Creating a bridge: An asylum seeker’s ideas for social inclusion

ABSTRACT

Background: Asylum seekers often experience social exclusion, beyond work and productivity. For this group, social inclusion is needed in order to participate in their new society and regain control over daily life and occupations, as well as prevent health problems. Social inclusion has been discussed within occupational science, and a collaborative approach such as the Participatory Occupational Justice Framework recommended to be followed. However, there is still a lack of understanding of the asylum seekers’ perspective on social inclusion, which this article begins to address through the lived experience of one participant.

Method: Framed as a phenomenological study, data were collected through interview and articles written by the asylum-seeking participant. The data were analysed using Giorgi’s method as modified by Malterud (2017).

Results: The participant’s ideas revolved around the components of Bogeas and colleague’s (2017) description of social inclusion and revealed the problems that he experienced daily in the asylum centre. His suggestions for change and social inclusion included the need for asylum seekers to take part in the daily work in the centre, establishing channels of information, and a residents’ council to support collaboration with the local population. The participant stressed that social inclusion should be a two-way process, with both sides taking responsibility for working with the challenges.

Conclusion: Although there are objective conditions that might limit social inclusion, a collaborative and participatory approach offers the opportunity for social inclusion and participation in occupation. Employing such an approach would facilitate the health, well-being, and inclusion of asylum seekers; and promote occupational justice for an otherwise marginalised population.

Antecedentes: A menudo, más allá del trabajo que realizan y de su productividad, los solicitantes de asilo experimentan exclusión social. No obstante, a fin de que este grupo pueda participar en su nueva sociedad, recobrar el control sobre su vida y sus ocupaciones cotidianas, y evitar problemas de salud, es necesario que goce de inclusión social. La ciencia ocupacional ha abordado el tema de la inclusión social; al respecto, recomienda emplear un enfoque colaborativo, como el Marco de Justicia Ocupacional Participativa. A pesar de ello, existe poca comprensión sobre la perspectiva de quien solicita asilo en torno a la inclusión social. En este sentido, el presente artículo se propone subsanar en parte esta laguna, examinando las vivencias de un solicitante.

Método: Enmarcado como un estudio fenomenológico, la información fue recabada a través de una entrevista con un solicitante de asilo y de los artículos escritos por éste. Dicha información fue analizada usando el método propuesto por Giorgi, modificado posteriormente por Malterud (2017).

Resultados: Se constató que las ideas del participante giran alrededor de los componentes de la descripción de inclusión social de Bogeas y su colega (2017), y dan cuenta de los problemas que experimentó diariamente en el centro de asilo. Sus sugerencias de cambio e inclusión social hacen referencia a la necesidad de que los solicitantes de asilo participen en el trabajo cotidiano del centro, estableciendo canales de información; asimismo, indica la importancia de que un consejo de residentes apoye el proceso de colaboración con la población local. El participante hizo hincapié en el hecho de que la inclusión social debe ser un proceso de dos sentidos, de manera que ambas partes asuman su responsabilidad para sortear los desafíos.

Conclusión: Si bien existen condiciones objetivas que podrían circunscribir la inclusión social, el enfoque centrado en la colaboración y la participación brinda la oportunidad de abordarla conjuntamente con la participación en la ocupación. La utilización de dicho enfoque promovería la salud, el bienestar y la inclusión de los solicitantes de asilo, lo que, a la vez, fomentaría la justicia ocupacional para una población por demás marginalizada.

背景：寻求庇护者经常遭受社会排斥，使其被排斥于工作和生产力之外。对于这一群体，需要社会包容才能使他们参与新社会，重新掌握自己的日常生活和活动，并预防健康问题。社会包容已在生活活动科学中进行了讨论，并建议采用协作方法，如参与型休闲司法框架。然而，关于寻求庇护者对社会包容的看法的理解，仍然缺乏。本文通过一个参与者的经历来初步探讨这一问题。

方法：作为现象学研究，通过访谈和寻求庇护参与者撰写的文章收集资料。使用由Malterud（2017）修改的Giorgi法来分析所得资料。

结果：参与者的想法围绕着Bogeas和其同事（2017）对社会包容的描述的内容，并道出了他每天在庇护中心所经历的问题。关于改变和社会包容，他建议寻求庇护者需要参与中心的日常工作，建立信息渠道和居民委员会，以支持与当地人的协作。参与者强调，社会包容应该是一个双向的过程，双方都要担当责任应对挑战。

结论：虽然客观条件可能会限制社会包容，但协作和参与式方法为社会包容和参与活动提供了机会。采用这种方法将有助于寻求庇护者的健康、利益和包容，并促进其他边缘化人群的生活活动公正。

KEYWORDS:

• Occupational science
• Asylum seekers
• Refugees
• Social inclusion
• Occupational deprivation
• Occupational justice

Over the last decade, Europe has seen the largest number of forced migrants since the Balkan war in 1992. Forced migration is a term used for persons who are required to migrate due to war, civil unrest, or persecution. When forced migrants enter a host country, they are categorized as asylum seekers – defined as persons who live legally in the host country while waiting to obtain refugee status (UNHCR, 2010). In Denmark, where this study took place, the Dublin agreement of the European Union regulates the asylum-seeking process, as it does across the EU. However, there is specific legislation within individual Member States (DIS, 2017a; European Union, 2003) that regulates specifics of the process, for example, differences in accommodation (DIS, 2017a; Steindl, Winding, & Runge, 2008).

The process of seeking asylum in Denmark can vary from a few months to as long as 12 or more years (Danish Red Cross, 2017). Throughout this process, asylum seekers are in a state of limbo, unable to plan their future and with limited rights to occupations such as education and work. Thus, asylum seekers face the challenge of having to work towards inclusion in a society of which they have little or no prior knowledge, while trying to construct a meaningful life and a different occupational identity under entirely new circumstances. Financial support and accommodation for asylum seekers is available in Denmark (DIS, 2017a), but this does not necessarily address the occupational or social needs of asylum seekers. In fact, it might even promote social isolation because the asylum centres are often placed in geographically isolated locations (DIS, 2017b), which makes it hard for asylum seekers to take part in Danish society and to interact with Danes (Morville & Erlandsson, 2013).

Some measures have been taken and volunteers from NGOs, such as the Danish Red Cross (DRC), are responsible for providing occupations such as coaching a football team, planning tours or arranging parties, and there are “match-making” programs between families and individuals to support interactions between asylum seekers and Danes (DRC, 2017). However, studies show that there is still a lack of inclusive occupations within the surrounding society due to both legal restrictions and the geographic location of the centres (Morville & Erlandsson, 2013; Steindl, et al., 2008). This makes the interaction between the asylum centres’ residents and the local environment difficult, and negatively effects inclusion. The result is an experience of limited social relations and lack of support from others and the surrounding society (Tinghög, Arwidson, Sigvardsdottir, Malm, & Saboonchi, 2016).

Within occupational science, most of the literature focusing on migrants is related to those with refugee or protection status, and to the occupational changes following immigration (Bennett, Scornaiencki, Brzozowski, Denis, & Magalhães, 2012; Huot, Kelly, & Park, 2016). In recent years the literature on asylum seekers has grown; for example, a scoping review by Huot et al. (2016) only included persons who were subjected to forced migration. The review revealed that occupational injustices such as deprivation and marginalisation were some of the most prominent problems for asylum seekers and that the impact of their displacement on occupations was due to role changes and a lack of social relations (Huot et al., 2016). The trauma of the circumstances surrounding their forced migration and the prolonged state of occupational deprivation have been shown to have a negative influence on asylum seekers’ health and occupational performance; thus, increasing the risk for occupational dysfunction (Morville, Amris, Eklund, Danneskiold-Samsøe, & Erlandsson, 2015). Not allowing groups of people to participate in meaningful occupations wastes human resources, undermines people’s health, and might reduce social cohesion due to the unfair distribution of occupational opportunities (Bailliard, 2016; Christiansen & Townsend, 2010).

In Denmark, as well as other parts of Europe, there are ongoing discussions about how to cope with the large influx of forced migrants; in particular, how many forced migrants can be “absorbed” into the host country without risking the loss of social cohesion. The focus of these discussions is primarily on social inclusion regarding the productive dimension (e.g., being productively engaged in work, training, or caregiving) (Le Boutillier & Croucher, 2010). However important this is for social inclusion, there is also a need to focus on civic and political participation, occupational identity, interaction with the residents in the host country, and social networks (Le Boutillier & Croucher, 2010). Thus, acknowledging the more complex process of social inclusion in relation to asylum seekers.

Bogeas et al. (2017) have identified three components that constitute social inclusion – objective conditions (“legal conditions, financial resources and accessibility”), subjective experiences (“personal feelings of safety, trust, opportunities to grow and to ‘be yourself’”), and being together in everyday life (“daily ordinary activities that people do together, are meaningful for them, promote well-being and help people feel connected”) (p. 391). The complex process of ensuring all three components of social inclusion are met can be facilitated by occupational environments that enable equality, trust, and partnerships (Whiteford, Townsend, Bryanton, Wicks, & Pereira, 2017). Because there is a lack of such environments in the asylum centres, a conversation about social inclusion for asylum seekers is necessary (Bennett et al., 2012; Huot et al., 2016; Suleman & Whiteford, 2013).

The importance of social inclusion through occupation has been discussed within the occupational science community (Diamant & Waterhouse, 2010; Fransen, Pollard, Kantartzis, & Viana-Moldes, 2015; Pereira & Whiteford, 2012). Most of the research regarding social inclusion has focused on elderly people or those with specific disabilities, and within mental health. Due to the traumatic incidents that many asylum seekers have experienced, the frequency of mental health problems among this population is high (Morville, Amris et al., 2015; Tinghög et al., 2016). Therefore, interventions addressing social inclusion for asylum seekers require a different perspective.

The process of planning an intervention does not always take into account the needs and wants of the marginalised and oppressed groups, although the benefits of taking a participatory approach by including the community leaders and end users in the process of identifying the problems, planning the projects, and developing inclusive occupations, have been identified (Morville & Erlandsson, 2016; Vaughn, Jacquez, Lindquist-Grantz, Parsons, & Melink, 2017). This proactive perspective has been described by Whiteford et al. (2017) who, in their Participatory Occupational Justice Framework (POJF), emphasised that social inclusion interventions should be developed in partnership with the groups in question. The POJF is based on three concepts – occupation, enablement, and justice – which form the philosophical basis of critical occupational therapy (Whiteford et al., 2017). The POJF process is not a linear process. It includes raising awareness of occupational injustices, engaging in collaboration with partners, developing and agreeing on a plan, making a strategy for funding, supporting the implementation and on-going evaluation of the plan, and finally inspiring advocacy for sustainability or closure (Whiteford et al., 2017).

To overcome the challenges associated with projects including minorities, and to follow the collaborative approach of the POJF, the question that should be asked is what do asylum seekers find necessary in relation to improving their social inclusion? However, the literature addressing social inclusion from the asylum seekers’ own voices, ideas, or partnerships is sparse. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the problems with, and ideas for, social inclusion from an asylum seeker’s perspective.

Method

This study took a phenomenological approach to describe one asylum seeker’s perspective of social inclusion. A phenomenological approach requires a new way of looking at things, and that the researcher puts aside prejudices and ideas in order to capture rich descriptions of the phenomenon of focus in the study (Husserl, 1970). This study focuses on one participant drawn from a phenomenological study regarding occupational deprivation in asylum centres (Morville & Erlandsson, 2013). That study showed that the asylum seekers were occupationally deprived due to the legal conditions and physical environment. However, the study also revealed how the asylum seekers tried to use their skills and knowledge in daily life in the centre and thus stayed active. The participant in the present study was chosen as he offered access to his unpublished newspaper articles during conversations with the first author. After reading the articles, and discussing the proposal with the participant, the first author asked if the articles could be used for research purpose to which the participant gave consent.

Ethics

The informant was included following the rules of informed consent as laid down by the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and the Danish Ethical Research Committee published by the Uddannelses og- Forskningsminsteriet [Ministry of Higher Education and Science]. The study was approved by a local ethics committee and by the Danish Data Protection Agency. Per the ethical guidelines, the first author provided the participant with written information in his first language about voluntary participation, anonymity, and confidentiality of the data before the study was initiated. The participant received additional information about the purpose and content of the study and gave his written informed consent to participate. To ensure his anonymity, the name given to the participant is fictional and his country of origin is not mentioned. Furthermore, the participant’s formal education is not mentioned; and although his profession is stated, because many journalists flee due to their political and critical activities, being a journalist is not unusual among asylum seekers.

Presentation of the participant

Mohammad was a 30-year-old man who had worked as a journalist in his homeland. He had been involved in a human rights organization and was warned that the police wanted to arrest him; thus, he was forced to flee. Mohammad came to Denmark with a friend from the human rights organization, but he left behind his parents, siblings, nephews, and nieces.

Research setting

On behalf of the Danish Immigration Service (DIS), the DRC has responsibility for some of the asylum centres in Denmark including administration of the monetary allowance and coupons for necessities that all asylum seekers receive. At the time of this study, 4,289 asylum seekers lived in asylum centres in Denmark (DIS, 2013). The reception centre where the interview took place, with permission of the DRC, had spaces for 350 inhabitants. The asylum seekers are free to come and go, but they should sign in at least every 2 weeks in order to get their allowance and their rations of coupons for “shopping” for personal necessities and clothes (DIS, 2013). If they do not sign in, they are not eligible for their allowance, which was €200 a month for food for a single person at the time of the study (DIS, 2013). Some asylum centres provide food at a canteen, but in this centre the canteen had been recently closed and residents instead received money for food and did their own cooking. The centre was a former military barracks located in a rural area and with limited transport to the nearest small provincial town, making interaction with the local Danes difficult. The rooms held two to four beds, and there were communal kitchens, toilets, and baths. The centre had access to a fitness room and a sewing workshop; however, they were run-down, and the machines were often broken. Even though the DRC runs the centres, they cannot decide to which centre individual asylum seekers are allocated, as this is done by the DIS. The DRC can, however, allocate specific rooms and “jobs” within the centre.

Data collection

The data in this study were collected over a 5-month period in 2011 in a Danish asylum centre and consisted of a narrative interview, two articles, and a letter. The interview was conducted in English by the first author and lasted for 110 minutes. The interview guideline was relatively brief, and the questions were kept open-ended to allow the description to develop. The interview was digitally audio recorded and transcribed verbatim (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014). During the interview with Mohammad, he offered the first author the articles that he had written about life in the asylum centre and his list of suggestions for changes.

Data analysis

The data were transcribed and analysed using Giorgi’s method as modified by Malterud (2017). Though Bogeas et al.’s (2017) framework of social inclusion was used throughout this study, it was not employed during the analysis process. The analysis of the interview and articles consisted of the following four step process.

In the first step the text was read individually and then discussed by the two authors to find preliminary themes. In the second step meaning units connected with the preliminary themes were then identified in the text and labelled with codes. In the third step the codes were abstracted and carefully sorted into subgroups. The subgroups were used as an intermediate stage to develop categories in the last step. If a statement or piece of text expressed more than one concept, it could be placed into several relevant categories. In addition, the authors regularly returned to the transcripts to ensure that the themes, codes, and categories were supported in the data. At the end of the analysis, the evolving categories were structured into the following: ‘occupational deprivation’ and ‘suggestions for change’.

The authors did the analysis together and discussed the process. Throughout the process, the authors discussed and used bracketing in order not to let the first author’s knowledge of the participant influence the analysis. During data analysis, the language in the interview transcript was kept true to the original wording. To enhance the readability in the quotations, minimal edits have been made to improve grammar and, in one quotation, to link a section for continuity while maintaining the original meaning. Changes have been kept to a minimum in order to let Mohammad’s voice be heard.

Results

Two overarching categories – Occupational deprivation and Suggestions for change – with subcategories were found in the material and related to the problems with, and ideas for, social inclusion from Mohammad’s perspective (Table 1).

Table 1. Schematic Overview of the Themes and Subgroups

Themes	Subgroups
Occupational deprivation	A bad day is a day without a plan The dictatoŕs heritage in the happiest country
Suggestions for change	Working together Information Proposals for better governance in the centre

Occupational deprivation

“A bad day is a day without a plan”

Mohammad spoke about his own difficulties with staying in the centre, which were mostly due to the lack of occupation. His days were without meaning and structure, and it did not matter to him at what time he went to sleep or what time he got up. “Not every day, but … 5 days a week I wake up late and I haven’t any work to do, just eating breakfast and checking my mail and talking about the immigration service”.

The fact that there was nothing to do negatively influenced not only Mohammad, but all the residents. Mohammad experienced loud disagreements in the centre daily, often in the cafeteria due to the quality of the food and regarding problems with vandalism in the fitness centre, the café, and the billiard hall, and signs of crime.

“The ‘dictator’s heritage’ in the happiest country”

Mohammad elaborated extensively on the mental health problems of those living at the centre, and he reflected on the many factors that lead to mental health problems.

Mohammad explained that mental health problems are usually due to the asylum seekers’ exposure to traumatic incidents and oppressive governments: “They come from a diseased society, which is still in them … This is a dictator’s heritage—they are not like you people (the Danes), because they have not experienced a life without disorder”.

Mohammad discussed the difference between Danish citizens and the asylum seekers and reported that the “diseased society” that the asylum seekers come from, in which they have been subjected to oppressive authorities, makes them distrustful towards Danish authorities. Mohammad referred to the earlier generations in Denmark and their efforts to build a legal and just democracy, which he believed has led to a “mentally and emotionally healthy” society that is very different from the countries the asylum seekers come from.

Mohammad referred to Denmark as the happiest country in the world and described the discrepancy between the “healthy” Denmark and the “diseases” in the asylum seekers as a serious problem. Mohammad showed deep concern for the asylum seekers who react against the “homogenous Danish society”, and he was specifically concerned about the large number of young men in the centre and the risk that they might develop “unpredictable problems that will affect the community … It worries me when an asylum seeker enters this country … and breaks the usual norms and engages in inappropriate behaviour … and reacts with tension and stress”.

A critical factor that Mohammad pointed towards is the cocktail of different cultures coming to Denmark, making it difficult to intervene and promote social inclusion – “the interests of an African and a Bengali person are not the same”. Mohammad expressed that he was “faced with this every day within the centre … because every day is a part of my life”.

Mohammad also described how the Danes should take on their part of the responsibility for facilitating social inclusion and wrote that it is important for the Danes to be aware that asylum seekers who arrive in Denmark “are sick people and they have to be treated like that”. He mentioned several times that asylum seekers seldom have an education and that they have had very different living conditions than the Danes, which might be problematic regarding both culture and opportunities for inclusion. In general, Mohammad was very positive towards Danish society, and he found the Danes to be generally positive towards asylum seekers and that they showed an understanding for the asylum seekers’ “diseases”.

Suggestions for change

Working together

The experiences and observations that Mohammad described motivated him to propose several suggestions for social inclusion both inside and outside the centres. Mohammad’s ideas were focused on including the asylum seekers in the daily administration of the centre, as well as in the surrounding society. He wrote that his ideas might help “create a bridge between the residents and the officials … and with the local people”.

The number one overarching suggestion was to make the asylum process faster, to reduce the limbo that asylum seekers experience – not knowing what path their lives will take – and the subsequent associated mental health problems. However, Mohammad primarily gave ideas and suggestions for what to do inside the centres, and he often mentioned that along with the Danes the asylum seekers themselves have to take responsibility: “We need to work together to eliminate negative attitudes … Our future is in our hands”.

Information

Mohammad expressed the need for “information”, which he found “is the very best way for the asylum seekers to understand that the situation in Denmark is different from their home country. They must shift paradigms. Information will help them understand that they need to have a new life”. Specifically, Mohammad mentioned that one’s clothes, one’s food, and one’s ways of socialising with others must change. He stated, “It is very important for them [the asylum seekers] to know this,” and he made it clear that this change is the asylum seeker’s responsibility. Mohammad emphasised the importance of being included in a Danish cultural context because then one is “forced to automatically respect the norms”, which will support social inclusion.

Mohammad suggested developing a webpage to solve the lack of communication and information. An individual account should support the asylum seeker in gaining access to the status of his or her case and provide access to information on health, allowances, applying for another room, or even moving to another centre. The common platform, apart from the general information mentioned above, could be a place for the DRC to announce the “jobs” in the centre, provide local news from the centre and national news from other asylum centres in Denmark. This would make it possible for asylum seekers to connect across centres and to form interest groups within the centres and with the Danes. Such connection could enhance participation in the local environment through awareness of festivals, markets, events, concerts, and other opportunities to meet the local Danes.

“Proposals for better governance in the centre”

Mohammad had written a three-page list with suggestions to “create a spirit of partnership, responsibility, and accountability in the centres”. The proposals were “Formation of a council”, “Construction of a central shop”, and establishment of an “Information centre”. The latter referred to the idea of a webpage, which is described above.

The “Formation of a council” should be based on a democratic process, and members of the council be representative of the centre with regards to nationality, culture, and gender, and possess “a minimum level of education and knowledge of English”. Mohammad wrote that the council – by “investigating complaints and criticism” – could help reduce the “tension between staff and residents” and would be responsible for reporting back to the DRC staff. Furthermore, Mohammad wrote that the council’s goal should be to create “a spirit of partnership and responsibility” and to facilitate social networks amongst the asylum seekers. One of the council’s tasks would be to support volunteer groups in arranging a native arts and culture festival at the centre, which would include people from the local communities.

In Mohammad’s proposal for “Construction of a central shop”, he took a learning-by-doing approach and described the running of the shop as a way of preparing asylum seekers for inclusion in Danish society by “teaching” the “norms, laws and ethics before the real deal”. The shop would provide cheaper, more accessible food for the residents, and the asylum seekers responsible for the shop would arrange a market on a weekly basis in collaboration with the council and local farmers.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to identify problems and ideas regarding social inclusion from one asylum seeker’s perspective. Mohammad raised the awareness of occupational injustices through his writing, and gave ideas for collaborating with the residents, the staff, and the local environment, thus initiating the process described within the POJF (Whiteford et al., 2017). Furthermore, the results showed that the suggestions Mohammad gave were within Bogeas et al.’s (2017) three components that constitute social inclusion. Mohammad described the objective conditions regarding the living conditions and accessibility to information, the subjective experiences of lack of occupations and meeting a different culture with different customs and values, and being together in everyday life by collaborating with locals to connect people.

Structural and cultural differences

In the interview, Mohammad presented the metaphor of a diseased and a healthy society as a perspective on the differences in objective conditions, such as law, financial resources, and accessibility, between Denmark and the asylum seekers’ home countries. The asylum seekers often come from countries with political or religious dictatorships and social unrest, from “the dictator’s heritage” to “the happiest country in the world”. Denmark scores high on ratings of trust towards authorities and low on the presence of corruption (Helliwell, Huang, & Wang, 2016), which is in stark contrast to most of the countries the asylum seekers come from and enhances the cultural clash regarding the perception of authorities and their motives. Additionally, Mohammad mentioned that the asylum seekers have been subjected to human rights violations or other traumatic incidents, which results in a high frequency of mental health problems among this population (Morville, Amris et al., 2015; Steel et al., 2009; Tinghög et al., 2016). Being subjected to objective conditions, for example coming from countries where the authorities often are the source of human rights violations and where persecution leads to a lack of trust and even fear of authorities, might contribute to the “tension between staff and residents” that Mohammad experienced. This could negatively influence asylum seekers’ subjective experience of safety and prevent them from maintaining a positive cultural identity in the host country (Bhugra & Becker, 2005). Helping asylum seekers establish trust in authorities and support their personal growth should start in the asylum centres. This could be done through establishing a collaboration between the staff and the residents based on equal distribution of power, which is suggested in Mohammad’s ideas of establishing a residents’ council and having cultural events in collaboration with the local community.

Social inclusion through information

As a way of preventing or minimising the cultural clash, Mohammad’s suggestions of providing more information on diverse levels make sense. Within the first weeks after their arrival, there is a compulsory week-long course for asylum seekers that includes an introduction to Danish culture, society, communication, and social relations (Retsinformation, 2010). This might not be the optimal time for asylum seekers to digest so much information as they are still often in a state of limbo and uncertainty regarding their future. Mohammad suggested an information platform for building a social network among asylum seekers and Danes, thereby creating opportunities for social inclusion and enhancing people’s sense of connection (Bogeas et al., 2017). By doing so, the awareness, and thus the motivation, for “shifting paradigms” could be stimulated because the information would be accessible even after the courses are finished. Thus, the suggestion of making a webpage would be a welcome addition to the existing channels of information and might contribute to social inclusion. Nevertheless, all asylum seekers might not have the personal resources to utilize such information because some asylum seekers come from countries with a high rate of illiteracy (Central Intelligence Agency, 2017). This problem of illiteracy might prevent a webpage from being the optimal solution. Regarding the formation of a council, the request for “a minimum of education and knowledge of English” could easily enhance exclusion, specifically of the most vulnerable groups of asylum seekers, due to lack of education and language skills.

Social inclusion through collaboration

Irrespective of the problems of participation in the council, due to lack of language skills, the idea of collaboration between staff and residents by forming a council has potential. The council could solve information accessibility problems for the more vulnerable group of asylum seekers, and Mohammad’s suggestion related to creating ‘a bridge’ through actual daily occupations is one of the components in Bogeas et al.’s (2017) description of what constitutes social inclusion.

Mohammad’s aim of creating a “spirit of partnership and responsibility” with the aid of a council is in line with the concept of empowerment as both the process and the goal (Tengland, 2008). Empowerment is associated with the process of gaining opportunities for self-reliance, and thus making room for the autonomy of asylum seekers to act on their own authority in a responsible and self-determined way (Zimmerman, 2000). By doing so, they will be able to take control of their circumstances and achieve goals within structural limits. In the Norwegian asylum centres, councils of residents and staff already exist with the aim of supporting the empowerment of the residents (Valenta & Berg, 2010). Mohammad suggested that the council work together with the personnel in the centres, and because the empowerment process not only relates to self-empowerment, the process can be supported by professionals, as is seen in the Norwegian centres (Tengland, 2008; Valenta & Berg, 2010). Supporting occupations related to self-empowerment would enable asylum seekers to overcome their sense of powerlessness and lack of influence, and would encourage them to recognize and use their resources through occupations, thus experiencing a sense of belonging (Diamant & Waterhouse, 2010; Horghagen & Josephsson, 2010).

Relating this to Bogeas et al.’s (2017) components of social inclusion, the formation of a council might help enhance the subjective experience both on an individual and group level by giving “opportunities to grow and to ‘be yourself’”; even creating trust and a feeling of safety among the asylum seekers despite their earlier experiences. The council members could be part of facilitating the empowerment process by supporting the residents’ collaboration with people in the local communities. However, Valenta and Berg’s (2010) study of Norwegian asylum centres showed that there are major challenges in running a residents’ council. Valenta and Berg described how participating in the council is beneficial for the council members, but that they are met with distrust from fellow residents due to different perspectives among the different categories of residents and because, as Mohammad remarked, the needs and interests of the residents differ. Furthermore, asylum seekers are often moved between centres, complicating the process of having a council (Valenta & Berg, 2010).

Social inclusion through learning by doing

Mohammad’s specific suggestion for a work-related occupation was to establish a “central shop”, where the residents would run the shop and plan farmers markets in collaboration with the local producers. Because the asylum seekers do not have access to participation in the local communities through work, this proposal, with its learning by doing approach that includes interactions with locals, might help asylum seekers to develop a better outlook for the future and nurture a sense of hope, as well as support their social inclusion in the host society. The effect of doing horticultural work was described by Bishop and Purcell (2013) when studying a gardening group and Horghagen and Josephsson (2010) explored how participation in a theatre group supplied asylum seekers with a social context and with meaningful occupations. Valenta and Berg (2010) found that it is necessary to provide access to meaningful occupations if the residents are to be sufficiently motivated to make use of them, a finding replicated in other studies (Bishop & Purcell, 2013; Horghagen & Josephsson, 2010). Valenta and Berg specifically emphasized the importance of language classes or other occupations that help increase skills, because such skills support collaboration and empowerment. By engaging asylum seekers in occupations that resemble work or education, the frustration over not being able to participate in society through work might be lessened. It might also help shift the focus from the central aspect of being an asylum seeker, i.e. waiting for the outcome of their application. Even having unsatisfactory occupations has been shown to be better than having none at all in relation to the mental health of asylum seekers (Morville, Erlandsson, Danneskiold-Samsøe, Amris, & Eklund, 2015).

Over the last decade, occupational scientists have raised awareness of the occupational injustices to which asylum seekers are subjected. Even though it is difficult to support the enablement of social inclusion and justice of asylum seekers within a framework of restrictive asylum policies and limited financial resources, some have succeeded in empowering asylum seekers through occupation. For example, a group of Austrian students used a collaborative approach to create sustainable occupations in collaboration with young asylum seekers (Draxler, Samwald, & Grosinger, 2016), and a project following the POJF, described by Smith (2017), included occupational therapy students as mentors and planners of inclusive occupations, which supplied the asylum seekers with the tools to overcome the problems that they encountered in their daily lives.

Following the POJF, interventions should be sustainable, and thus the feasibility for implementation needs discussion and testing (Whiteford et al., 2017). Given the restrictive policies and lack of financial resources, an innovative and creative approach is needed to generate sustainable projects. Thus, larger intervention studies might not be the answer but, following in the footsteps of the student projects mentioned above, including partnerships and fieldwork practice in asylum centres might be a way forward.

Methodological Considerations and Limitations

The components of social inclusion developed by Bogeas et al. (2017) were aimed at supporting persons with mental health problems to participate through occupations with a focus on employment/work. The participants in Bogeas et al.’s study lived under different structures than the asylum seekers, as they were part of the society without legal restrictions on work, education, and accommodation. Even though this difference is important, the complexity of the process and components of social inclusion might be similar, but more research is needed to establish this.

Both the interview and the articles written by Mohammad were in English, which were neither Mohammad’s nor the authors’ first language. This represented a challenge, but because the interview took place after the first author and Mohammad had known each other for 5 months, knowledge of the other’s use of language and communication had been established. This has hopefully kept misunderstandings to a minimum. The choice of not using an interpreter was because interpretation during an interview might not capture the full meaning of the interviewee’s statements. Interpretation is highly dependent on the interpreter’s competence and training and whether the interviewee speaks a specific dialect or uses regional differences regarding language and use of metaphors (Hoopman, Terwee, Muller, Öry, & Aaronson, 2009; Small, Yelland, Lumley, Rice, et al., 1999). Furthermore, use of an interpreter would limit the interaction between the interviewer and interviewee (Small, Yelland, Lumley, & Rice, 1999; Small, Yelland, Lumley, Rice, et al., 1999) and the interpreter might take on a leading role by explaining the meaning of concepts and questions, thus resulting in a large margin for errors (Ingvarsdotter, Johnsdotter, & Östman, 2012).

The results presented here are based on one very resourceful person’s perspective. Mohammad has been able to continue engaging in work-like occupations as a journalist, and he had a friend from his home country living at the centre, which might make him a more resilient person as opposed to those with fewer resources. Thus, the perspectives of those who are less resourceful might differ from Mohammad’s.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to present an asylum seeker’s perspective on enabling social inclusion within asylum centres. Occupational scientists, and now Mohammad, have articulated and are raising awareness about the occupational injustice done to asylum seekers. Following Bogeas et al.’s (2017) components of social inclusion, Mohammad’s ideas show that even with the structural barriers to an inclusive environment, there might still be a way for asylum seekers to experience enrichment, make choices, and participate in a wide repertoire of occupations. Thus, it may be possible to prevent health issues from developing among asylum seekers while they wait for the outcome of their asylum application. By using Mohammad’s ideas for an innovative and collaborative approach by establishing information channels, a council, and work-related occupations, the conditions that give rise to occupational injustice can be changed. The study shows that developing projects with vulnerable groups needs a participatory approach, as innovative ideas are brought forward by those whose lifeworld is in focus during the process. Such an approach will furthermore empower the group in question and provide both participants and occupational scientists a direction for moving forward to enact change.

ORCID

Anne-Le Morville http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1338-9644

Christina Jessen-Winge http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8323-8863