Gruppo Ágora

1 The practice

2 Hints for an evaluation

2.1 Strenghts

The organisation’s perspective
"IMISCOE" received its first annual evaluation by the European Commission, based on our first reporting year, covering the period from April 1st, 2004 to March 31st, 2005. The network received the highest possible score from the evaluation. The report stated that:

“IMISCOE" has achieved its immediate objectives and targets and in some cases exceeded expectations. In real terms the fruits of "IMISCOE" are yet to come as this phase was primarily in setting up the infrastructure that is needed to manage a complex programme of work in a number of distinct areas. The executive summary illustrates a very intensive, efficient and successful pre-project period of networking, resulting in "putting up the organization.”

In general, "IMISCOE" puts much emphasis on the notion of excellence and prides on the recognition of such excellence, being very explicit when describing the requirements of both members and results. The notion of excellence in the academic context does not only refer to the quality of the scientific research and results obtained, but to the common frame within which the standards of excellence are described. Such frame is common to the European Union and specifically designed to make selection procedures homogeneous all over the EU. This practice is a good intercultural example in the sense that it builds a common research area and evaluation system for the whole EU, where the academic differences all over the EU are brought together under a common pattern.
Comparative multidisciplinarity and both research subject and application of results in close connection with current political issues are two of the most relevant methodological perspectives that make "IMISCOE"’s project a good intercultural scientific practice. "IMISCOE" intends that their work is both effected and affected by the plurality, actuality and presentness of the European multiethnic and multicultural reality nowadays.
Its expansive plans for the future do not only intend to map migrations within Europe, but also – and in cooperation with international and intercontinental organisations – to extend their comparative research to a world-wide scale.

Interculture map perspective
"IMISCOE"’s work can be considered a good intercultural practice in several aspects:

• Joint research: being a European project that includes many countries of the EU, "IMISCOE" brings together many European cultures and perspectives within a common communicative and experiential field.
• Europe-wide research on Immigration: despite each partner makes research on its own reality, a comparative effort is made to build a global map of European migratory movements and the circumstances of migrants in each of the European partner’s countries. Since Europe is now a common reality, the development of studies on a European scale helps create a common intercultural identity.
• Political focus: "IMISCOE" focuses on the possible relevance of its research in the building of both national and communitarian migration policies, which helps to conciliate migration policies all over Europe and plan future political actions on a common ground by supplying scientific data on which to found such political actions. "IMISCOE" anticipates the possible information needs that policy makers might have in the future by predicting data on the basis of data progression over the years.
• Communitarian Funding: The availability of communitarian funding is a guarantee for the continuity of the project, since it does not depend on private, but common interests and budget, nor on the variability of donations or volunteering.
• Public Results: "IMISCOE" does not only make its results available to European political forces, but also to the common public (firms, researchers all over the world, institutions and organisations), thus contributing to scientific development on the field of migration. Thus, it builds a picture of the European multicultural reality that is available to other nations all over the word and can be used as reference for similar actions in non-European countries.

2.2 Critical Points

The organisation’s perspective
According to Ingleby et al. in “The Role of Health in Integration” (http://www.ercomer.org/downloads/ingIV.doc):

"[t]o the extent that research has been carried out at all on the health of migrants, it has mainly been done within the health sciences rather than migration studies. Here too, however, there has long been a systematic neglect of migrants and ethnic minorities, although this situation is rapidly changing. Traditional medical and psychological research is notorious for excluding subjects from ethnic minorities. Graham (1992) showed that 96 per cent of the studies published in the 1970s and 1980s in four leading journals of the American Psychological Association excluded African American subjects. To some extent, this was linked to the legacy of racism and assimilationism, but there are also pragmatic reasons for this practice (which still continues). Statistically speaking, the most powerful test of an experimental effect is obtained with a sample that is as homogeneous as possible. In medical research, such considerations have led to a state of profound ignorance about the effectiveness of treatments on ethnic and cultural minority patients.

Another obstacle to research is that clinical records frequently fail to record the ethnicity or origin of patients. Sometimes this is a matter of principle, because some health workers feel the practice is discriminatory, but mostly it is an oversight or a question of laziness: sometimes there is simply no code available which really fits the patient. Moreover, no single coding system exists which is ideal from every theoretical point of view, and the large number of different classification systems used is a serious obstacle to comparative research.

In any case, if we are interested in a group’s state of health, clinical records give only a very indirect assessment of this: the data only concern those who seek treatment, and say nothing about those who do not find their way into the care system. Moreover, they only register how much treatment was given, but they cannot tell us whether this treatment was really appropriate for the problems presented.
Ideally, research on the health of populations should use epidemiological surveys, but these are expensive because new data have to be collected. Moreover, serious methodological obstacles lie in wait here for the researcher of migration. How to locate subjects and ensure an adequate response rate? How to be sure that the standard questionnaires and tests are cross-culturally valid? More development of measurement instruments and greater discussion of them are necessary for progress in this field." (Stronks 2003).

Another obstacle to research is that since host countries do not aim at the integration of certain categories of migrants (e.g. asylum seekers, provisionally admitted migrants and undocumented migrants), these groups tend to be ignored in health monitoring. Yet another problem in this area is that many valuable studies are confined to the ‘grey’ literature – internal reports and unpublished documents – which makes it difficult to locate research.

Interculture map perspective
Apart from the research obstacles that "IMISCOE" finds in the development of their work, and despite the excellent results obtained, there are several aspects that might be improved in order to make of "IMISCOE" a good intercultural practice:

• With respect to methodology, collection of information follows different procedures, which makes it impossible to undertake systematic, quantitative comparisons. "IMISCOE" argues that at least, this diversity in methodology will indicate both how this can be done in the future and the “black spots” in each country where the needs for research and policy measures are most urgent. However, "IMISCOE" does not justify this methodological divergence nor the fact that they could have developed a more homogeneous research system that could allow for the comparison among different countries of the results obtained.
• Research work is exclusively academic: This means that there is no direct contact with immigrants, their testimonies or particular experiences. The data "IMISCOE" works with is mainly statistical and, although statistics are a most important tool for the drawing of a general picture of the situation and design of policy actions, they are built on pre-designed questionnaires that advance answers and assumes research lines; which might imply any facts that are not included in the questionnaires they use, will not be studied. Some field work might serve as complement for the design of questionnaires and widening path of research fields.
• The participation of migrants in research is minimal. Migrants are considered as mere objects of study and not as agents of research. It could be argued that in case that migrants reached the standards of excellence required to take part in the project, they could be included as agents of research. However, the conditions for participation are so strict that the social circumstances of migrants make it impossible for them to become eligible partners. Some positive action might be taken in this direction.
• The language of research diffusion is English. Although English is the first language of a large part of world population and the second language spoken by a large part of the rest (and of course spoken by most of the academic and political communities all over the world), the exclusive use of English for the diffusion of results obtained is certainly not a good intercultural practice. Given the high budget of the project and the academic level of its participants, it is certainly possible to publish their research in more than one language. It is remarkable that not even IMISCOE’s website is published in other language than English. Multilingual publications are the most common practice among organisations working with intercultural issues, and it is surprising that "IMISCOE" does not publish its reports in several languages.

2.3 Lessons Learnt

We agree with "IMISCOE" in the positive intercultural aspects of the project. Both the themes and methodology they use are highly recommended to other projects. However, not all of them are exportable.

• Research on migration (and more specifically on the health of migrants) is certainly a theme that highly contributes to the integration of migrant populations in Europe. It helps develop better health conditions for immigrants all over Europe.
• Joint European Project. Since migration is a phenomenon involving border crossing and Europe is a border unity, whatever research is made on migration in any part of the EU will only provide a partial vision of migration even at the national level. However, linguistic differences and geographical distances make this kind of project a rather expensive one, not available to most institutions and organisations. The funding of the European Union for such projects is conditioned on standards of excellence whose requirements most institutions and organisations cannot meet. Therefore, Joint European Research is a good intercultural practice, but it is not always exportable for economic and academic reasons.
• Policy Impact. The work of "IMISCOE" is most relevant since it is developed in order to have a policy impact on the whole EU. The applicability of academic research to current policy is certainly a good academic practice. Interculturally speaking, research on migration at the European level helps to design communitarian policy actions that adapt to different cultural and ethnic national contexts, which makes of it a good intercultural practice.