Social cohesion and skilled Muslim refugees in Australia

Abstract

Muslims are often the target of those arguing that diversity threatens social cohesion. However, little research has focused on the settlement and integration of migrant Muslims. This article reports research comparing skilled Muslim refugees’ experiences of integration into the Australian employment market and the wider society with the experiences of skilled non-Muslim refugees. Quantitative data from the study indicates no relationship between religion and social exclusion as evidenced in negative employment outcomes, social networks, satisfaction with life or perceptions of discrimination, although qualitative data shows some skilled Muslim refugees and some employers see religion as a key facet of cultural difference disadvantaging Muslims. The influence of religion on other aspects of settlement, including social engagement, integration and well-being is also surprising, demonstrating that Muslims in the sample generally feel no more excluded than other refugees. The findings challenge the assumptions that skilled Muslim refugees find it more difficult than others to adapt to ‘western’ culture, and that religious difference threatens social cohesion.

Keywords

Australia employment Muslims refugees social cohesion

Since settlement, Australia has been characterized by a relatively high level of ethnic diversity. A quarter of its 20 million people were born overseas, coming from over 200 countries, and speaking over 175 different languages (Jupp, 2007a). From the 1970s to the 1990s Australian policies for dealing with this diversity focused on multiculturalism, recognizing, to some extent, the benefits of migrant communities retaining aspects of their cultural heritage and acting as interest groups for their people. More recently, however, the focus has been on the possible loss of the ‘European’ character of the nation, as a result of multicultural policies (Joppke, 2004, 2005; Johnson, 2007; Tate, 2009), and the potential for social fragmentation such diversity is presumed to entail. While history has shown Australia to be remarkably stable and peaceful (Castles et al., 1992; Jupp, 2007b), concerns emerged after the New York and London terrorist incidents that Australia might be vulnerable to similar attacks. A number of government interventions were implemented to attempt to deal with this apparent threat, including a new citizenship test focusing on knowledge of Australian history and ‘values’, and the National Action Plan to Build Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security targeted at Muslims and designed to respond to ‘the increased threat of global religious and political terrorism’ by raising awareness of religious and cultural diversity, addressing intolerance and radicalization, and increasing loyalty and commitment to Australia through community education (Department of Immigration and Citizenship [DIAC], 2008). Activities funded under the plan focus on employment, education and leadership training, all designed to improve Muslims’ connection to mainstream Australia.

Such interventions, and the concerns that prompted them, are part of a worldwide socio-political phenomenon that has seen Muslims targeted as ‘the enemy’, both transnationally and within the nation-state (see discussion papers in Kapferer, 2002; see also Humphrey, 2010; Noble, 2005; Northcote and Cassimiro, 2010). In the UK the Cantle Report of the Community Cohesion Review Team (CCRT, 2001), tasked with understanding people’s perceptions of cohesion in some of England’s most diverse areas, identified de facto segregation – not only physical, but in education, employment, places of worship and social networks – as the root of the problem. The report, prompted by a number of ‘disturbances … involving large numbers of people from different cultural backgrounds’ (2001: 2) and focused, at least in part, on Muslims, recommends the promotion of social cohesion through greater knowledge of, contact between and respect for, different communities, as well as a stronger sense of citizenship. However, the question of what social cohesion means is the subject of much debate. In their review of definitions, Markus and Kirpitchenko (2007) identify a number of dimensions (derived from Jenson, Bernard and Forrest and Kearns) including a sense of belonging, inclusion, legitimacy and equality, and opportunities for participation and recognition, together with attachment to place. Definitions often emphasize common values and a common vision, although some prefer to focus on commitment to public institutions. These translate, they argue, to common civic values, order, solidarity, bonding/bridging social capital, security of identity and belonging. There are economic, political and socio-cultural dimensions to social cohesion. In addition, Anne Marie Fourtier (2008, 2010) has argued for greater consideration of the affective dimensions of social cohesion in multicultural societies, particularly in response to the recommendations of the Cantle Report that focus on greater interaction and the building of a sense of affection and fellow-feeling. This signals the overlap between social cohesion and another buzz phrase – social inclusion – which recognizes the need for both subjective and objective measures of individual and group participation. As the Cantle Report made clear, social exclusion can lead to a lack of social cohesion. This article focuses on both cohesion and inclusion.

In the following study the assessment by skilled Muslim refugees of the extent and parameters of their inclusion in the Australian employment market and social life, compared to other refugees, along these economic, socio-cultural and affective dimensions, is considered.

Muslims in Australia

If popular and political discourse is to be believed, Australia’s current concerns about social cohesion, in terms of belonging, legitimacy, shared values, participation and commitment, focus predominantly on Muslims. While Asian and Indigenous populations have long been identified as objects for mainstream Australians’ discourses of superiority and exclusion (Castles et al., 1992), evidence exists that Muslims are increasingly the subjects of everyday and institutional racism that targets them as alien and illegitimate members of the Australian community (HREOC, 2004; Issues Deliberation Australia, 2007; Jupp et al., 2007; Tate, 2009; Yasmeen, 2008, 2010). Certainly at a political level they are the group identified in justifications for the retreat from multiculturalism, and implicitly, and at times explicitly, stigmatized as ‘the enemy within’ (Dunn et. al., 2004; Jakubowicz, 2007; Tilbury, 2007). While Muslims have been in Australia since before white settlement (Saeed, 2003), and are the third largest religious group (after Christians and Buddhists), comprising 1.7 percent of the population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007), they have never been accepted as part of the cultural milieu of values and identities that form the nation (Brasted, 2001; Perera, 2009). It is also increasingly clear that non-Muslim Australians know little about them (Issues Deliberations Australia, 2007; Rane, 2010; Yasmeen, 2008). Negativity has simply been exacerbated since 9/11 (HREOC, 2004; Poynting and Mason, 2007), with news coverage depicting Muslims as ‘evil Others’ (Kabir, 2006; Rane et al., 2010), attempts to control Muslims’ use of public space and limit transmission of their culture (Jakubowicz, 2007; Poynting and Mason, 2007) and conservative politicians linking Muslims to social discord and the need for stricter assimilation measures (Jakubowicz, 2007; Maddox, 2005; Perera, 2009; Tilbury, 2007).

Such negativity is not new to Australia. Muslims are simply the most recent targets of the undercurrent of xenophobia often identified in Australia, which is based on an assumption of a national identity that is, at its core, white and Christian (Fozdar, forthcoming a, forthcoming b; Hage, 1998; Larbalestier, 1999). Illustrating the popular strength of this conviction, Goot and Watson (2005) report that to be considered ‘truly Australian’, 36 percent of a representative sample of Australians believe that one must be Christian. In a 2007 study (Issues Deliberation Australia, 2007) one-third of Australians said Muslims make Australia a worse place to live, 35 percent believed Muslims threaten to change the Australian way of life, culture and values, and 48 percent that Muslims have a negative impact on Australia’s social harmony and national security. One in four (26 percent) believed migrants should ‘dress like other Australians’. The effects of these attitudes on Muslims have been explored in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities report Isma: Listen (2004), which documents experiences of violence, discrimination and vilification of Muslims and Arabs on the street, at home, in transit, at educational institutions, at shops, at work, in the media and through government agencies, particularly since the 9/11 and Bali bombings.

Yet there is also evidence of acceptance of diversity, and support for and interaction with Muslims. Dunn et al. (2004) found that 85 percent of Australians support cultural diversity and are comfortable with cultural difference. Rane (2010: 109–10) reports that 78 percent of a sample of Queensland telephone survey respondents said they were comfortable with Muslims in Australia, most because they do not consider Muslims any different from others who wish to live in Australia, and 67 percent do not consider Australian Muslims a threat to the country. Two-thirds report having had some interaction with Muslims. Regarding cultural visibility and inclusion, Dunn (2009: 38), reporting results of an Australia-wide phone survey, found that 81 percent of Australians said they were not concerned by Muslim women wearing headscarves in Australia, indicating significant public support for visible cultural difference. Indeed, the Isma report (HREOC, 2004), while outlining many instances of racism, also provides qualitative responses from Muslims who feel supported and included by mainstream Australians. Mansouri (2010) also provides evidence that a majority of respondents in a local council area know about Muslims through friendships, life experiences, their neighbourhoods and the media, and that most feel empathy towards Muslims.

Despite this mixed picture, exclusionary tendencies are reflected in a number of social indicators, including employment. In 2001, the unemployment rate for Australian Muslims was 19.1 percent, significantly higher than the rate for all Australians (7.4 percent at the time), although the size of the difference had reduced by the time of the 2006 census (7 percent, compared to the Australian average of 3.4 percent) (Yasmeen, 2008: 6). Even after more than 10 years of residence for migrant Muslims, the unemployment rate is almost double the Australian average (DIMIA, 2005). Riaz Hassan (2009) has argued that Muslims are disadvantaged on a number of other social indicators, including home ownership (half the national average) and children living in poverty (twice the national average); and that, despite higher levels of education, only 25 percent of Muslim households have above-average household income (34 percent for non-Muslim households).

A committee set up to consider employment issues for Muslims linked marginalization and social disengagement resulting from unemployment with the risk of radicalization, recommending interventions to address discrimination in recruitment and in the workplace, and to improve job-seeking assistance services (DIMIA, 2005: 7). The presumption has been that poor social indicators such as the unemployment rate demonstrate a lack of social capital – ‘the capacity of individuals to gain access to scarce resources by virtue of their membership of social networks or institutions’ (Pieterse, 2003: 31) – which in turn suggests a lack of civic and social engagement with the mainstream population. However, few studies have actually investigated levels of engagement of Muslims with the mainstream, including in the area of employment. Two studies from Monash University’s Centre for Muslim Minorities and Islam Policy Studies indicate the complexity of Muslim Australians’ economic and social integration. One is the study of a rural council area (Woodlock et al., 2006) that identifies language, a mismatch between skills and employment expectations and opportunities for appropriate work (leaving local residents with the perceptions that Muslims were lazy if they did not take manual labour), and mental health issues as challenges, but notes the value of local programs that promote multiculturalism and interfaith dialogues, as well as targeted employment programs, as productive of positive integration. Key is the spectrum of approaches to settlement and integration evident in both the Muslim and mainstream population’s attitudes. More relevantly, Akbarzadeh et al. (2009), in a survey of 501 Muslims in Melbourne, found Muslims very optimistic about their economic and social potential in Australia, and eager to take up educational and professional opportunities, as well as being actively engaged in social and political processes. However, they also found perceptions of prejudice and anti-Muslim bias in both the Australian media and government, particularly in regard to issues of foreign policy and national security. The result was a sense of frustration and ‘blocked progress’ among some respondents. Interestingly, levels of satisfaction were high in relation to the economy, environment and society, less so for issues related to government, foreign affairs and security. Clearly there is a need for more research on Muslim communities’ experiences and perceptions of economic and social inclusion.

The study: Refugees and employment in Western Australia

The research reported here is part of a larger ARC-funded study of employment market integration of skilled humanitarian entrants (refugees) to Australia from three broad geographical groups. Face-to-face questionnaires, including closed and open-ended questions, were undertaken with 150 working-age refugees from three regions: the former Yugoslavia (mainly Bosnians), the Middle East (mainly Iraqis) and Africa (mainly Somalis and Ethiopians), who have good levels of English and education/training, and had settled in Australia in the 1990s and 2000s. This sample was selected to ensure that lack of human capital such as poor English and/or lack of employment-relevant skills could not be used to account for poor employment outcomes. Thus, while respondents are refugees or have come from ‘refugee-like situations’, having come under visa categories available through the humanitarian intake, the sampling focused on refugees with good education or skill levels. It is recognized that in focusing on the Muslims among this sample for this article, it cannot be claimed that this is a representative sample of Australian Muslims (who come from diverse countries of origin, and through various migration categories, or who may be born in Australia), rather the focus here is on a particular segment of the community, and a comparison of their experiences with those of refugees of other religions.² Forty semi-structured interviews with employers and employment agents were also conducted, to explore their perception of barriers refugees might face in the employment market.

Many of the findings of the project have been reported elsewhere (Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Fozdar and Torezani, 2008; Tilbury and Colic-Peisker, 2006; Torezani et al., 2008), however a summary is provided here for context. The majority of the total refugee sample was either without work (28 percent) or working below their qualification level (49 percent). Sixty-two percent reported experiencing difficulties in finding work in Australia. Many also reported discrimination as a barrier to employment. Close to half the sample reported experiencing discrimination in the job market (47 percent), most commonly because of accent (32 percent), followed by name, language ability and appearance (all 21–3 percent), with a smaller proportion identifying religious practice as a cause of discrimination. The results indicate clearly that skilled refugees experience difficulties, including outright discrimination, in the employment market.

Employers seemed relatively unaware of the problems refugees faced, creatively accounting for discrimination by denying responsibility or deflecting it onto other factors (see Tilbury and Colic-Peisker, 2006). Discrimination was justified as resulting from client/customer demand in a market-driven system. Some suggested the visibly and culturally different simply do not have job-relevant characteristics including communication skills, or ‘cultural knowledge’, or that they would not ‘fit in’ with other staff.

The results indicate significant barriers, both structural and interpersonal, producing negative employment outcomes for skilled refugees. However, while high levels of perceived discrimination and disadvantage were evident, participants also reported relatively ‘normal’ levels of ‘well-being’ (see Fozdar and Torezani, 2008), demonstrating resilience and indicating that difficulties in the employment sphere were not significant enough to affect overall quality of life.

While analysis of the quantitative data to date has used region of origin as the independent variable, and a number of assumptions have been made about the influence of religion on outcomes, specifically that skilled refugees from the Middle East, Africa and the former Yugoslavia who are Muslim are likely to be more discriminated against in the current climate than those of Christian or no faith, analysis of the data by religion has not been published. This article fills this gap by focusing on religion and religious practice as independent variables, to explore patterns in employment and settlement outcomes relating to social cohesion. It attempts to answer the following questions: Are skilled Muslim refugees more likely to be un- or under-employed than their non-Muslim counterparts? Are they more likely to have had difficulty finding work and to have experienced discrimination in the job market? Are they more or less satisfied with their employment and financial situation? And, more generally, who do their social networks consist of and how happy are they with those networks? To what extent do they feel included or excluded from Australian life, in terms of friendships, feeling ‘at home’ and understanding and adapting to the way of life? Finally what is their level of life satisfaction, and how does this compare to that of others?

Religion and employment

As shown in Table 1, the majority of two of the participant groups were Muslim – those from the Middle East (64.6 percent) and those from Africa (59.6 percent) (due to the large proportion of Somalis in the sample). While the majority of the former-Yugoslav sample was from Bosnia, and Bosnians are generally presumed to be Muslim, only two respondents self-identified as Muslim, with the majority stating they had no religion.

Table 1:

Self-identified religion and religious practices by region of origin

N (% within region of origin)	Ex-Yugoslav	Africa	Middle East	Total N (%)
Self-identified religion
No religion	29 (61.7)	7 (14.9)	14 (29.2)	50 (35.2)
Christian or other	16 (34)	12 (25.5)	3 (6.3)	31 (23.5)
Muslim	2 (4.3)	28 (59.6)	31 (64.6)	61 (43)
Totals	47	47	48	142
Religious practices
Not religious	26 (53.1)	7 (14)	14 (28.6)	47 (31.8)
Celebrate main holidays	23 (46.9)	9 (18)	8 (16.3)	40 (27)
Daily rules and dress	0	34 (68)	27 (55.1)	61 (41.2)
Totals	49	50	49	148

In order to differentiate between respondents’ strength of religious identity, they were asked about religious practices. Table 1 indicates that the former Yugoslavs were relatively secular, with most not religious, just under half celebrating religious holidays only, and none following daily rules and dress, in contrast to both Africans and Middle Easterners, a majority of whom practised their religion daily (68 percent and 55 percent respectively). The vast majority of those who signalled that they follow daily rules and practices were Muslims.

Surprisingly, given existing evidence from other research (see HREOC, 2004, and DIMIA, 2005, for example), and despite the fact that Muslims were highly represented among the unemployed in the current sample (see Table 2) there was no statistically significant difference in employment status by religion, nor by religious practice.³

Table 2:

Employment status by religion and religious practice

N (% within emp.)	No religion	Christian or other	Muslim	Total N (%)
Unemployed – looking for work	12 (30.8)	5 (12.8)	22 (56.4)	39 (27.9)
Part-time	16 (41)	9 (23.1)	14 (35.9)	39 (27.9)
Full-time	21 (33.9)	14 (22.6)	27 (43.5)	62 (44.3)
N (% within emp.)	Not religious	Celebrate main holidays		Daily rules and dress
Unemployed – looking for work	12 (28.6)	8 (19)		22 (52.4)
Part-time	13 (32.5)	12 (30)		15 (37.5)
Full-time	21 (32.8)	19 (29.7)		24 (37.5)

This pattern is repeated for many of the measures, indicating that religion and religious practice are not significant factors affecting employment outcomes, or alternatively indicating that refugee status is an overriding factor. For example, although two-thirds of respondents were working below their qualification levels, there was no significant difference by religion or religious practice. Even more surprising is that while 38 percent of the total sample reported difficulties finding work, Christians were significantly more likely to report such difficulties than those with no or of Muslim religion.

In the questionnaire, the two constructs ‘experiencing difficulty in the job market’ and ‘experiencing discrimination in the job market’ were separate items. Once again, while half of the total sample reported being discriminated against in the job market, there was no statistically significant effect by religion or religious practice. Table 3 demonstrates that there is very little difference between Christians (47 percent), Muslims (53 percent) and those with no religion (49 percent), indicating that religion is not a factor in employment market discrimination against refugees.

Table 3:

Difficulties and discrimination in employment by religion and religious practice

Yes (% within yes)	No religion	Christian or other	Muslim	Total N (%)
Difficulties finding work	18 (33.3)	13 (24.1)	23 (42.6)	54 (38)
Discrimination in the workforce	23 (33.8)	14 (20.6)	31 (45.6)	68 (50)
N (% yes)	Not religious	Celebrate main holidays		Daily rules and dress
Difficulties finding work	16 (29.1)	15 (27.3)		24 (43.6)
Discrimination in the job market	21 (30.4)	18 (26.1)		30 (43.5)

For those employed, Muslim refugees were as satisfied as other refugees with their employment (data not shown). Around 60 percent of the total sample was entirely or mostly happy with their current job (for Muslims the figure was 57 percent, likewise for those who follow daily rules and dress). While a large proportion of participants were not happy with their financial situation (around 67 percent), there was again no relationship by religion or religious practice.

The lack of a clear statistical linking of religion with discriminatory outcomes and perceptions of job-related discrimination is surprising, given that qualitative data from the study produced a number of stories of blatant religious discrimination. Of the 142 participants providing comments, 61 were Muslim. In their qualitative responses, 13 individuals (21 percent of the Muslim respondents) identified religion as a disadvantage in the job market. Their comments are not included here as they appear elsewhere (see Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2007), but they included reports of being denied work due to prayer or dress requirements, or because of their name; and outright allegations of ‘being a terrorist’. The qualitative data indicates a sense of suspicion among skilled Muslim refugees, rather than absolute certainty, that they are being excluded due to religious discrimination, making taking action difficult. Employers confirmed the reality of these suspicions (see Tilbury and Colic-Peisker, 2006). While most potential employers said religious difference would not be a problem, some saw dress, prayer or cultural practice as a legitimate reason for exclusion from employment. Other research indicating discrimination and discriminatory attitudes towards Muslims in Australia supports such findings (Dreher and Ho, 2009; Hage, 2003; HREOC, 2004; Issues Deliberation Australia, 2007; Saeed and Akbarzadeh, 2001; Rane et al., 2010; Yasmeen, 2008).

The contrast between the quantitative and qualitative results is striking. One indicates no relationship between religion, employment and perceptions of discrimination, the other shows that, for some refugees and employers, Islamic beliefs and practices are factors excluding workers from full participation in the employment market. Before discussing this further, it is appropriate to explore the effect of religion on other aspects of refugee resettlement and social cohesion.

Religion and other settlement factors

The project also investigated the extent to which religion and region of origin affected social networks and perceptions of mainstream Australians and their culture. As noted, Markus and Kirpitchenko (2007) identify a number of parameters of social cohesion. As well as economic measures such as employment, which have been the focus of the article so far, there are social factors, including a sense of belonging and inclusion, often indicated through measures of social capital; opportunities for participation and recognition; and attachment to place and people. The following data relate to these parameters. Questions were asked about the extent to which the refugees feel happy about their private social network, mix socially with Australians (the presumption here is that this refers to mainstream Australians),⁴ whether they find Australians generally friendly and accepting, and in general whether they feel at home in Australia. Conversely they were asked whether they have problems understanding, and adapting to, the ‘Australian’ way of life, whether they have been treated in an unpleasant way as refugees, and whether they find it difficult to be a refugee in Perth. Finally they were asked whether they were broadly satisfied with life in Australia. While a common presumption is that Muslims may orient more towards other Muslims and to a pan-Islamic identity and social network, data from the current study indicate otherwise – once again there are few statistically significant relationships between religion or religious practice and social cohesion, and those that exist are surprising.

Religion is known to be a positive source of social capital for migrants (Cahill et al., 2004; McSpadden, 1987; Putnam, 2007), and the current research supports this. A majority of the total sample, whether religious or not, were happy with their social network, with only one in five somewhat or totally unhappy (see Table 4).⁵ However, those with no religion were significantly more likely to be unhappy with their social network (around one in three) while Muslims were more likely to be happy with their social networks in Perth (only one in ten were only somewhat or not at all happy). Additionally, those reporting that they do not undertake any religious practices were significantly more likely to be unhappy with their social network, while the most ‘religious’, those following daily rules and dress, were more likely to be happy.

Table 4:

Social networks by religion and religious practice

N (two most positive responses on a 4-point scale)	No religion	Christian or other	Muslim	Total N (%)
Happy with private social network	34 (30.1)	24 (21.2)	55 (48.7)	113 (80.1)
Mix with Australians socially	32 (36.8)	18 (20.7)	37 (42.5)	87 (61.7)
Find Australians generally friendly and accepting	40 (75.3)	21 (41.5)	44 (72.1)	105 (76.1)
	Not religious	Celebrate main holidays		Daily rules and dress
Happy with private social network	31 (26.5)	33 (28.2)		53 (45.3)
Mix with Australians socially	30 (33)	27 (29.7)		34 (37.4)
Find Australians generally friendly and accepting	38 (34.8)	29 (26.6)		42 (38.5)

The everyday relationship of migrants and refugees to the mainstream Australian population has often been a matter for debate, particularly in the context of assimilation, integration and, most recently, social cohesion. The presumption that ethnic communities form exclusive ghettos (socially if not geographically) is a common stereotype recruited to argue for the divisive potential of immigration (see Jupp et al., 2007; Putnam, 2007). Such arguments have been used to suggest that Muslims form religious communities that do not mix with the wider community, maintaining practices and belief systems that do not correspond with ‘the Australian way of life’. Perhaps this could explain why Muslims in the current sample were disproportionately happy with their social networks – perhaps they are mixing exclusively with each other. Data analysis indicates otherwise, as shown in Table 4. Fifty-nine percent of Muslim participants reported mixing with Australians entirely or mostly, equivalent to the figure for all participants (62 percent). There were no significant differences in the social networks of refugees by religion or religious practices, indicating that skilled Muslim, Christian and non-religious refugees tend to mix with mainstream Australians to the same extent.

Perceptions of the friendliness of Australians were also measured, to indicate whether a general sense of exclusion was felt. Refugees were generally positive about mainstream Australians’ friendliness and level of acceptance. Only one person rated Australians ‘not at all’ friendly and accepting, so this category was not included in the statistical analysis. There was no effect by religion or religious practice on ratings of whether Australians were friendly and accepting, with Muslim refugees (72 percent) being as likely as Christian refugees (72 percent) and those with no religious faith (a higher, but not statistically significant, 83 percent), to feel very comfortable with Australians. It should not be forgotten, however, that, overall, one in four refugees reported finding Australians only somewhat friendly and accepting, indicating a level of perceived social exclusion by a quarter of all refugees surveyed.

Refugees also generally found the Australian way of life easy to understand with 73 percent of the sample reporting having only minimal if any problems understanding it. Perhaps surprisingly, respondents with no religion were significantly more likely to have problems understanding the Australian way of life than Muslims or Christians. Additionally, those who are more religious, in terms of following daily rules and dress were significantly more likely not to report difficulties in understanding the Australian way of life than those who were not religious. A significantly higher percentage of participants who followed daily rules and dress (81.4 percent) and celebrated their main religious holidays (82.1 percent) felt that they rarely or never had problems understanding the Australian way of life compared to those who were not religious.

This deserves some discussion. Earlier it was reported that those with no religion were significantly less likely to be happy with their social network than religious refugees. Here they are more likely to report having problems understanding the Australian way of life. It may be that the social networks of religious refugees, networks with mainstream Australians and others who can act as cultural translators, assists in both understanding a somewhat alien culture and overcoming the anomie or alienation that might result from being thrown into it without such supports (McSpadden, 1987). Those without a religious community to draw meaning from, in terms of ontological and social security, those without a ‘sacred canopy’ (Berger, 1967) to provide legitimation and a lens through which to understand the world, may be left feeling that they do not understand this new way of life. This has interesting implications for migrant settlement generally.

Issues of understanding the Australian way of life and adapting to it are related. Most refugees felt they did not have serious problems, with 87.2 percent reporting they had minimal, if any, trouble adapting, and there was no statistical effect by religion or religious practice.

In addition to general difficulties and actual discrimination in the employment market or workplace, the study investigated experiences of prejudice and discrimination in everyday life. The qualitative data contained many stories of ‘everyday racism’ against Muslims – people calling out from cars, harassing women on trains and so on. In the quantitative section, this everyday racism was measured by the item ‘being treated in an unpleasant way as a refugee’. Relatively high proportions of the total sample (41 percent, see Table 5) reported that they were often or sometimes treated unpleasantly as refugees. Together with racial difference, a key factor in the high levels of discrimination and prejudice participants reported was assumed to be religion. Muslims, particularly those who are ‘visibly Muslim’ through their dress or other practices, are known to experience hostility in public situations and to be treated with suspicion (HREOC, 2004; Perera, 2009). However, no statistically significant difference in reporting of being treated unpleasantly as a refugee by religion or religious practice was found, although Muslims and those practising daily rules and dress reported a slightly higher 46 percent and 47 percent respectively.

Table 5:

Integration by religion and religious practice

N (two most positive responses on a 4-point scale)	No religion	Christian or other	Muslim	Total N (%)
Have problems understanding the Australian way of life	21 (55.3)	5 (13.2)	12 (31.6)	38 (27)
Have problems adapting to the Australian way of life	8 (44.4)	3 (16.7)	7 (38.9)	18 (12.8)
Have been treated in an unpleasant way as refugees	16 (27.6)	13 (22.4)	29 (50)	58 (41.1)
Find it difficult to be a refugee in Perth	20 (34.5)	19 (32.7)	19 (32.7)	58 (41.1)
	Not religious	Celebrate main holidays		Daily rules and dress
Have problems understanding the Australian way of life	21 (53.8)	7 (17.9)		11 (28.2)
Have problems adapting to the Australian way of life	8 (42.1)	5 (26.3)		6 (31.6)
Have been treated in an unpleasant way as refugees	16 (27.6)	14 (24.1)		28 (48.3)
Find it difficult to be a refugee in Perth	20 (33.3)	17 (28.3)		23 (38.3)

A majority of refugees in the sample indicated that it is not difficult to be a refugee in Perth (60 percent reporting that it is only somewhat or not at all difficult to be a refugee), though some encountered difficulties. Analysis indicates all refugees experience similar levels of difficulty – there was no statistically significant difference found by religion or religious practices.

One of the final questions asked was whether participants feel ‘at home’ in Australia. This produced some interesting results (see Table 6). While most of the sample felt mostly or entirely at home in Australia (65 percent overall, 55 percent for Muslims in the sample) and there was no statistical difference by religion, those who practised daily rules and dress were significantly less likely to feel entirely at home in Australia, and more likely to feel only somewhat at home.

Table 6:

Feel at home in Australia

N (% within answer)	No religion	Christian or other	Muslim	Total N (%)
Yes, entirely	11 (45.8)	6 (25)	7 (29.2)	24 (17)
Mostly	23 (33.8)	19 (27.9)	26 (38.2)	68 (48.2)
Somewhat	10 (31.3)	4 (12.5)	18 (56.3)	32 (22.7)
Not at all	6 (35.3)	2 (11.8)	9 (52.9)	17 (12.1)
	Not religious	Celebrate main holidays		Daily rules and dress
Yes, entirely	10 (40)	11 (44)		4 (16)
Mostly	22 (30.6)	21 (29.2)		29 (40.3)
Somewhat	9 (29)	4 (12.9)		18 (58.1)
Not at all	6 (35.3)	3 (17.6)		8 (47.1)

Finally, there was no significant difference in levels of life satisfaction by religion or religious practice, although 89 percent of Christians were entirely or mostly satisfied compared with those with no religion (74 percent) and Muslims (76 percent) (see Table 7).

Table 7:

Life satisfaction

N (% within yes/no)	No religion	Christian or other	Muslim	Total N (%)
Yes, entirely/Mostly	37 (33.6)	26 (23.6)	47 (42.7)	110 (78)
Somewhat/Not at all	13 (41.9)	3 (9.7)	15 (48.4)	31 (22)
	Not religious	Celebrate main holidays		Daily rules and dress
Yes, entirely/Mostly	36 (31.6)	33 (28.9)		45 (39.5)
Somewhat/Not at all	11 (35.5)	6 (19.4)		14 (45.2)

Discussion and conclusions

The data discussed indicates the complexity of the effect of religion on the refugee settlement experience in relation to employment, social capital, cohesion and inclusion. There are two main issues. One is the lack of a statistically significant relationship between religion and employment outcomes, including perceptions of discrimination and satisfaction with employment, despite qualitative evidence from the study that clearly shows that for some skilled Muslim refugee settlers and some employers religion is indeed an important dimension of discrimination, a finding supported by a number of other studies (see Goot and Watson, 2005; HREOC, 2004; Issues Deliberation Australia, 2007; Yasmeen, 2008, 2010). The other issue is evidence of the integration of skilled Muslim refugees in Australia, in the context of what has been seen as a general climate of exclusion.

In extrapolating conclusions from the current study to the Muslim population of Australia generally, it must be noted that the current sample is unusual in that it is a sample of relatively skilled refugees, and therefore may not be representative of the diverse population of Australian Muslims. It must also be emphasized that comparisons are being made between Muslim refugees and non-Muslim refugees. Thus, compared to refugees of other or of no religion, skilled Muslim refugees participating in the research did appear more integrated on some measures. Muslim refugees were found to be more likely to be happy with their social networks than other refugees, and this is not because they are forming ethnic enclaves – they are as likely to have mainstream Australians as part of their social networks as other refugees. They are also as likely to find Australians friendly and accepting, and are more likely to find the Australian way of life easy to understand than those with no religion. They are no more likely than others to report finding the Australian way of life difficult to adapt to, nor to report being treated unpleasantly as a refugee or finding it difficult to be a refugee in Australia. In terms of satisfaction with life, there were also no significant differences by religion.

The overall picture is one of relatively high levels of social capital and engagement by skilled Muslim refugees with the host community. If we return to a consideration of aspects of social cohesion and inclusion it seems clear that Muslim refugees feel no less of a sense of belonging and inclusion, and opportunities for participation and recognition, together with attachment to place and people (Fourtier, 2010; Markus and Kirpitchenko, 2007), than other refugees. They also have the same, if not better, levels of social capital, compared to other refugees.

This tells quite a different story from the negative one described earlier in relation to perceptions of Muslims by the broader Australian community, which demonstrated that exclusionary attitudes were common. Instead it supports the more positive findings of Dunn (2009), Dunn et al. (2004) and Rane (2010), which indicate that most Australians have a more inclusive orientation. And the skilled Muslim refugees themselves appear to demonstrate an outlook of engagement rather than dissociation. Indeed, the findings support Bouma et al.’s (2001) suggestion that Australian Muslim communities have sought active engagement with the wider Australian society.

However, while there was little evidence of exclusion of Muslim refugees compared to others in the quantitative data, refugees generally do not fare well. According to the study, one in five refugees do not find Australians friendly, and two in five have been treated unpleasantly often or sometimes, and find it difficult to be refugees in Australia. Half have experienced discrimination in the employment market. These results demonstrate a number of issues refugees face – the critical point is that, while the quantitative data do not indicate that religion is definitive in producing discriminatory outcomes for Muslim refugees, such outcomes are concerning for all refugees regardless of religion.

With regard to employment issues specifically, the quantitative data show no statistically significant relationship between religion and negative employment outcomes, including perceptions of discrimination. However, while statistical significance was not achieved for many of the measures, the descriptive statistics do indicate disadvantage for Muslims in some areas, and one in five Muslims identified religion as a perceived cause of discrimination and poor employment outcomes in their qualitative responses. The fact that the qualitative responses of some Muslim refugees and of some employers explicitly identified religion as a causal factor for difficulties and discrimination in the workplace (and more generally), and that other research, as outlined above, has indicated likewise, suggests the need for further research on the precise conditions relating to such a perception. Perhaps the most significant conclusion to be drawn from the current study, however, is that employment issues for skilled Muslim refugees do not appear to be the result of a lack of social and civic engagement on their part.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an ARC Discovery Grant DP 0450306. Co-investigators were Val Colic-Peisker and Nonja Peters. I would like to thank Shiree Treleaven-Hassard for statistical support, and the bilingual assistants who administered the survey.

1

Fozdar has previously published under the name Tilbury.

Notes

Biographical note

Farida Fozdar is Professor in Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Western Australia. Her research interests include migration, cross-cultural relations, identity, methodology and discourse analysis. Address: Anthropology and Sociology, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, 6009, Australia. [email: farida.fozdar@uwa.edu.au]

References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2007) Perspectives on Migrants, 2007. Cat. No. 3416.0. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3416.0Main%20Features22007?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3416.0&issue=2007&num=&view=

Akbarzadeh

Bouma

Woodlock

(2009) Mapping Employment and Education among Australian Muslims. Monash, VIC: Centre for Muslim Minorities & Islam Policy Studies.

Berger

P.L.

(1967) The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

Bouma

Daw

Munawar

(2001) ‘Muslims Managing Religious Diversity’, pp. 53–72 in Saeed

Akbarzadeh

(eds) Muslim Communities in Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Brasted

(2001) ‘Contested Representations in Historical Perspective: Images of Islam and the Australian Press 1950–2000’, pp. 206–27 in Saeed

Akbarzadeh

(eds) Muslim Communities in Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Cahill

Goubma

Dellal

Leahy

(2004) Religion, Cultural Diversity and Safeguarding Australia, Canberra: Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Australian Multicultural Foundation.

Castles

Kalantzis

Cope

Morissey

(1992) Mistaken Identity: Multiculturalism and the Demise of Nationalism in Australia, 3rd edn. Sydney: Pluto Press.

CCRT (Community Cohesion Review Team) (2001) Community Cohesion (Cantle Report). London: Home Office.

Colic-Peisker

Tilbury

(2006a) ‘Employment Niches for Recent Refugees: Segmented Labour Market of the 21st-century Australia’, Journal of Refugee Studies 19(2): 203–29.

10.

Colic-Peisker

Tilbury

(2006b) Refugee and Employment: Investigating the Effect of Visible Difference on Discrimination Research Project, Final Report. Perth, WA: Centre for Social and Community Research, Murdoch University. Available at: http://www.cscr.murdoch.edu.au/_docs/refugeesandemployment.pdf.

11.

Colic-Peisker

Tilbury

(2007) ‘Integration into the Australian Labour Market: The Experience of Three “Visibly Different” Groups of Recently Arrived Refugees’, International Migration 45(1): 59–85.

12.

DIAC (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) (2008) A National Action Plan to Build Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security. Available at: www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-diverse-australia/mcrg_report.pdf.

13.

DIMIA (Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs) (2005) ‘Access and Equity: Review and Future Strategic Directions’. Available at: http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/access-equity/access-equity-2005/Chapter1.pdf.

14.

Dreher

(eds) (2009) Beyond the Hijab Debates: New Conversations on Gender, Race and Religion. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

15.

Dunn

K.M.

(2009) ‘Public Attitudes towards Hijab-wearing in Australia’, pp. 31–51 in Dreher

(eds) Beyond the Hijab Debates: New Conversations on Gender, Race and Religion. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.

16.

Dunn

K.M.

Forrest

Burnley

McDonald

(2004) ‘Constructing Racism in Australia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 39(4): 409–30.

17.

Fourtier

A.M.

(2008) Multicultural Horizons: Diversity and the Limits of the Civil Nation. London: Routledge.

18.

Fourtier

A.M.

(2010) ‘Proximities by Design? Affective Citizenship and the Management of Unease’, Citizenship Studies 14(1): 17–30.

19.

Fozdar

(forthcoming a) ‘The Importance of Christianity in Australian National Identity Construction’, Journal of Intercultural Studies.

20.

Fozdar

(forthcoming b) ‘Constructing Australian Citizenship as Christian; Or How to Exclude Muslims from the National Imagining’, in Lobo

Mansouri

(eds) Migration, Citizenship and Intercultural Relations. Aldershot: Ashgate.

21.

Fozdar

Torezani

(2008) ‘Discrimination and Well-being: Perceptions of Refugees in Western Australia’, International Migration Review 42(1): 30–63.

22.

Goot

Watson

(2005) ‘Immigration, Multiculturalism and National Identity’, in Wilson

Meagher

Gibson

Denemark

Western

(eds) Australian Social Attitudes. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

23.

Hage

(1998) White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press.

24.

Hage

(2003) Against Paranoid Nationalism: Searching for Hope in a Shrinking Society. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press.

25.

Hassan

(2009) ‘Australian Muslims: Indicators of Social Inclusion’, Keynote presented at the International Conference on Migration, Citizenship and Intercultural Relations, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, 19–20 November.

26.

HREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission) (2004) ‘Experiences of Discrimination, Vilification and Prejudice’, in HREOC, Isma – Listen. Available at: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/isma/index.html.

27.

Humphrey

(2010) ‘Securitisation, Social Inclusion and Muslims in Australia’, pp. 56–78 in Yasmeen

(ed.) Muslims in Australia: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

28.

Issues Deliberation Australia (2007) Muslims and non-Muslims in Australia: Final Report. Available at: http://ida.org.au/content.php?p=dpprelease.

29.

Jakubowicz

(2007) ‘Political Islam and the Future of Australian Multiculturalism’, National Identities 9(3): 265–80.

30.

Johnson

(2007) ‘John Howard’s “Values” and Australian Identity’, Australian Journal of Political Science 42(2): 195–209.

31.

Joppke

(2004) ‘The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy’, British Journal of Sociology 55(2): 237–57.

32.

Joppke

(2005) ‘Are “Nondiscriminatory” Immigration Polities Reversible? Evidence from the United States and Australia’, Comparative Political Studies 38(3): 3–25.

33.

Jupp

(2007a) From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian Immigration. Port Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Jupp

(2007b) ‘The Quest for Harmony’, pp. 9–20 in Jupp

Nieuwenhuysen

Dawson

(eds) Social Cohesion in Australia. Port Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Jupp

Nieuwenhuysen

with Dawson

(eds) (2007) Social Cohesion in Australia. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Kabir

(2006) ‘Representation of Islam and Muslims in the Australian Media, 2001–2005’, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 26(3): 313–28.

37.

Kapferer

(ed.) (2002) ‘Forum’, Social Analysis 46(1): 92–152.

38.

Larbalestier

(1999) ‘What Is This Thing Called White? Reflections on “Whiteness” and Multiculturalism’, pp. 145–62 in Hage

Couch

(eds) The Future of Australian Multiculturalism: Reflections on the Twentieth Anniversary of Jean Martin’s The Migrant Presence. Sydney: Research Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sydney.

39.

Maddox

(2005) God Under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

40.

Mansouri

(2010) ‘Local Governance, Intercultural Tension and the Racialisation of Muslims in the West’, pp. 250–69 in Yasmeen

(ed.) Muslims in Australia: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

41.

Markus

Kirpitchenko

(2007) ‘Conceptualising Social Cohesion’, in Jupp

Nieuwenhuysen

Dawson

(eds) Social Cohesion in Australia. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

42.

McSpadden

(1987) ‘Ethiopian Refugee Resettlement in the Western United States: Social Context and Psychological Well-being’, Special Issue on Migration and Health, International Migration Review 21(3): 796–819.

43.

Noble

(2005) ‘The Discomfort of Strangers: Racism, Incivility and Ontological Security in a Relaxed and Comfortable Nation’, Journal of Intercultural Studies 26(1): 107–20.

44.

Northcote

Casimiro

(2010) ‘Muslim Citizens and Belonging in Australia’, pp. 141–62 in S. Yasmeen (ed.) Muslims in Australia: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

45.

Perera

(2009) ‘Invested with Violence: Security, Values and Embodied Citizenship’, pp. 222–34 in Dreher

(eds) Beyond the Hijab Debates: New Conversations on Gender, Race and Religion. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

46.

Pieterse

(2003) ‘Social Capital and Migration: Beyond Ethnic Economies’, Ethnicities 3(1): 29–58.

47.

Poynting

Mason

(2007) ‘The Resistable Rise of Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim Racism in the UK and Australia before 11 September 2001’, Journal of Sociology 43(1): 61–86.

48.

Putnam

(2007) ‘E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first century’, Johan Skytte Prize Lecture for 2006, Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2): 137–74.

49.

Rane

(2010) ‘Media Content and Inter-community Relations’, in Rane

Ewart

Abdalla

(eds) Islam and the Australian News Media. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

50.

Rane

Ewart

Abdalla

(eds) Islam and the Australian News Media. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

51.

Saeed

(2003) Islam in Australia. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

52.

Saeed

Akbarzadeh

(eds) (2001) Muslim Communities in Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

53.

Somekh

Lewin

(eds) (2005) Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: SAGE.

54.

Tate

(2009) ‘John Howard’s “Nation” and Citizenship Test: Multiculturalism Citizenship and Identity’, Australian Journal of Politics and History 55(1): 97–120.

55.

Tilbury

(2007) ‘The Retreat from Multiculturalism: The Australian Experience’, Paper presented at ‘Pluralism, Inclusion and Citizenship’, 3rd Global Conference, Interdisciplinary.net, Salzburg, November. Available at: http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ati/diversity/pluralism/pl3/Tilbury%20paper.pdf.

56.

Tilbury

Colic-Peisker

(2006) ‘Deflecting Responsibility in Employer Talk about Race Discrimination’, Discourse & Society 17: 651–76.

57.

Torezani

Colic-Peisker

Fozdar

(2008) ‘Looking for a “Missing Link”: Formal Employment Services and Social Networks in Refugees’ Job Search’, Journal of Intercultural Studies 29(2): 135–52.

58.

Woodlock

Bouma

Akbarzadeh

(2006) Social Integration of Muslims in Cobram, Scanlon Foundation, Centre for Muslim Minorities and Islam Policy Studies, Monash University. Available at: http://monash.academia.edu/RachelWoodlock/Papers/194878/Social_integration_of_Muslims_in_Cobram.

59.

Yasmeen

(2008) Understanding Muslim Identities: From Perceived Relative Exclusion to Inclusion. Perth: Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Office of Multicultural Interests. Available at: http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-diverse-australia/national-action-plan/_attach/final-muslim-identities.pdf.

60.

Yasmeen

(ed.) (2010) Muslims in Australia: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.