Social workers and xenophobia: The case of Türkiye

Introduction

Xenophobia – defined simply as the fear or hatred of foreigners – has resulted in genocides, social uprisings, and racist attacks throughout history (Khair, 2015) The term originates from the Greek words xenos, meaning foreigner, and phobos, meaning fear (Roose, 2017). Xenophobia is characterized by discriminatory attitudes and behaviors that often result in violence, abuse, and hatred (Odiaka, 2017), and is a significant concern that has been prevalent since the 1880s (Meriam-Webster, 2023) when the idea originated. Consequently, xenophobia has become a subject of interest in various fields, including psychology, psychiatry, human geography, anthropology, history, international relations, law, and economics (Omoluabi, 2008). Social work is another discipline that studies xenophobia.

Within the field of social work, there have been ongoing debates concerning anti-racism and discrimination since the 1970s (Laird, 2013). People have made their criticisms at social work practices for their shortcomings in meeting the needs of both those who are exposed to racism, as well as of other oppressed groups. Accordingly, the need for anti-racist social work practices is growing. Furthermore, there is an ongoing discourse regarding the insensitivity of social work education toward anti-racism, and the maintenance of ignoring racism in social work education (Hamilton-Mason & Schneider, 2018). In this context, one can argue that xenophobia poses a significant problem for social work – particularly for vulnerable refugees and immigrants who have been forced to migrate for various reasons (Garcia, 2020; Keigher, 1997; Popescu & Libal, 2018; Zaviršek, 2017). Another context in which the social work profession addresses xenophobia is their work with victims thereof. Sewpaul (2014) has recommended implementing programs to prevent xenophobia in South Africa, establishing crisis teams to offer community-based crisis interventions and trauma debriefing for instances of violence related to xenophobia, and creating spaces for dialogue. In a South African study, Van Der Westhuizen and Kleintjes (2015) cited the need for explicit guidelines and training programs for social workers on supporting xenophobia victims, as well as programs tailored to their particular needs.

Although social work addresses xenophobia as an important issue, the related studies have indicated that social workers themselves can demonstrate xenophobic attitudes. Eliassi (2017) investigated how 22 Swedish social workers perceived immigrants, found that they were dissatisfied with number of immigrants in Sweden, and believed that immigrants received social assistance unjustly, did not contribute to the country, and failed to integrate. Park et al. (2011) did a study with 1.124 social workers across 47 states in the USA and found that social workers categorize immigrants as either deserving or undeserving. They treated undeserving ones, specifically illegal immigrants, less positive. Conversely, they saw that social workers who worked in institutions which did not question the status of immigrants held a more positive attitude about them. A separate discourse analysis study on the attitudes of social workers toward illegal immigrants in the USA uncovered that certain social workers asserted that they need not cater to illegal immigrants. Additionally, they believed that illegal immigration would adversely affect the utilization of current social service resources and marginalize immigrants (Park & Bhuyan, 2012). One study involving 4.499 American social workers revealed that those who perceived immigrants as a threat were less likely to accept the structural barriers faced by immigrants. By contrast, social workers who accepted the structural barriers faced by immigrants saw them as less of a threat (Park et al., 2022).

On the other hand, Fazzi (2015) surveyed 90 social workers employed in local governments where populist parties hold power in Italy and discovered that political populism's rise in xenophobia adversely affected social workers’ professional conduct. He also reported that anti-prejudice activists and anguished social workers are unsure of their next steps. some maintained a taciturn disposition, even if they do not endorse discrimination and others support xenophobic beliefs. These studies all indicate that social workers can exhibit unfavorable attitudes toward migrants – in turn presenting challenges for social work practices.

However, other reasons why social workers are likely to display xenophobic attitudes include political rhetoric from populist leaders (Fazzi, 2015; Noble & Ottmann, 2018), misbeliefs surrounding xenophobia (Juhász & Szicherle, 2017) and a sharp rise in immigration (Rafael, 2008).

Türkiye has faced significant influxes of migrants due to the ongoing Syrian conflict and turmoil in the Middle East. According to the Ministry of Interior's statistics, 3.764.193 Syrians are registered under temporary protection in Türkiye, and thus make up 4.26% of the Türkiye's population (The Presidency of Migration Management, 2021)

However, most Syrians are not classified as refugees or migrants, but rather hold a temporary protection status. That policy is founded on the belief that they will eventually return to their country. The growth of the migrant population in conjunction with policies predicated on Syrians’ temporary residence has caused several issues between the local population and Syrians. Such issues have resulted in the emergence of prejudices among the local population against Syrian - as delineated by the Syrian Barometer surveys carried out between 2017 and 2020 (Erdoğan, 2018, 2020, 2021). These surveys indicate a notable level of apprehension in Turkish society toward Syrians. Although the 2020 survey exhibited a moderating negative attitude toward Syrians compared to those from 2017–2019, such attitudes persisted with a small decline (Erdoğan, 2021). Negative attitudes toward Syrians feed xenophobia.

A study by Saraçoğlu and Bélanger (2019) in Izmir indicated that growing concerns among Turks about the loss of economic gains, urban space, and national integrity led to xenophobia toward Syrians. A study by Getmansky et al. (2018) found that messages about the negative impact of refugees, especially from non-Kurdish participants, led to negative views about refugees and their impacts on Türkiye, and hence xenophobia. How social workers act in the atmosphere described above is of the essence in this context. This study aimed to examine the xenophobic attitudes of Turkish social workers working in certain provinces of South-Eastern Anatolia and the Mediterranean regions of Türkiye.

Method

This study was conducted with mixed method-based sequential transformative design. All of data was analyzed sequentially.

Findings

Quantitative findings

Table 1 shows the socio-demographic and descriptive information of the participants in the quantitative section, in numbers and percentages.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive information of the participants.

Descriptive characteristics	Number	Percentage
Gender
Female	149	61.6%
Male	93	38.4%
Age
21–25	49	20.2%
26–29	88	36.4%
30–60	105	43.4%
Marital status
Married	102	42.1%
Single	140	57.9%
Educational level
Bachelor's Degree	191	78.9%
Postgraduate	51	21.1%
Graduated program type
Formal Education	221	91.3%
Open Education	21	8.7%
Year of graduation
2007 or before	45	18.6%
Between 2008 and 2015	89	36.8%
2016 or after	108	44.6%
Number of years they have lived in the city they work in
1–3 years	78	32.2%
4–10 years	72	29.8%
11 years and more	92	38.0%
Region of employment
Mediterranean region	158	65.3%
South-eastern Anatolian region	84	34.7%
Are they a member of an ethnic minority group?
Yes	119	49.2%
No	123	50.8%
Area of social work
Justice	13	5.4%
Child	76	31.4%
Disability - Elderly	23	9.5%
Migration	40	16.5%
Women	13	5.4%
Health	45	18.6%
Social Aid	27	11.2%
Other	5	2.1%
Receiving training on the field of migration
Yes	128	52.9%
No	114	47.1%

The Cronbach's alpha value – which reflects the reliability of the data of this study was 0.90 (Table 2). Table 3 shows the results of the t-test and ANOVA.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Reliability coefficients of the scale.

Xenophobia scale	Cronbach's alpha
This study	0.90
Özmete et al. (2018)	0.87

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Xenophobia in the participants according to some variables.

Demographic characteristics	Xenophobia
	Mean	SD
Gender
Female	37.06	12.32
Male	36.15	13.57
	t = 0.537 p = .60
Age
21–30	35.86	12.83
31 and above	38.13	12.68
	t = –1.33 p = .18
Marital status
Married	39.49	12.92
Single	34.68	12.36
	t = 2.92 p = .004*
Educational level
Bachelor's Degree	36.96	12.52
Postgraduate	35.74	13.87
	t = 0.60 p = .54
Training on migration
Yes	33.82	13.69
No	39.94	10.90
	t = –3.86 p = .000**
Region of employment
Mediterranean region	38.05	12.00
South-eastern Anatolian region	34.17	13.90
	t = 2.16 p = .03*
Are they a member of an ethnic minority group?
Yes	35.26	13.90
No	38.11	11.51
	t = –1.73 p = .08
Number of years they have lived in the city they work in
1–3 years	32.76	12.03
4–10 years	38.30	11.78
11 years and more	38.80	13.53
	F = 5.701 p = .004*Difference = 1–2, 1–3
Year of graduation
2007 or before	37.60	12.78
2008–2015	37.23	12.89
2016 or after	35.90	12.80
	F = 0.393 p = 0.675
	Difference = –
Area of social work
Health – Social Aid	40.13	12.28
Woman – Child	38.23	12.33
Justice – Disability and Elderly and others	39.68	11.52
Migration	24.10	7.67
	F = 19.45 p = .000**Difference = 1–4, 2–4, 3–4

*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .000. Bold values indicate the statistical significance.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Assessment of the social workers in terms of xenophobia. ^a

Social workers who use indirect xenophobic expressions	Social workers who use xenophobic expressions	Social workers who do not use xenophobic expressions
The growing urban population (p) exacerbates problems (q).The city population grows when immigrants arrive.The arrival of immigrants exacerbates problems.	Those involved in crime (p) are immigrants (q) Syrians are immigrants (q) Syrians are involved in crime (p).	Migratory residents like me (p) are victims (q) Syrians are immigrants (q) Immigrants are victims (p) All my good neighbors (q) are Arabs (p) Syrians are Arabs (q) Syrians are good people (q)

a

Prepared by utilizing some information from the study of Rydgren (2004).

The results of Table 3 indicated that the mean XS scores of the social workers did not show a statistically significant difference in terms of gender, age, education level, membership in an ethnic minority group, and year of graduation.

Married social workers were significantly more xenophobic than their single counterparts (p ≤ .05). Those not trained in migration were significantly more xenophobic than those who were (p ≤ .000). Those working in the Mediterranean region were significantly more xenophobic than those from South-eastern Anatolia region (p ≤ .05). In other words, these groups had higher mean scores concerning xenophobia.

Those who lived in their respective province for 1–3 years were significantly less xenophobic than those who lived there for 4–10 years or for 11 years or more (p ≤.05).

Those who specialized in migration were significantly less xenophobic than those specialized in “health and social aid,” “children and women,” “justice-disability, old age, and other social work fields” (p < .000).

Qualitative findings

The qualitative findings of the study were categorized under three themes: Social Workers Who Do Not Directly Use Xenophobic Expressions, Social Workers Who Use Xenophobic Expressions, and Social Workers Who Do Not Use Xenophobic Expressions.

Discussion

As Frindte et al. (1996, p. 463) note, “Xenophobia is as untouchable and frightening as a ghost, yet it is very real and very alive.” Therefore, it is important to reveal how xenophobic attitudes develop and what these attitudes lead to. The findings of this study showed that some social workers exhibited xenophobic attitudes.

The quantitative section indicated that there was no significant difference in the mean XS scores of the social workers in terms of gender, age, education level, being a member of an ethnic minority group, and year of graduation. It was important that there was no significant difference in the findings of the study. Nevertheless, regardless of the year of graduation, neither receiving social work education nor having a postgraduate education had any impact on attitudes toward xenophobia. That reveals the necessity of restructuring social work education to fight xenophobia and other forms of discrimination. Moreover, the quantitative section revealed that married participants were more xenophobic than their single counterparts. Another finding was that participants from south-eastern Anatolia exhibited fewer xenophobic attitudes than those in the Mediterranean region. In addition, the quantitative section also showed that those working in migration were less xenophobic than those working in other fields. Social workers who deal with immigrants are aware of the conditions under which they live, and in this context, tend to exhibit positive attitudes toward them (Birger et al., 2020) (Table 4).

The qualitative section categorized the expressions of the social workers into 3 groups. The participants in the first group – although they never used xenophobic expressions– expressed problems resulting from living with immigrants. Indirect xenophobic statements tend to be linked to realistic threats within the framework of integrated threat theory. An increase in migrants among the urban population leads the respondents to mingle with more migrant populations in public spaces and while utilizing public services. It can be asserted that social workers who use indirect xenophobic expressions develop their attitude about Syrians through the events they encounter in daily life. Urban areas are seeing an increase in migrant populations. Social workers frequently interact with this population in public spaces and through public services, which can create a range of challenges. The rising cost of rental accommodation serves as one example of such challenges (Diker & Karan, 2021). Social workers who make use of indirect xenophobic expressions link problems with migrants to them individually, rather than acknowledging the need for social policy responses like demanding social housing to tackle the challenges they face. This leads to the evaluation of the statements of social workers in this group as indirect xenophobic statements.

On the other hand, it can be asserted that social workers who used indirect xenophobic expressions benefited from a language strategy to negatively portray and marginalize migrants. They did so by making use of interpretive repertoire – as revealed in Masocha's (2015) study – and thus they try to be in a position that does not conflict with ethical principles and values.

The second category of social workers in the qualitative section encompassed those who used xenophobic expressions. Within the framework of integrated threat theory, their expressions can be explained with realistic and symbolic threats. One realistic threat that lead directly to xenophobic statements is health problems. A large proportion of the children who make up the majority of the Syrian population arrived in Türkiye as unvaccinated. That has contributed to them contracting certain diseases that have been reduced by vaccination and to their re-emergence (Sezen et al., 2018). Another realistic threat is the assumption that immigrants take local people's jobs. Immigrants generally work without insurance and under inhumane conditions, hence representing cheap labor. This has created an alternative labor force that can compete with locals, especially those who used work in dayworks without insurance before the arrival of the Syrians. Syrians are perceived as a threat rather than demanding social policy arrangements for both groups to work under fair conditions (Koca, 2019; Ulukan, 2015).

The participants using xenophobic expressions also believed that immigrants have disrupted the dominant family structure in society and they would undergo cultural assimilation and Arabization because of the immigrants. These expressions are new racist phrases that may be examples of symbolic threats according to the integrated threat theory. It can be asserted that these elements, which can be called as symbolic threats, constitute the cultural stress that develops in immigrants due to the ethnic identity of the person (Schwartz et al., 2015), and that assumptions about symbiotic threats may be related to false beliefs.

An analysis of the statements from both groups suggested that participants who used direct or indirect xenophobic expressions generally believed that Syrians under temporary protection do not deserve this status. The distinction between deserving and undeserving migrants creates a basis for xenophobic attitudes. In this context, their statements are an example of everyday racism (Aquino, 2020).

The third category that appeared in the qualitative section was participants who did not use xenophobic expressions. In the qualitative section, participants from ethnic minorities who were discriminated against did not use xenophobic expressions, and were more empathetic. The same went for those who experienced internal migration as well.

Participants’ own experiences led them to be non-xenophobic. That noted, their negative experiences can also result in harboring xenophobic attitudes toward immigrants. For example, Gong and Wang (2021) pointed out that previous negative contact experiences increased xenophobia in Japan, and that negative impact of xenophobia still persists. In that context, several things are needed to develop new training programs, and supervision systems aimed at preventing social workers from letting their personal experiences affect their professional practices.

Education is another factor that prevents them from being xenophobic. The quantitative section, revealed no significant difference between those with an undergraduate or graduate education in terms whether they were xenophobic or not. Nevertheless, although postgraduate education programs do not prevent people from being xenophobic, participants who received education on migration were significantly less xenophobic than those who did not. In the qualitative section, education seemed to prevent the social workers from being xenophobic. Krott et al. (2018) has arrived at a similar finding, too They conducted a longitudinal study on xenophobic attitudes held by German police officers. They found that undergraduate education, which included training modules on intercultural practices, generally taught them to be more tolerant.

Limitations of the study

This is a national study from perspective of Türkiye. It therefore is impossible to generalize the findings. It is the first mixed-method study to examine the xenophobic attitudes of Turkish social workers from Gaziantep, Kilis, Şanlıurfa, Hatay, Adana, Osmaniye, and Mersin in Türkiye. Participation in the study was based on voluntariness.

Conclusion

Social workers acting according to ethical principles and values is important to carry out qualified practices. People often struggle keeping their individual and professional decisions separate. Social workers play an effective role in the fight against xenophobia and other forms of discrimination. Directly or indirectly using xenophobic expressions and displaying xenophobic attitudes can negatively affect their social work practices and harm service beneficiaries.

Several actions can be taken to prevent the above, namely: integrating anti-oppressive social work and critical social work into undergraduate programs to be able to make critical thinking, developing advanced vocational training programs for social workers, and improving qualified supervision practices, and organize awareness-raising campaigns for social workers who may be impacted by anti-immigrant discourses. Türkiye also needs to establish a professional chamber with sanctioning power, alongside an audit mechanism to promote both professional ethical practices as well as anti-xenophobic values. The results of this study are valuable and will shed light on future studies– especially if they focus on psychosocial support personnel.