Refugee-Host Solidarity & Social Cohesion as Humanitarian Objectives? Critical Studies of Host-Inclusive Refugee Programmes in Kenya and Lebanon
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Oxford
Department Name: International Development
Abstract
In 2016, delegates at the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants called for renewed attention to the burdens faced by host countries and communities affected by the arrival of refugees. While Europe had been the focus of much media attention during the so-called "refugee crisis" in 2015, the vast majority of the world's refugees live in low- and middle-income countries of the Global South, where host communities often face economic hardships even before the arrival of displaced populations. The New York Declaration recognised that if this burden was not addressed, refugees would face increasing hostility in the countries where they seek asylum.
One response has been to include hosts in refugee programming, a strategy intended to foster social cohesion, contribute humanitarian resources to local development, and reduce xenophobia among displacement-affected communities. However, the evidence base supporting this approach is largely economic - focused on the burdens and benefits of hosting refugees - with few anthropological and sociological studies that address the more intimate social aspects of hosting that influence popular stereotypes and community relations. This is reflected in the lack of definition for policy objectives like 'social cohesion', which often refers vaguely to the sense of solidarity within or between communities. There has been little critical study of the premises upon which social cohesion programmes are devised, their effectiveness in achieving intended social outcomes, or the unintended structural and political consequences of extending the remit of humanitarian programmes to include hosts.
This project entails an in-depth ethnographic study of social cohesion programmes and the contexts in which they are implemented, bringing sociological, historical, and anthropological lenses to bear on the recent 'host inclusivity' turn in humanitarian responses to displacement. Comparative research will be undertaken in multiple sites across two countries hosting large refugee populations - Kenya and Lebanon - with a multi-disciplinary research team drawing on expertise in the areas of policy and planning studies, urban studies, and peace and security studies. Researchers will spend extended periods of participant observation among communities involved in social cohesion interventions, and community members will engage directly in the research through participatory working groups. Qualitative insights will be supplemented by a number of short quantitative impact assessments of the effectiveness of different interventions in achieving their intended social outcomes.
In addition to its academic contributions, this project would inform the strategies that humanitarian organisations adopt to reduce refugee-host tensions, improve the mutual benefits of programmes that engage both groups, and mitigate unintended outcomes. Impact will be amplified via our project partner the Jesuit Refugee Service, an international refugee protection NGO that has put 'social cohesion' at the centre of its 2018-2023 Strategic Framework.
One response has been to include hosts in refugee programming, a strategy intended to foster social cohesion, contribute humanitarian resources to local development, and reduce xenophobia among displacement-affected communities. However, the evidence base supporting this approach is largely economic - focused on the burdens and benefits of hosting refugees - with few anthropological and sociological studies that address the more intimate social aspects of hosting that influence popular stereotypes and community relations. This is reflected in the lack of definition for policy objectives like 'social cohesion', which often refers vaguely to the sense of solidarity within or between communities. There has been little critical study of the premises upon which social cohesion programmes are devised, their effectiveness in achieving intended social outcomes, or the unintended structural and political consequences of extending the remit of humanitarian programmes to include hosts.
This project entails an in-depth ethnographic study of social cohesion programmes and the contexts in which they are implemented, bringing sociological, historical, and anthropological lenses to bear on the recent 'host inclusivity' turn in humanitarian responses to displacement. Comparative research will be undertaken in multiple sites across two countries hosting large refugee populations - Kenya and Lebanon - with a multi-disciplinary research team drawing on expertise in the areas of policy and planning studies, urban studies, and peace and security studies. Researchers will spend extended periods of participant observation among communities involved in social cohesion interventions, and community members will engage directly in the research through participatory working groups. Qualitative insights will be supplemented by a number of short quantitative impact assessments of the effectiveness of different interventions in achieving their intended social outcomes.
In addition to its academic contributions, this project would inform the strategies that humanitarian organisations adopt to reduce refugee-host tensions, improve the mutual benefits of programmes that engage both groups, and mitigate unintended outcomes. Impact will be amplified via our project partner the Jesuit Refugee Service, an international refugee protection NGO that has put 'social cohesion' at the centre of its 2018-2023 Strategic Framework.
Planned Impact
The most proximate impact of this study will be to provide a critical, comparative evaluation of the ways that 'social cohesion' programmes are being implemented for refugee and host communities in different settings. The combination of quantitative assessments and in-depth ethnographic research would provide complementary insights on WHETHER programmes are effective and HOW different contextual factors influence programme outcomes. Findings would foster critical reflection on existing programme norms and inform development of best practices for social cohesion programming, and host inclusion more broadly.
One pre-defined avenue for direct policy impact is via the strategic framework of our project partner the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS). JRS is an implementing partner of the UNHCR and a major actor in the global refugee regime, providing direct services to more than 677,000 people in 56 countries in 2018. JRS has become especially influential in the areas of social cohesion and reconciliation, which were elevated to a top priority in its most recent 5 year strategic framework. JRS already implements such programmes in multiple conflict-affected refugee-generating countries such as South Sudan, DRC, and Burundi. The ongoing engagement with JRS during the project will be crucial to ensuring that findings are translated into practice, with immediate impact on JRS programming as well as a knock-on effect via JRS's partners.
Another avenue for impact that involves our project partner will be to implement participatory working groups composed of both refugees and hosts. These groups will engage with our research team to identify problems and questions for investigation, share case studies from their work as dispute mediators in their communities, and discuss the interpretation and implications of findings from our work. They will also be supervised by JRS and will serve a practical role as informal arbitrators of community problems. Similar arbitration committees have demonstrated a positive impact in places like Burundi. If JRS finds that the first year has produced positive results in Kenya and Lebanon, they may continue to fund the groups as Dialogue and Reconciliation Committees, and to implement this model in other areas.
Beyond social cohesion programmes, policy briefs based on our findings would target other areas of policy and programming, including:
- the bridging of humanitarian and development priorities in displacement-affected contexts
- the targeting strategies used to select participants for humanitarian interventions, including vulnerability-based and gender-sensitive strategies
- conflict prevention and peace-making strategies for areas where host-refugee tensions have already escalated to violence
Moreover, peer-reviewed publications on the following academic topics also have important policy implications:
- the influence of humanitarian programmes on host belonging and identity,
- the role of women and gender norms in shaping refugee-host relations,
- the making and breaking of boundaries between refugees and hosts,
- the social factors that appear to counter xenophobia, and
- the relevance of studying refugee problems through a combination of a protection, livelihood and development lens.
A two-tier approach will be taken in dissemination of results on these topics, in which publication of peer-reviewed articles would be accompanied by a short and accessible blog or op-ed. Early findings will also be shared at relevant conferences such as the International Association of Forced Migration Studies (IASFM) in 2021.
One pre-defined avenue for direct policy impact is via the strategic framework of our project partner the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS). JRS is an implementing partner of the UNHCR and a major actor in the global refugee regime, providing direct services to more than 677,000 people in 56 countries in 2018. JRS has become especially influential in the areas of social cohesion and reconciliation, which were elevated to a top priority in its most recent 5 year strategic framework. JRS already implements such programmes in multiple conflict-affected refugee-generating countries such as South Sudan, DRC, and Burundi. The ongoing engagement with JRS during the project will be crucial to ensuring that findings are translated into practice, with immediate impact on JRS programming as well as a knock-on effect via JRS's partners.
Another avenue for impact that involves our project partner will be to implement participatory working groups composed of both refugees and hosts. These groups will engage with our research team to identify problems and questions for investigation, share case studies from their work as dispute mediators in their communities, and discuss the interpretation and implications of findings from our work. They will also be supervised by JRS and will serve a practical role as informal arbitrators of community problems. Similar arbitration committees have demonstrated a positive impact in places like Burundi. If JRS finds that the first year has produced positive results in Kenya and Lebanon, they may continue to fund the groups as Dialogue and Reconciliation Committees, and to implement this model in other areas.
Beyond social cohesion programmes, policy briefs based on our findings would target other areas of policy and programming, including:
- the bridging of humanitarian and development priorities in displacement-affected contexts
- the targeting strategies used to select participants for humanitarian interventions, including vulnerability-based and gender-sensitive strategies
- conflict prevention and peace-making strategies for areas where host-refugee tensions have already escalated to violence
Moreover, peer-reviewed publications on the following academic topics also have important policy implications:
- the influence of humanitarian programmes on host belonging and identity,
- the role of women and gender norms in shaping refugee-host relations,
- the making and breaking of boundaries between refugees and hosts,
- the social factors that appear to counter xenophobia, and
- the relevance of studying refugee problems through a combination of a protection, livelihood and development lens.
A two-tier approach will be taken in dissemination of results on these topics, in which publication of peer-reviewed articles would be accompanied by a short and accessible blog or op-ed. Early findings will also be shared at relevant conferences such as the International Association of Forced Migration Studies (IASFM) in 2021.
Publications
Rodgers C
(2021)
Whether or not Kenya closes its camps, much damage has been done
Rodgers CJ
(2023)
Informal Settlements of the Global South
| Description | This project is still underway, so the findings below are preliminary and awaiting peer review / publication. Preliminary Finding #1: There is a lack of validation of the metrics used to measure cohesion and tension in refugee-hosting contexts. The instruments used to measure cohesion and tension are often formulated based on concerns and policy priorities among an array of stakeholders. As such, the questions are chosen based on stakeholder input rather than validation exercises. Another reason for this is that conceptual definitions for cohesion and tension are notoriously difficult to pin down. An important ongoing stream of activity in this study is to use a novel mixed method instrument to determine the validity of mainstream instruments used to monitor tension and measure cohesion. Preliminary Finding #2: While well defined in regard to national policy, peace-building, and migration, there is a lack of clarity about what social cohesion means in the context of refugee protection. Policies aimed at fostering 'social cohesion' in refugee-hosting contexts, while often communicated as a cohesive agenda among aid actors, actually encompass an array of disparate - and sometimes opposing - objectives and practices. We have conducted a systematic review of social cohesion programmes in both Lebanon and Kenya, two major refugee-hosting countries, which profiles the diversity of definitions for cohesion that are applied, as well as the ways that these different agendas have interacted in regional refugee response programmes. As explained in a forthcoming article, refugee protection actors should put greater attention into defining what social cohesion means in the context of their mandate, as this cannot be defined by adopting the social cohesion frameworks of other organisations with different objectives and priorities. Preliminary Finding #3: The discourse on refugee-host relations tends to miss important forms of positive social interaction and cooperativity. Our research in the Kakuma camp has yielded numerous stories of unsolicited assistance between refugees and local Kenyans, but most reports highlight inter-communal tensions and the risk of conflict. One reason for this may be that complaints by the host population, which are often aimed upward to the government and aid providers, are depicted in policy-reports as discrimination toward refugees. An implication is that programmes may miss important forms of mundane solidarity that are key to the stability they aim to promote. Preliminary Finding #4: Schools and sports activities are an important target site for cohesion activities, as they are both a site where many conflicts are initially kindled (e.g. between youth or between parents of students) and a context in which there is high potential to foster positive cross-communal relations. |
| Exploitation Route | 1. Our validation exercises (ongoing) aim to improve the ways that cohesion and tension are monitored, and would be useful for actors such as UNDP and World Bank who are responsible for administering these instruments. 2. We hope that UNHCR and its partners may use our research to develop clearer policy guidelines for defining social cohesion in the context of protracted displacement and refugee protection. |
| Sectors | Communities and Social Services/Policy,Education |
| Description | One output of our findings has been informing the World Food Programme in Kenya about the successes and shortcomings of their joint farming programme, in terms of its impact on social cohesion between refugees living in the Kalobeyei Settlement and the Turkana host community. Our findings showed that joint farming brought about most improvements in willingness to provide assistance across inter-communal lines, as well as reduced tendency to see the other groups (refugee or host) as a security threat. As a critique, the project showed that weak leadership and periodic shortfalls in farming resources actually caused new tensions to emerge; such risks can be avoided by strengthening the community governance structure for the project and ensuring that adequate agricultural resources (tools, seeds, and drylands irrigation materials) are provided according to their seasonal need. We are now writing up a report which they will use to adjust the project for its next iteration, focusing on the aspects where positive impacts were realised. We have also completed a film on inter-communal tensions in the Bourj Hammoud neighbourhood of Beirut, which was done in partnership with the Jesuit Refugee Service. We have done one early screening to local residents, many of whom were interviewed for the film, to positive response; many indicated that seeing their own perspectives alongside those of people from different identity groups highlighted shared experiences that are often overlooked when narratives of tension prevail, as is often the case on social media and in the rhetoric of politicians. We will soon be conducting free screenings to the public at cafes and university venues, with the aim of facilitating dialogue on common experiences of the financial crisis in Lebanon, across different groups including Lebanese and displaced Syrians. As reported previously, our partnership with the Jesuit Refugee Service has resulted in some preliminary applications of our findings. Most notably, the Kenya country office used our research from the Kakuma camp to design a novel social cohesion project targeting early child development and education (ECDE) centres, where students from across different nationalities and ethnic groups are enrolled. A pilot involving both the Kenya office and the international office was rolled out in May 2022, and a participatory assessment was undertaken with students and parents. We found that the formation of 'cohesion clubs' lead by teachers and involving parents was a popular way to provide positive messaging to students about cultural diversity, while also improving engagement with and between parents from different communities. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2022 |
| Sector | Communities and Social Services/Policy |
| Impact Types | Societal,Policy & public services |
| Description | Cohesion & the Creative Economy: Inclusive Arts-based Programming for Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention in Contexts of Protracted Displacement |
| Amount | £127,917 (GBP) |
| Funding ID | AH/W006537/1 |
| Organisation | Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) |
| Sector | Public |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Start | 11/2021 |
| End | 01/2023 |
| Description | Community Screening of 'Juxtapositions' Film on social tensions in Bourj Hammoud, Lebanon |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Study participants or study members |
| Results and Impact | Having completed our "Juxtapositions" film about inter-communal relations across religious sect and nationality (including among refugees and their host communities) in Bourj Hammoud, we had our first screening of the film to participants who spoke in the film. This was an opportunity to receive feedback and discuss final adjustments to the film, which will now be presented widely to academics (e.g. at universities in Lebanon and abroad) and with the general public at free screenings/dialogues in cafes in Beirut. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2022 |
| Description | Expert Panel Hosted by Lebanon Crisis Observatory |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Other audiences |
| Results and Impact | I was invited to an expert panel hosted by the Lebanon Crisis Observatory, where I shared some of our findings about the use of cohesion metrics in tension monitoring systems, such as the Stabilisation Survey operated by UNDP in Lebanon. They will the input from myself and others to inform the development of future tools. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2023 |