Inhalt; Einwanderung - Bedrohung oder Zukunft? Mythen und Fakten zur Integration; MigrantInnen als Bedrohung - Die neue Diskursfähigkeit einst abgelegter Weltbilder; Geschichte der ›Rassen‹ und Rasse-Geschichten - Zur Historie und biologischen Plausibilität umstrittener Begriffe; Intelligenz versus Integration? Die gefährliche Konstruktion der ›gefährlichen Klassen‹; Warum Haut- und Haarfarbe nichts mit genetisch bedingten Intelligenzunterschieden zu tun haben; Gemeinsame Intentionalität; Die Vermessung der Intelligenz im Kontext sozialpolitischer Fragen; Migration und Bildung in Deutschland
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Die Verfasser argumentieren, dass die Irritation der bestehenden Ordnungen als Begründung für die eigentliche Bedrohung dient, die gegenwärtig vor allem muslimischen Migranten zugeschrieben wird. Um diese abzuwehren, werden alte Muster der Ethnisierungs- und Ausgrenzungsprozesse bemüht, die auf unterschiedliche Art und Weise ihren Weg in die Mitte der Gesellschaft finden. Es handelt sich dabei sowohl um latente als auch subtile Formen von Rassismus. Insofern sind die alten, zum Teil rassistisch geprägten Weltbilder und -vorstellungen und die damit verbundenen Macht- und Herrschaftsasymmetrien keineswegs verschwunden, im Gegenteil, sie überdauern und prägen all zu oft die soziale Konstruktion des 'Fremden' und die auf ihn projizierte Bedrohung. Nicht alle 'Fremden' sind aber auf gleiche Weise 'fremd'. Die Wahrnehmung und Bewertung folgt nicht zufälligen Auswahlkriterien und beruht eben zumeist nicht auf tatsächlichen Differenzen, sondern kann als Ergebnis machtpolitischer, sozialer und historischer Entwicklungen gedeutet werden. Das heißt, welche Migrantengruppen als 'fremd' und 'bedrohlich' wahrgenommen werden, ist immer auch eine Frage aktueller Machtverhältnisse. Damit Migranten als Teil der Gesellschaft erlebt werden und sich erleben können, reicht beispielsweise die Reformierung des Staatsbürgerschaftsrechts nicht aus. Eine wichtige Voraussetzung ist vielmehr, Migration und Migranten als gesellschaftliche Normalität anzuerkennen und als ein Bestandteil einer zunehmend globalisierten Welt zu verstehen, wie es sich zuweilen bereits in Alltagspraxen gelebter Hybridität und deren Potentialen zeigt. Hierzu bedarf es eines weiteren Perspektivenwechsels in den Diskussionen um Themen wie Migration und Integration sowie eine Abkehr von starrem nationalstaatlichem Denken seitens der Mehrheitsgesellschaften. (ICB2)
Abstract Background Previous research concluded that substance (mis)use is increasing among forcibly displaced populations. Nevertheless, little research has been conducted within a social ecological framework aimed at identifying and understanding the factors affecting substance (mis)use embedded in the post-migration context in high-income countries. The present study aims to develop an understanding of the links and underlying mechanisms between refugees' social ecological determinants and substance (mis)using behavior.
Methods Rapid assessments (RAs), including 108 semi-structured interviews and 10 focus group discussions with key persons from various professional, and personal backgrounds, were carried out in German urban and rural areas. The RA approach of interviewing key persons and not solely refugees that (mis)use substances allowed us to gather multi-perspective knowledge on this sensitive topic. Qualitative content analysis was applied, aiming at identifying determinants of substance (mis)use embedded in the post-migration context of refugees and understanding the underlying mechanisms.
Results One main result of the data suggests that the link between refugees' countries of origin and their post-migration substance (mis)use is not as direct as often assumed. It is observed that refugees' prospects and opportunities in receiving countries (e.g., work permits) undermine this commonly reproduced link. Further determinants are related to living conditions in German refugee shelters and social relations with peers and families. The influence of refugees' living conditions can be summarized as potentially increasing substance availability and distress, whereas family separation produces a loss of control and responsibility, increasing the risk for substance (mis)use. Peers' influence on substance (mis)use was reported to reflect a search for a sense of belonging.
Conclusions Given that refugees who (mis)use substances have limited to no control over the factors identified in our study to be associated with substance (mis)use, common treatment and prevention approaches are challenged. Furthermore, we recommend aiming for a holistic comprehension of refugees' substance (mis)use by expanding the focus beyond individuals to the social ecological context in any attempt, including prevention, treatment, research, and policy.
The aim of this Hypothesis and Theory is to question the recently increasing use of the "race" concept in contemporary genetic, psychiatric, neuroscience as well as social studies. We discuss "race" and related terms used to assign individuals to distinct groups and caution that also concepts such as "ethnicity" or "culture" unduly neglect diversity. We suggest that one factor contributing to the dangerous nature of the "race" concept is that it is based on a mixture of traditional stereotypes about "physiognomy", which are deeply imbued by colonial traditions. Furthermore, the social impact of "race classifications" will be critically reflected. We then examine current ways to apply the term "culture" and caution that while originally derived from a fundamentally different background, "culture" is all too often used as a proxy for "race", particularly when referring to the population of a certain national state or wider region. When used in such contexts, suggesting that all inhabitants of a geographical or political unit belong to a certain "culture" tends to ignore diversity and to suggest a homogeneity, which consciously or unconsciously appears to extend into the realm of biological similarities and differences. Finally, we discuss alternative approaches and their respective relevance to biological and cultural studies.
The aim of this Hypothesis and Theory is to question the recently increasing use of the "race" concept in contemporary genetic, psychiatric, neuroscience as well as social studies. We discuss "race" and related terms used to assign individuals to distinct groups and caution that also concepts such as "ethnicity" or "culture" unduly neglect diversity. We suggest that one factor contributing to the dangerous nature of the "race" concept is that it is based on a mixture of traditional stereotypes about "physiognomy", which are deeply imbued by colonial traditions. Furthermore, the social impact of "race classifications" will be critically reflected. We then examine current ways to apply the term "culture" and caution that while originally derived from a fundamentally different background, "culture" is all too often used as a proxy for "race", particularly when referring to the population of a certain national state or wider region. When used in such contexts, suggesting that all inhabitants of a geographical or political unit belong to a certain "culture" tends to ignore diversity and to suggest a homogeneity, which consciously or unconsciously appears to extend into the realm of biological similarities and differences. Finally, we discuss alternative approaches and their respective relevance to biological and cultural studies.
BACKGROUND:Irregular migrants (IMs) are exposed to a wide range of risk factors for developing mental health problems. However, little is known about whether and how they receive mental health care across European countries. The aims of this study were (1) to identify barriers to mental health care for IMs, and (2) to explore ways by which these barriers are overcome in practice. METHODS:Data from semi-structured interviews with 25 experts in the field of mental health care for IMs in the capital cities of 14 European countries were analysed using thematic analysis.RESULTS:Experts reported a range of barriers to mental health care for IMs. These include the absence of legal entitlements to health care in some countries or a lack of awareness of such entitlements, administrative obstacles, a shortage of culturally sensitive care, the complexity of the social needs of IMs, and their fear of being reported and deported. These barriers can be partly overcome by networks of committed professionals and supportive services. NGOs have become important initial points of contact for IMs, providing mental health care themselves or referring IMs to other suitable services. However, these services are often confronted with the ethical dilemma of either acting according to the legislation and institutional rules or providing care for humanitarian reasons, which involves the risk of acting illegally and providing care without authorisation. CONCLUSIONS:Even in countries where access to health care is legally possible for IMs, various other barriers remain. Some of these are common to all migrants, whilst others are specific for IMs. Attempts at improving mental health care for IMs should consider barriers beyond legal entitlement, including communicating information about entitlement to mental health care professionals and patients, providing culturally sensitive care and ensuring sufficient resources.
BACKGROUND:Irregular migrants (IMs) are exposed to a wide range of risk factors for developing mental health problems. However, little is known about whether and how they receive mental health care across European countries. The aims of this study were (1) to identify barriers to mental health care for IMs, and (2) to explore ways by which these barriers are overcome in practice. METHODS:Data from semi-structured interviews with 25 experts in the field of mental health care for IMs in the capital cities of 14 European countries were analysed using thematic analysis.RESULTS:Experts reported a range of barriers to mental health care for IMs. These include the absence of legal entitlements to health care in some countries or a lack of awareness of such entitlements, administrative obstacles, a shortage of culturally sensitive care, the complexity of the social needs of IMs, and their fear of being reported and deported. These barriers can be partly overcome by networks of committed professionals and supportive services. NGOs have become important initial points of contact for IMs, providing mental health care themselves or referring IMs to other suitable services. However, these services are often confronted with the ethical dilemma of either acting according to the legislation and institutional rules or providing care for humanitarian reasons, which involves the risk of acting illegally and providing care without authorisation. CONCLUSIONS:Even in countries where access to health care is legally possible for IMs, various other barriers remain. Some of these are common to all migrants, whilst others are specific for IMs. Attempts at improving mental health care for IMs should consider barriers beyond legal entitlement, including communicating information about entitlement to mental health care professionals and patients, providing culturally sensitive care and ensuring sufficient resources.
Abstract Background Irregular migrants (IMs) are exposed to a wide range of risk factors for developing mental health problems. However, little is known about whether and how they receive mental health care across European countries. The aims of this study were (1) to identify barriers to mental health care for IMs, and (2) to explore ways by which these barriers are overcome in practice. Methods Data from semi-structured interviews with 25 experts in the field of mental health care for IMs in the capital cities of 14 European countries were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Experts reported a range of barriers to mental health care for IMs. These include the absence of legal entitlements to health care in some countries or a lack of awareness of such entitlements, administrative obstacles, a shortage of culturally sensitive care, the complexity of the social needs of IMs, and their fear of being reported and deported. These barriers can be partly overcome by networks of committed professionals and supportive services. NGOs have become important initial points of contact for IMs, providing mental health care themselves or referring IMs to other suitable services. However, these services are often confronted with the ethical dilemma of either acting according to the legislation and institutional rules or providing care for humanitarian reasons, which involves the risk of acting illegally and providing care without authorisation. Conclusions Even in countries where access to health care is legally possible for IMs, various other barriers remain. Some of these are common to all migrants, whilst others are specific for IMs. Attempts at improving mental health care for IMs should consider barriers beyond legal entitlement, including communicating information about entitlement to mental health care professionals and patients, providing culturally sensitive care and ensuring sufficient resources.
Background: European Member States are facing a challenge to provide accessible and effective health care services for immigrants. It remains unclear how best to achieve this and what characterises good practice in increasingly multicultural societies across Europe. This study assessed the views and values of professionals working in different health care contexts and in different European countries as to what constitutes good practice in health care for immigrants. Methods: A total of 134 experts in 16 EU Member States participated in a three-round Delphi process. The experts represented four different fields: academia, Non-Governmental Organisations, policy-making and health care practice. For each country, the process aimed to produce a national consensus list of the most important factors characterising good practice in health care for migrants. Results: The scoring procedures resulted in 10 to 16 factors being identified as the most important for each participating country. All 186 factors were aggregated into 9 themes: (1) easy and equal access to health care, (2) empowerment of migrants, (3) culturally sensitive health care services, (4) quality of care, (5) patient/health care provider communication, (6) respect towards migrants, (7) networking in and outside health services, (8) targeted outreach activities, and (9) availability of data about specificities in migrant health care and prevention. Although local political debate, level of immigration and the nature of local health care systems influenced the selection and rating of factors within each country, there was a broad European consensus on most factors. Yet, discordance remained both within countries, e. g. on the need for prioritising cultural differences, and between countries, e. g. on the need for more consistent governance of health care services for immigrants. Conclusions: Experts across Europe asserted the right to culturally sensitive health care for all immigrants. There is a broad consensus among experts about the major principles of good practice that need to be implemented across Europe. However, there also is some disagreement both within and between countries on specific issues that require further research and debate.
BACKGROUND: European Member States are facing a challenge to provide accessible and effective health care services for immigrants. It remains unclear how best to achieve this and what characterises good practice in increasingly multicultural societies across Europe. This study assessed the views and values of professionals working in different health care contexts and in different European countries as to what constitutes good practice in health care for immigrants. METHODS: A total of 134 experts in 16 EU Member States participated in a three-round Delphi process. The experts represented four different fields: academia, Non-Governmental Organisations, policy-making and health care practice. For each country, the process aimed to produce a national consensus list of the most important factors characterising good practice in health care for migrants. RESULTS: The scoring procedures resulted in 10 to 16 factors being identified as the most important for each participating country. All 186 factors were aggregated into 9 themes: (1) easy and equal access to health care, (2) empowerment of migrants, (3) culturally sensitive health care services, (4) quality of care, (5) patient/health care provider communication, (6) respect towards migrants, (7) networking in and outside health services, (8) targeted outreach activities, and (9) availability of data about specificities in migrant health care and prevention. Although local political debate, level of immigration and the nature of local health care systems influenced the selection and rating of factors within each country, there was a broad European consensus on most factors. Yet, discordance remained both within countries, e.g. on the need for prioritising cultural differences, and between countries, e.g. on the need for more consistent governance of health care services for immigrants. CONCLUSIONS: Experts across Europe asserted the right to culturally sensitive health care for all immigrants. There is a broad consensus among experts about the major principles of good practice that need to be implemented across Europe. However, there also is some disagreement both within and between countries on specific issues that require further research and debate.
BACKGROUND: European Member States are facing a challenge to provide accessible and effective health care services for immigrants. It remains unclear how best to achieve this and what characterises good practice in increasingly multicultural societies across Europe. This study assessed the views and values of professionals working in different health care contexts and in different European countries as to what constitutes good practice in health care for immigrants. METHODS: A total of 134 experts in 16 EU Member States participated in a three-round Delphi process. The experts represented four different fields: academia, Non-Governmental Organisations, policy-making and health care practice. For each country, the process aimed to produce a national consensus list of the most important factors characterising good practice in health care for migrants. RESULTS: The scoring procedures resulted in 10 to 16 factors being identified as the most important for each participating country. All 186 factors were aggregated into 9 themes: (1) easy and equal access to health care, (2) empowerment of migrants, (3) culturally sensitive health care services, (4) quality of care, (5) patient/health care provider communication, (6) respect towards migrants, (7) networking in and outside health services, (8) targeted outreach activities, and (9) availability of data about specificities in migrant health care and prevention. Although local political debate, level of immigration and the nature of local health care systems influenced the selection and rating of factors within each country, there was a broad European consensus on most factors. Yet, discordance remained both within countries, e.g. on the need for prioritising cultural differences, and between countries, e.g. on the need for more consistent governance of health care services for immigrants. CONCLUSIONS: Experts across Europe asserted the right to culturally sensitive health care for all immigrants. There is a broad consensus among experts about the major principles of good practice that need to be implemented across Europe. However, there also is some disagreement both within and between countries on specific issues that require further research and debate.
BACKGROUND: Health services in Europe face the challenge of delivering care to a heterogeneous group of irregular migrants (IM). There is little empirical evidence on how health professionals cope with this challenge. This study explores the experiences of health professionals providing care to IM in three types of health care service across 16 European countries. RESULTS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals in 144 primary care services, 48 mental health services, and 48 Accident & Emergency departments (total n =240). Although legal health care entitlement for IM varies across countries, health professionals reported facing similar issues when caring for IM. These issues include access problems, limited communication, and associated legal complications. Differences in the experiences with IM across the three types of services were also explored. Respondents from Accident & Emergency departments reported less of a difference between the care for IM patients and patients in a regular situation than did respondents from primary care and mental health services. Primary care services and mental health services were more concerned with language barriers than Accident & Emergency departments. Notifying the authorities was an uncommon practice, even in countries where health professionals are required to do this. CONCLUSIONS: The needs of IM patients and the values of the staff appear to be as important as the national legal framework, with staff in different European countries adopting a similar pragmatic approach to delivering health care to IM. While legislation might help to improve health care for IM, more appropriate organisation and local flexibility are equally important, especially for improving access and care pathways.
