The importance of social networks amongst refugees resettled through the Community Sponsorship scheme and The Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The dramatic increase in the number of displaced people in the last decade, predominantly hosted by low and middle-income countries, has prompted a reassessment of solutions to ensure international protection and shared responsibilities for refugees. In response, resettlement programmes have been developed and expanded worldwide, allowing the transfer of refugees from first asylum countries to third countries. In 2014, the UK launched the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), aiming to resettle 20,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict. Through the programmes, refugees are supported by local authorities and an assigned caseworker to aid their integration processes. Simultaneously, sponsorship programmes, allowing individuals to sponsor refugee families and support their integration processes, have emerged in nearly twenty countries. In Europe, the UK developed the first Community Sponsorship (CS) scheme in 2016. \nBehind the enthusiasm for sponsorship programmes often lies the assumption that sponsored refugees receive better assistance than those resettled by government-led programmes, due to the support provided by volunteers' networks facilitating their integration processes. However, there is a paucity of comparative studies providing evidence supporting this assumption, especially outside Canada, where sponsorship programmes differ significantly from those developed in Europe. Additionally, although the importance of social networks in integration processes is widely recognised, several knowledge gaps exist regarding the formation and development of refugees' social networks and their role in supporting integration processes. \nDrawing on migration literature and social network analysis, this study addresses these knowledge gaps by comparing the social networks of refugees resettled through VPRS and CS with a view to understanding how different types of social connections and resources they provide shape integration processes. In addition to distinguishing between types of relationships and resources, this study's conceptual framework also considers individual-level factors, such as refugees' socio-demographic and migration characteristics, as well as contextual-level factors in shaping social networks and integration outcomes and processes. \nThe findings reveal significant depth and breadth differences between the social networks developed by CS and VPRS refugees, suggesting that through CS, refugees are more likely to develop broader and more diversified social networks compared to VPRS refugees. Differences in the types of resources available through social networks further highlight that sponsored refugees can access more tailored practical and emotional support than VPRS refugees. Utilising the Indicators of Integration framework, the study indicates that these variations in social networks and resources do not always lead to substantial disparities in integration outcomes, particularly in functional aspects, as the presence of a social network is insufficient to overcome structural barriers hindering integration processes. However, the presence of caring relationships providing emotional support among sponsored refugees' social networks underscores the significance of these relationships in integration processes. Specifically, sponsored refugees reported how these relationships enable them to feel more confident and comfortable, develop relationships with the wider community and increase their willingness and ability to reciprocate, positively impacting their integration processes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».