated for example to crime in certain neighbourhoods)


Additional resources

OECD have drafted a scoping paper on culture, diversity and regional development. They would like to turn it into a major study based on case studies and sharing of best practice.

Look into integration databases and the results of other networks (eg CLIP, Eurocities).

Amsterdam study in 15 European countries, a review of all sources to monitor migrant integration and their strengths and weaknesses. AMICALL – workshops and case studies in 6 countries on attitudes to diversity.

Research called midi-ready funded by NORFACE on migrants, diversity and regional development looking at the impact of cultural diversity on economic performance.


Time-table

1. Completing the literature review – end June 2011.

2. Interested experts to send brief proposals (methodology, time-table and cost) for steps 2 and 3 of the road map by 15 June 2011

3. Selection of proposals – end June 2011 (the group to be consulted on the selected proposals)

4. Work on steps 2 and 3 – by end October 2011

5. Second research meeting to review the results and discuss further methods and selection of case studies – 21 October 2011

6. Proposals for case studies to be submitted by interested experts by end November 2011

7. Work on case studies until end February 2012

8. Meta analysis of case studies and the overall results – until end May 2012

9. Preparation of a publication – editing etc. – until end October 2012


All proposals for case studies and regression studies should indicate how will they deal with the following questions

- Should research ignore differences in types of diversity (qualified vs. unqualified migrants; nationals vs. non-nationals; first – second and third generation; greater variety or concentration of certain cultures/ethnicities)?

- Should we compare intercultural approaches and others – control cities?

- Should we control for political orientation of the city majorities?

- Measuring diversity: the most measurable variable (according to the literature) is the birth place. This is very insufficient and misses a lot of factors of identity, so there needs to be a trade off between precision of concepts and research objectives.

- Shall we try to take into account country effects (legal framework, length of immigration carrers, …possibly through the MIPEX?)

- The diversity advantage operates mostly at company level, group level, individual level, and the question what is the role of the city is not so clear. Can the city enable, facilitate or encourage the micro-level developments and initiatives that can help companies and groups realise the diversity advantage?

- It will be very important to be able to be transparent about and explain the choice of cities (for case studies or for quantitative analysis through the INDEX), because cities involved so far have a particular bias, they have not been selected randomly.

 
Participants  
Consultants/Experts  
CoE Secretariat  
Total No. Participants 15 
Last Modified

22/02/2012 




 
  * All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.  
   Return to the top of the page.