Julia Dahlvik

Urban policies are increasingly localized, stressing the role of neighbourhood social contacts in generating cohesion and citizen participation. Studies on 'everyday' multiculturalism also emphasize the neighbourhood as a meaningful place for encounters. However, there remains a lack of understanding of how specific contexts condition encounters with difference. We compare two European neighbourhoods that provide different contexts for participation: Amsterdam and Vienna. We ask how residents experience local spaces of encounter and how this influences their experience of the neighbourhood. We find a mismatch between the aims of local policies and the experiences of residents, who also value more superficial contacts.

Migration ist eine klassische Querschnittsmaterie, die in den unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen erforscht wird. Der interdisziplinäre Austausch wird dabei meist vernachlässigt. Durch die regelmäßige Dokumentation von Forschungsfragen und Ergebnissen der österreichischen Forschung zu diesem wichtigen Thema schafft das Jahrbuch für Migrations- und Integrationsforschung hier Abhilfe. Die Beiträge des zweiten Bandes befassen sich sowohl mit klassischen Themen wie Integration und Nachbarschaft als auch mit aktuellen Aspekten von Asyl und Irregularität. Den Bereichen Sprache und Theologie sind weitere Beiträge gewidmet. Die AutorInnen behandeln theoretische und methodologische Fragestellungen, aber auch die Umsetzung von Forschungserkenntnissen in die Praxis. Das Jahrbuch richtet sich insbesondere an die deutschsprachige Forschungsgemeinschaft, darüber hinaus aber auch an ein breiteres Publikum, das an neuen Zugängen zu migrationsbezogenen Fragen interessiert ist.

Als klassische Querschnittsmaterie wird Migration in den unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen erforscht. An interdisziplinärem Austausch mangelt es jedoch. Das Jahrbuch für Migrations- und Integrationsforschung will hier Abhilfe schaffen, indem es regelmäßig die Forschungsfragen und Ergebnisse der österreichischen Migrations- und Integrationsforschung dokumentiert. Die Beiträge im ersten nun vorliegenden Band behandeln neben klassischen Themen wie Asyl, Staatsbürgerschaft und Diskriminierung auch neuere Aspekte wie den europäischen Pflegearbeitsmarkt, die Aufenthaltsehe oder die Bedeutung von Migration für Medien und Kunst. Dabei wird neueren theoretischen und methodologischen Ansätzen genauso Raum gegeben wie der Frage, wie sich die Forschungserkenntnisse in die Praxis einbringen lassen. Das Jahrbuch richtet sich insbesondere an die deutschsprachige Forschungsgemeinschaft, darüber hinaus aber auch an ein breiteres Publikum, das an neuen Zugängen zu migrationsbezogenen Fragen interessiert ist.

Dear reader, Welcome to the fourth ICEC newsletter, as we approach the end of the ICEC project. Since the last newsletter, we have made important progress and are pleased to be able to update you on our latest work, such as: Insights on our Policy Workshop in Vienna; key topics of interethnic coexistence in European cities and fi ndings from our city comparisons; and the outlook of the fi nal comparative cross-city report and our city-specifi c policy briefs.

ICEC is based on a systematic comparison of the aims, structural features and outcomes of integrative initiatives at the local level in Amsterdam, Stockholm and Vienna. The selected initiatives in this analysis are designed to function as 'spaces of encounter' for neighbourhood residents and provide activities that offer the opportunity for interethnic and - more generally - intergroup contacts.

This cross-city comparison is authored by Julia Dahlvik, Yvonne Franz, Myrte Hoekstra and Josef Kohlbacher and focuses on similarities and differences in Amsterdam and Vienna.

This paper examines the effects of dehumanization produced in the bureaucratic procedure of refugee status determination. The issue of asylum is not only highly topical; it also represents a fundamental issue since it touches upon basic human rights – individuals not granted protection usually have to return to their countries of origin, where their lives are often be in danger. In our ethnographic study, we conceptualize dehumanization as objectification and (work) alienation. We consider both the perspective of the asylum claimants (as the subjects of the bureaucratic procedure), as well as of the public servants as workers, using three tiers of analysis – the asylum interview, the sequence of the asylum determination procedure (a case), and the public official's workplace and its organizational context. The starting point of our paper is a short literature review on alienation and reification in work organizations as well as objectification in order to demonstrate how both terms are linked, but used with different meanings by various theories. Following this, we introduce the case along which the theoretical frame will be discussed and which is based on empirical research on refugee status determination in the former Austrian Federal Asylum Office. Our discussion of empirical findings in the following three chapters is structured along the mentioned levels of analysis. First, the asylum interview as a cornerstone of the procedure is used for observing practices of dehumanization in face-to-face interaction. Second, case processing is analyzed as a process of translating the individual into an abstract case through categories and documents. Third, the effects of the organizational context on the public officials are considered, in particular with regard to New Public Management and related pressures in everyday work. The paper's conclusion presents as one of the central findings the linkage between increased work alienation experienced by the public official (aggravated by, if not directly resulting from performance expectations set by the organizational context), and the increased objectification of the asylum claimants in the asylum interview in particular.

This paper examines the possibilities of a theoretical linkage between the 'micro level' of civil servants' sociomaterial practical doing and the strategic effects of a state apparatus. We go beyond mundane organizational studies by highlighting the critical relevance of interpretive/practice studies when studying the state and pursuing the promising idea of 'knowledge regimes' and 'knowledge styles' (Freeman and Sturdy 2014). In addition, while practice-compatible ontologies, theories and epistemologies seem obvious, we try to extend the framework into critical theory. We first explore theoretical linkages between knowledge and state apparatuses, examining the state as a site of resolution of contradictory relations, as an idea or a cultural representation, and as a processual ensemble of materials, knowledge and power. In the second part, we analyse our empirical data with regard to the linkages between knowledge and statehood in the practical work of civil servants. We use two qualitative case studies that deal with contested knowledge and the construction of statehood in asylum policy and inscribed expert knowledge and the construction of statehood in environmental policy respectively. Our focus of analysis is threefold: we explore whether specific knowledge 'patterns' or 'styles' can be identified, how and through which forms of knowledge practices produce statehood, and what is the role of relationality in this production. Linking the framework to state theory seems productive, although the framework needs to be supplemented, in line with foci of analysis, with theoretical notions from state theory (e.g. relationality). The main advantage of such a marriage seems, in this context, to lie in recasting the production of statehood through the lens of operations with/on knowledge.

This paper contributes to the debate on the competences required for civil servants and public managers by (i) conceptually developing a theory of practitioners' knowing in action that reframes the use of scientific knowledge as part of practical inquiry, (ii) developing a set of scholarly competencies around Dewey's notion of 'scientific temper' and discussing its implications for science, (iii) translating these competencies into a didactic approach by developing a process-based model of learning by research, and (iv) reflecting on our experience with the approach. The approach aims at promoting a socially engaged and emancipatory process of managing and coping with complex and contested issues which also allows counterhegemonic alternatives through teaching practically useful and transformative kind of science in professional degree programs. We conclude that public administration organisations will have to rethink their guiding images based on theories of evidence-based policy making or learning organisation in several respects.