Migrants, Minorities, Belongings and Citizenship. Glocalization and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Therefore, in contrast to analyses with continuous or interval variables, it is possible here to infer that the two explanatory models account for two different types of categorical variances in the dependent variables. On the other hand, further analyses – which are not presented here due to limited space – showed that the two participation patterns are strongly associated with the five belonging patterns. The belonging patterns account for 68% of the variation in “participation in all spaces” and 82% of the variation in participation in “essentialized versus glocal spaces”. This means that the five belonging patterns, which are orthogonal, explain much of the variation in the two participation patterns. At the same time, as we found in Tables 10 and 11, the two participation patterns are also associated with the two mental mobility patterns in different ways. Table 10 shows that one spatial mobility pattern (i.e. cross-country mobility) accounts perfectly for the variation in one of the mental mobility patterns (i.e. psychic mobility between group versus time references). Table 11 illustrates that the two participation variables are very important predictors of the general mental mobility. These considerations lead us to the following general conclusion: The Glocalmig measured the multidimensional belongings of the respondents. Separately, it also measured their mobility of mind between different references of identification. As the measurement of belongings represents the temporal and situation-dependent multidimensional belongings at the time of data collection, it is indicative of the nondynamic and temporally limited aspects of belongings. On the other hand, adding the mobility of mind dimension enriched the analysis and uncovered the dynamics of respondents’ multidimensional belongings. The belonging model shows the impact of the respondents’ belongings on the (mis)alignments they experience in different public spaces, whereas the mobility model shows the impact of the respondents’ ability to shift between different modes of belonging. This qualitative difference between the meanings of these two models is the source of the difference in the categorical variances they account for. Conclusively, we can arrive at the following clarifying model in Fig. 3.15, the specificities of which were delineated in the preceding chapters as well as in the nest section. 98
Figure 12. Three Predictive Models for Explaining (Mis)alignments It should be underlined that “(mis)alignment” is an indicator of the quality of citizenships. It comprises two separate, uncorrelated dimensions. The three models presented in Fig. 12 are also comprised of several sub-dimensions, each with different impacts on different dimensions of “(mis)alignments”. The above model does not illustrate these nuances, however, the specifics of the models’ impacts have been given in the preceding sections. Furthermore, a more systematic summary of the three models’ separate impacts is presented in the following section. Finally, it should be emphasized that all the results that are presented hitherto have been controlled for the country variable. This was done by repeating all the summary and association analyses six times by excluding from the analysis one country at a time. The results obtained in these analyses with the sub-sets of the data set are very similar to the results obtained by using the whole data set. That is, the more or less the same participation, mobility, belonging, and misalignment dimensions were obtained in all the analyses. The largest deviations were observed in Estonia and Hungary. In the multicultural spaces in Estonia, the essentialized space was found to be more dominant whereas in the cosmopolitan sites of Budapest, the glocal space was more dominant than others. However, their impacts on the types and intensity of misalignments were similar. At this exploratory stage, this can be interpreted as that the attendants of the different public spaces in different national contexts have similar characteristics in the six countries that the Glocalmig-project investigates. However, this is a preliminary conclusion, which requires validation with statistically representative population samples. 99
Page 1 and 2:
EU RESEARCH ON SOCIAL SCIENCES AND
Page 3 and 4:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION EU RESEARCH ON
Page 5 and 6:
Preface Within the Fifth Community
Page 7 and 8:
Table of contents Preface v Aknowle
Page 9 and 10:
Aknowledgements On behalf of the Un
Page 11 and 12:
The above statement should be regar
Page 13 and 14:
meticulously addressing the citizen
Page 15 and 16:
contexts. Policy responses to socia
Page 17 and 18:
findings could only include certain
Page 19 and 20:
the one hand and between participat
Page 21 and 22:
collected during the country studie
Page 23 and 24:
● which existing national and int
Page 25 and 26:
Table 1. The Countries and Groups u
Page 27 and 28:
III. SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PROJ
Page 29 and 30:
The designs of the three research t
Page 31 and 32:
diverse society. In other words, th
Page 33 and 34:
citizenships (e.g. new problems, ne
Page 35 and 36:
enefits in the state. 1 A claim of
Page 37 and 38:
These anomalies require supplement
Page 39 and 40:
Table 2. Notions of the Citizen in
Page 41 and 42:
The dimensions that Glocalmig focus
Page 43 and 44:
spheres of interaction, meaning, an
Page 45 and 46:
Residence, Permanent Residence, Mat
Page 47 and 48: The major objection to a comparison
Page 49 and 50: Table 3. Measurement and Scaling Mo
Page 51 and 52: and individuals within the new cont
Page 53 and 54: the future. In this sense, the data
Page 55 and 56: 3) Acceptance, cooperation, and sym
Page 57 and 58: integration and intercultural learn
Page 59 and 60: Medborgerhuset can be translated in
Page 61 and 62: It seems that a lot of the explanat
Page 63 and 64: The absence of some categories in s
Page 65 and 66: In order to provide a conceptual st
Page 67 and 68: 2.2.4. Multidimensional belongings
Page 69 and 70: 1. Variable Principal Normalization
Page 71 and 72: Dimension 5: European-territorial b
Page 73 and 74: territories. This is an alignment b
Page 75 and 76: voice and influence - national spac
Page 77 and 78: Figure 7. Participation in Essentia
Page 79 and 80: Figure 9. Respondents’ Geographic
Page 81 and 82: 2.2.7. Mobility of Minds - Psychic/
Page 83 and 84: section is whether the degree of ge
Page 85 and 86: On the other hand, increased “cro
Page 87 and 88: Table 12. Alignments/Misalignments
Page 89 and 90: extra-territorials are the most con
Page 91 and 92: characteristics (belonging, partici
Page 93 and 94: Concerning “alignments and misali
Page 95 and 96: 2.3.3. Spatial and mental mobility
Page 97: Table 16. Explanatory Powers of the
Page 101 and 102: separates between essentialized spa
Page 103 and 104: Fig. 14 illustrates the most import
Page 105 and 106: country methods, especially in the
Page 107 and 108: language skills, and organizational
Page 109 and 110: is being created in these sites. Th
Page 111 and 112: V. DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION O
Page 113 and 114: York-based publisher, Edwin Mellen
Page 115 and 116: 2003 Radical Transnationalism and T
Page 117 and 118: Scientific report submitted to the
Page 119 and 120: 2. Dissemination by the Austrian Ac
Page 121 and 122: Towards a political theory of migra
Page 123 and 124: Teaching 2004 summer term: Course a
Page 125 and 126: 4. Dissemination by the Estonian In
Page 127 and 128: 6. Dissemination by the Central Eur
Page 129 and 130: VI. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.
Page 131 and 132: Calhoun, Craig 1997, Nationalism. B
Page 133 and 134: Horowitz, Donald L. 1985, Ethnic Gr
Page 135 and 136: Ragin, Charles 1991, “The Problem
Page 137 and 138: Taylor, Charles 1992, “Multicultu
Page 139: European Commission EUR 23143 — E
Page 142: KI-NA-23143-EN-N
show all

Migrants, Minorities, Belongings and Citizenship. Glocalization and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?