Empowering newcomers? Power asymmetries and negotiations between newly arrived migrants and volunteers within buddy programmes

Abstract

Research on buddy programmes for newly arrived migrants focuses predominantly on integration outcomes. However, the intervention is also prone to reproducing power imbalances. This qualitative study investigates how power asymmetries between volunteers (buddies) and immigrant newcomers are characterized. We draw on interview data to scrutinize how power is reproduced and negotiated in the dyadic relationships within buddy programmes. Both practices of Othering and De-othering take place, resulting in mixed networking outcomes for newcomers in the host society. The findings provide important insights for policy and practice, employing buddy programmes as a tool for fostering migrant integration.

Keywords

buddy programmes integration social networks Othering power asymmetries

Introduction

This paper aims to delve deeper into the power relationships between volunteers (buddies) and newcomers within buddy programmes. Over the past decades, buddy programmes have increased enormously across Europe and are becoming part of welfare policies (Raithelhuber, 2023). The intervention has been used in various forms and for a variety of groups, such as youth, the elderly, and people with mental health problems, with the objective of reducing their social isolation and improving their quality of life (Behnia, 2007). In the wake of the 2015 European refugee crisis, these programmes gained popularity as a promising tool to meet the needs of an increasing number of asylum seekers (Mahieu & Van Caudenberg, 2020). Within the context of migrant integration, buddy programmes, commonly referred to as (social) mentoring programmes, essentially involve a person from the host society providing guidance and support to a newcomer, often for a limited time, to facilitate the latter’s integration and social participation (De Cuyper & Crijns, 2023, p.23). Buddy programmes differ from other volunteer initiatives for newcomers by the personalised form of long-term informal social support between two individuals, often taking place within the private sphere (Stock, 2019). These buddies can provide newcomers with emotional, instrumental, and informational support. Research shows a beneficial impact on their well-being, language skills, and access to institutions and services (Behnia, 2007; Raithelhuber, 2021).

Despite buddy programmes for newcomers increasingly becoming institutionalised, research on the topic is still lacking for two reasons (De Cuyper & Crijns, 2023). First, there is a particular lack of research on buddy programmes for newcomers operating on the ‘befriending’ principle. In this type of buddy programme, a friendship-like relationship serves as a central source of support (whereas mentoring focuses on achieving pre-determined goals), and the defining elements of a buddy relationship and the informal social support it entails cannot be understood following a simple input/output logic. In the case of mentoring, the achievement or non-achievement of an objective can be evaluated more easily (Balaam, 2015; Behnia, 2007; Raithelhuber, 2021). Knowledge on buddy programmes, which incorporate befriending, is predominantly based on the literature on more established forms of mentoring, such as youth mentoring (Raithelhuber, 2021), mentoring to work (Neuwirth & Wahl, 2017), and academic mentoring (Harris & Ogbonna, 2023). Furthermore, buddy practices in Europe have to rely primarily on mentoring research from the U.S., that is heavily guided by quantitative measurements and a psychological approach (Raithelhuber, 2023). Second, studies on buddy programmes for newcomers have highlighted primarily the impact of the intervention on integration outcomes for newcomers (Raithelhuber, 2021; Stock, 2019; Vescan et al., 2023). However, there is limited research on how interpersonal relationships between buddies and newcomers are characterised in terms of power dynamics. Despite buddy programmes categorising newcomers as an out-group, implying intrinsic power imbalances and inequalities, insufficient attention has been devoted to the exacerbation of these dynamics due to differences in gender, class, and age between volunteers and newcomers (Raithelhuber, 2023; Stock, 2019; Vescan et al., 2023).

The current study seeks to fill the aforementioned literature gaps by highlighting the perspectives and lived experiences of volunteers and newcomers who have participated in buddy- and, more specifically, befriending programmes that focus on strengthening the social networks of newcomers. More specifically, we explore how these interpersonal relationships are characterized in terms of power asymmetries and how these asymmetries are negotiated between the two involved individuals. Stock (2019) indicates that, rather than increasing newcomers’ participation and autonomy in society, buddy programmes risk reinforcing hierarchical relationships of dependence, as the intervention is based on unequal power relations between ‘helpers’, i.e., buddies, and newcomers who are to be ‘helped’. Consequently, these unequal power relationships may undermine the objective of the intervention, namely strengthening newcomers’ position in society. For that reason, Raithelhuber (2023) suggests paying more attention to power imbalances and social inequalities in buddy programmes for individuals lacking social inclusion. Therefore, this study aims to adopt a critical perspective that extends beyond the typical focus in studies of buddy programmes on effects or outcomes and examines power dynamics in negotiation (Raithelhuber, 2023). The research question is thus twofold:

Which power dynamics emerge in the interpersonal relationships between buddies and newcomers in buddy programmes?

What strategies do these two individuals employ to negotiate these power asymmetries?

To answer these questions, the study presents arguments based on data drawn from 40 interviews with buddies and newcomers in Flanders, the northern region of Belgium. The structure of the article is as follows. The next section presents the theoretical framework (1), which discusses interpersonal relationships between buddies and newcomers, reciprocity and power asymmetries in buddy programmes, and (de-)Othering in migrant integration. Subsequently, I describe the methodology (2) adopted to conduct the research. Then, I present our case study, namely buddy programmes within the context of the Flemish Integration Decree. In section 3, I present the findings, which discuss how power is reflected in the dyadic relationship and the strategies employed by dyads to address these power asymmetries, drawing on (De-)Othering theory. The paper ends with concluding remarks on power in interpersonal relationships between volunteers and newcomers in buddy programmes and implications for future research.

Theoretical framework

This paper examines how power dynamics are reflected and negotiated in the relationship between buddies and newcomers.

1. Interpersonal relationships in buddy programmes

A buddy relationship is initially facilitated by a professional who introduces two individuals previously unknown to each other, in this case a volunteer assuming the role of buddy and a newcomer (Balaam, 2015, p. 29). Since this interpersonal relationship is considered the defining element of a buddy programme, it is worth discussing how this relationship is understood in literature (Raithelhuber, 2023).

Through goal-setting, the organisation of the buddy programme establishes agreements regarding the nature of the relationship between buddies and newcomers (Raithelhuber, 2023). In this paper, we scrutinize buddy programmes with the objective of broadening the newcomer's social network, operating on the befriending principle. Here, the nature of the relationship is a one-to-one friend-like tie, which often unfolds over a longer period of time (Balaam, 2015). Nevertheless, it should be emphasised that, in this context, the relationship between the buddy and the newcomer differs from a friendship. First, unlike a friendship, the relationship is not a private affair, as it is initiated by an external organisation. In addition, a coordinator monitors the relationship by contacting the dyad regularly. Second, the organisation places limitations on the relationship, such as intended tasks of the buddy and contact frequency. Last, a third party (a coordinator) is responsible for matching the dyad. Buddies and newcomers did not choose each other spontaneously, as would typically occur in a friendship (Balaam, 2015).

This friend-like relationship in buddy programmes allows the dyad to develop an emotional connection and to emotionally support each other (Balaam, 2015). Previous research has suggested that a close interpersonal bond, characterized by relational processes of empathy, trust, and mutuality, between dyad members is decisive for the success of the intervention (Lester et al., 2019). In practice, however, participants find it unclear what is expected of them in the buddy programme. Activities are rarely clearly defined, leading buddies to adapt their roles to the newcomer's situation at hand, allowing the focus to shift from originally emotional to more instrumental forms of support, such as translations, assistance with housing and employment search, and instruction in the majority language (Stock, 2019; Vescan et al., 2023). Vescan et al. (2023) suggest that buddies primarily focus on providing newcomers with informational, practical, and material support upon their initial arrival in the host country, leaving little opportunity for the development of a deeper emotional connection. Moreover, previous research has demonstrated that only a small number of dyads progress into long-lasting friendships, with many interactions between buddies and newcomers remaining superficial (Mahieu & Van Caudenberg, 2020). Consequently, the assurance of developing deep personal relationships within buddy programmes based on the concept of befriending is not necessarily guaranteed. Furthermore, dyad members may perceive and interpret relationships differently. Therefore, it can be concluded that the social interactions within dyadic relationships in buddy programmes are inherently unpredictable (Vescan et al., 2023).

2. Reciprocity and (power) asymmetries in relationships between buddies and newcomers

Migrant integration is predominantly considered as a two-way process, since the host society does not remain unaffected (Penninx & Van Garcés-Mascareñas, 2016). In buddy programmes, newcomers and established members of the host society have been matched, creating opportunities for mutual learning (Mahieu & Van Caudenberg, 2020). In this regard, a buddy relationship is typically defined as reciprocal in nature (De Cuyper et al., 2019). This means that the buddy programme can also be beneficial for volunteer buddies, by introducing them to foreign languages and cultures, reducing feelings of loneliness, and improving perceptions of self-confidence (Stock, 2019; Van Robaeys & Lyssens-Danneboom, 2016). Moreover, in contrast to related concepts such as mentoring and coaching, the characteristics of interactions in befriending programmes involve a negotiation of power and agency in the dyadic relationship. These negotiations include the frequency of contact, the duration of the buddy programme, and the nature of the relationship (Balaam, 2015). However, additional aspects of the relationship between buddies and newcomers could lead to substantial asymmetries between them in favour of the buddy (De Cuyper et al., 2019).

First, buddies are generally individuals with more power and resources due to their position or experience (Raithelhuber, 2023). More specifically, the intervention is built on the assumption that because of their established status of legal citizens, these volunteers have privileged access to relevant cultural, economic, or social capital required to accelerate the integration of migrants into society, implying intrinsic power imbalances and inequality in the buddy relationship (Stock, 2019, p.128, p.133). For instance, the cultural capital offered by newcomers in buddy programmes is often considered less valuable than that provided by volunteers teaching host society values and norms (Stock, 2019). Additionally, newcomers are often unable to return tangible and informational support received from their buddies, which profoundly unbalances the relationship (Vescan et al., 2023).

Second, while both parties can benefit from the relationship, the newcomer's needs are the main focus of the programme. Research has shown that buddies offer more support to newcomers than vice versa (Mahieu & Van Caudenberg, 2020). This asymmetrical dynamic distinguishes buddy programmes based on befriending, where one party seeks help and the other offers it, from friendships where both parties are more likely to be on equal footing (Balaam, 2015; Behnia, 2007). Consequently, they engage in a care logic, which risks reinforcing rather than removing power inequalities within the dyad (Stock, 2019). Following Steel, Lämsä and Jyrkinen (2019), a support paradox may arise in buddy programmes, where the newcomer risks assuming a passive position due to the direction of the buddy. This, in turn, emphasises the hierarchical relationship within the dyad, which may have a constraining effect on newcomers in the long term.

Last, the broader social context in which buddy programmes take place cannot be overlooked when discussing asymmetries in buddy relationships. The intervention frequently occurs against a backdrop of cuts in public spending and growing inequality (Raithelhuber, 2023). In addition, increasingly restrictive migration and asylum policies in Europe challenge ideas of who deserves to be included in society. This rather hostile environment prevents newcomers from occupying powerful social positions from which to claim more rights (Stock, 2019). Consequently, this political, social, and economic context may influence social dynamics within buddy programmes, as the reaction to newcomers of the host society is far more decisive for integration outcomes than newcomers themselves are (Penninx & Garcés-Mascareñas, 2016). Literature on academic mentoring of ethnic minorities, for example, attributes mentees' dissatisfaction with the mentoring programme to the unfavourable context of racial discrimination in which they find themselves (Harris & Ogbonna, 2023). Gaps in the integration system on the other hand, cause volunteer buddies to take over tasks from social workers, further reinforcing the newcomer's dependency (Vescan et al., 2023).

In sum, although reciprocity is considered an important condition of a quality supportive buddy relationship, whatever degree of reciprocity is to be found in buddy relations, it is seldom reflecting more or less equal positions. This is because the positions from which buddies and newcomers engage in the relationship are decisively unequal (De Cuyper et al., 2019; Vescan et al., 2023).

3. Buddy programmes as (De-)Othering practices

Buddy programmes for newcomers are based on an explicit as well as an implicit differentiation process between the in-group (“us, host society members”) and the out-group (“them, newcomers”) (Paré, 2022). Despite the good intentions of buddy programmes to facilitate the integration of newly arrived migrants, the relationships between buddies and newcomers mobilise this binary opposition. This may trigger processes of Othering of migrants and thus bring in elements of subordination and hierarchy in buddy relationships, in which buddies as an in-group are located above newcomers as an out-group (Kutsenko et al., 2020). This would be especially the case if stereotypes rooted in the European colonial past, orientalist narratives, and growing Islamophobia, as a result of the most recent refugee crisis, are mobilized in buddy relationships (Rashid & Cepeda-García, 2021). A cognitive and discursive process of Othering categorizes newcomers based on perceived differences in ethnicity, language, religion, nationality, and socio-economic background as the Other in relation to the majority population, here volunteer buddies (Paré, 2022). The us versus them categorisation thus risks being employed by the host society to maintain power and control over migrants who are to be helped (Rashid & Cepeda-García, 2021). Foucault (1980) conceptualizes power as a multifaceted, relational phenomenon, extending beyond traditional notions of domination to encompass a complex interplay of social relations, institutions, and discourses. This conceptualisation is particularly relevant in the context of migrant integration, where the distinction between in- and out-group members and their accompanying power dynamics are embedded in institutions, migrant integration policies, and discourses, resulting in the exclusion and devaluation of the out-group, such as subtle biases and discriminatory behaviour towards newcomers (Paré, 2022, p. 44).

Simultaneously, we argue that buddy programmes can serve as a “De-othering” practice by empowering newcomers and/or eliminating (partially or wholly) significant differences between them as an out-group and the host population as an in-group, for instance, by overcoming language barriers, promoting ethno-cultural diversification of social networks, and fostering intercultural exchange (Chimakonam, 2020). Essential characteristics of De-othering practices involve the deconstruction of the binary opposition in-group/out-group, the involvement of migrants into social life of the host country on equal terms, and the use of discourses of involvement of migrants in the receiving society (Kutsenko et al, 2020). Newcomers opting to engage in a buddy programme can be perceived as rejecting their status as the Other (Jensen, 2011, p.73). They attempt to change their status by integrating into the host society and by gaining social, economic, and cultural capital through their buddies (Kutsenko et al., 2020). The refusal of a negative categorization imposed by others demonstrates that Othering is not a straightforward process in which newcomers are subordinated. The agency of newcomers in buddy programmes is at play from which they claim normality (Jensen, 2011).

Data and Methodology

This qualitative study investigates relationships of power between volunteers and newcomers within buddy programmes.

Case study: The Flemish Integration Decree

While emerging form civic initiatives, buddy programmes are becoming increasingly institutionalised in several European countries, as structures and schemes are being developed (De Cuyper & Crijns, 2023; Raithelhuber, 2023). This is also the case in the Northern region of Belgium, where the intervention recently became a formal and mandatory part of integration policies. Newly arrived migrants in Flanders, and more specifically third-country nationals including refugees, are required to adhere to the civic integration programme, consisting of a Dutch language course, a social orientation course, and the registration with the Public Employment Service of Flanders (VDAB). Since the 1^st of January 2023, a ‘participation programme’ has been added to the civic integration programme with the objective of expanding newcomers’ social networks in the receiving society. This participation programme allows newcomers to choose between a buddy programme, a work placement in an organization or company, volunteering, or an alternative. Newcomers, who are not working, studying, or not already voluntarily following the civic integration programme, must participate in a participation programme for at least 40 hours. Furthermore, they must demonstrate their efforts through documentation in order to receive an integration certificate (Vescan et al., 2023).

Case selection

We employed purposive sampling to select participants from buddy programmes, aiming to gain deeper insights into their social interactions (Palinkas et al., 2015). Two participant groups were included: (a) volunteers who assumed the role of buddies (N=25), and (b) recently arrived newcomers (N=15) who participated in a buddy programme. Respondents participated in buddy programmes that predominantly focus on providing relational (e.g., strengthening newcomers' social networks) rather than instrumental support. Buddy programmes that, for example, exclusively focus on finding housing or employment for newcomers were thus not included in our sample. The selected buddy programmes took place both in cities and smaller municipalities, although the newcomers interviewed tended to be mainly from cities.

On the one hand, interviews were conducted with volunteers (N=25) committed to taking on the role of buddy. Buddies are established members of the host community, meaning that they have been living in the host country for a long time and are proficient in the majority language. They commit to offering guidance to a newcomer for a certain period (e.g., six months). These volunteers were often female (N=16), retired (allowing them to have sufficient time), and active in various voluntary initiatives.

On the other hand, newcomer immigrants (N=15) who participated in a buddy programme were interviewed. This participant group was highly diverse, with newcomers from Indonesia, Iran, Poland, Syria, Guinea, Morocco, Ukraine, Albania, Cameroon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey. The majority was male (N=9) and had resided in Belgium for an average of three years. Our sample included solely adult newcomers, the majority of whom were following the Flemish government’s civic integration programme. Some were required to follow an integration programme including the participation in a buddy programme, while for others participation in the buddy programme was entirely optional.

Data collection and analysis

In order to explore the interpersonal relationships between newcomers and buddies in terms of power dynamics, semi-structured in-depth interviews (N=40) were conducted between June 2022 and November 2023. The interviews lasted between 40 and 86 minutes. All interviews with the volunteers (N=25) were conducted in Dutch, while in the case of newcomers (N=15) the interviews were also conducted in English or French, depending on the respondent’s preference. Nevertheless, most newcomers preferred Dutch, as they perceived the interview as an opportunity to practise their language skills. In one case, a relative of the newcomer acted as a translator. The interviews took place in a location chosen by the respondent, this could be his or her home, but also a bar or the library. During the interviews, we used topic-lists to guide the conversations. The topic-lists included subjects such as motivations to participate in the buddy programme, the matching process, contact frequency, strength of ties, trust, equivalence, network expansion, types of support provided or received, and guidance from the organisation. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. In our analysis, we adopted an inductive approach to our research question, examining what kind of social relationships dyads participating in a buddy programme develop and what role power plays in them. In addition, we investigated the strategies employed by buddies and newcomers to negotiate these power asymmetries.

Ethical aspects

The study followed the ethical guidelines of the Ethics Committee for the Social Sciences and Humanities (EA SHW) of the University of Antwerp (SHW_21_150). All participants were informed about the voluntary character of the interviews, their right to withdraw from the study, the broader objectives of the research, and data governance. Volunteer buddies gave both their written and verbal consent for an audio-recorded interview. However, newcomers were solely requested to provide verbal consent, as the requirement of a written statement might dissuade them. In some cultures, asking for a signature may indicate a lack of trust (Cocanour, 2017). Moreover, written consent can be administratively burdensome for someone with a limited command of the majority language. In consideration of ethical concerns, the interviews with the newcomers did not include questions about their experiences in their home country and their journey to Belgium. To gain confidentiality, identifiable information of all participants (e.g., names and places) was anonymised in the data analysis process.

Findings

This paper focuses on power asymmetries and negotiations in dyadic relationships within buddy programmes for newcomers. First, we draw on Othering theory to elucidate the power asymmetries between buddies and newcomers. Next, we discuss the strategies employed by dyads to address these asymmetries.

Othering practices through emphasizing differences

Most respondents do acknowledge the presence of major differences in terms of ethnicity, language, legal status, and financial resources, which place the buddy in a stronger position. In this regard, one buddy claimed: “I am the rich Fleming and he is the poor Ukrainian, so then there is inevitably an inequality.” In the following sections, we will discuss the asymmetries and Othering practices that proved most relevant to the relationship between buddies and newcomers.

i. Emotional detachment

Notwithstanding their intention to support newcomers, some buddies deliberately avoid to establish an intimate relationship with the newcomer. The most cited reasons are that they already have a social network of their own or that differences in age, language, and ethnic-cultural background are perceived to be too great to build an intimate relationship. This is illustrated by the following quote from a buddy who primarily focused on explaining career opportunities, not interested in deepening his relationship with the newcomer: “He has my children's age, even a bit younger. I have no desire to have some kind of very personal contact with him.” The newcomers interviewed seemed to have less of a problem with closeness in these interpersonal relationships. However, the withdrawn attitude of buddies does not escape the newcomers involved, as illustrated by the following quote from a newcomer who reported that the interactions with his buddy remained rather superficial, even though he was looking for a deeper connection.

For example, I don't even know her address. […] It didn't go into depth. I was interested in a friendship and doing activities together. But there was a time of absence on her part. She was busy. She was on holiday. I couldn't see her for two or three months.

This confirms that, while newcomers participating in buddy programmes are expected to be vulnerable by sharing personal information and discussing and tackling difficulties experienced in the host society, this expectation of emotional commitment does not exist for buddies. Volunteer buddies have discretion over the amount of time they allocate to the relationship. Furthermore, their privileged status as established citizens allows them to distance themselves from the newcomer's circumstances. About six buddies reported deliberately maintaining their distance by not sharing personal information about themselves. Other buddies guarded boundaries in their relationships with newcomers in order to protect themselves from emotional stress that may arise from the problems of the latter. The burden on the shoulders of the volunteer below, for example, led him to adopt a more detached position.

I have to admit in the beginning, I really went to sleep with that family [of the newcomer] in my mind, with all their worries and all their questions. Now that's much less, but because you get into a caring relationship, you realise that you have to keep distance.

This exposes a significant power imbalance in the dyadic relationship as newcomers often do not have the choice to distance themselves from their (often pressing) issues, creating an unequal space in which buddies can ‘other’ newcomers with greater effects than the other way around. For many of these volunteers, this relationship appeared more of a balancing act between commitment and disengaging in the face of the newcomer’s difficulties, revealing that detachment is not a linear process. Despite the befriending principle in the buddy programme, the demarcation between the migrant's world and his status as the 'Other' and the buddy’s world sometimes hindered the development of an emotional connection in the dyad (Paré, 2022).

ii. Financial differences

Financial differences between buddies and newcomers are a second important power asymmetry to affect social dynamics in the dyadic relationship. First, the range of activities which the dyad can engage in together was considered limited. Buddies actively sought cheaper alternatives and free activities to avoid burdening the newcomer or creating an uncomfortable situation. Three buddies indicated that they are hesitant to suggest activities, limiting meetings with the newcomer to walking or sitting outside on a bench, as the quote below illustrates:

We were not hanging out in bars or anything. We have never done that. I've never suggested that because they don't have much money. […] I find that difficult. I don't want to impose any costs on him [the newcomer]... I think that he would be embarrassed if I always paid.

Despite the buddies’ good intentions of addressing financial inequalities, this may have adverse effects on the newcomer’s integration in the host society. Since the buddy does not do the activities that he normally would do, the relationship with the newcomer takes on a distinct character, potentially placing it outside mainstream social life. As a result, the social isolation of the newcomer may not be reduced. Moreover, the informational support provided by the buddy, such as information about the dentist or the bank, may be problematic, as the newcomer's financial resources to make effective use of these are often insufficient. For example, one buddy had to explain to the newcomer that he cannot borrow money to purchase a house. The buddy’s informational role in combination with these financial constraints may further reinforce the migrant’s experienced Otherness.

Second, the limited financial means of newcomers not only differentiate the dyadic relationship from other social interactions, but also exert pressure on the relationship. Some buddies expressed a sense of obligation to cover expenses for the newcomer due to their limited financial means, although one buddy explicitly refused to do so. Some buddies have even made significant financial contributions, such as assisting with the purchase of a car or a washing machine. One buddy asserts that a true friendship cannot exist because he constantly bears the financial burden for the newcomer. The following quote shows his frustration about the situation: “We do have a very good relationship but the financial difference makes it difficult sometimes. When we go for coffee, then it's me who pays, you know?” The financial contributions of the buddy can be understood as an Othering practice as it creates a dependency on the newcomer's side (Jensen, 2011). Consequently, the dominant position of buddies, because of their stronger economic capital, towards newcomers is further reinforced.

iii. Social network gatekeeping

A key objective of buddy programmes as part of the fourth pillar of the civic integration programme is to expand the social networks of newcomers in the receiving society. These volunteers are typically presumed to facilitate interactions between newcomers and members of the host population. However, several buddies indicated that they consciously refrained from introducing the newcomer into their social networks. This decision stems partly from a desire, as suggested earlier in the section on emotional detachment, to maintain a clear boundary between their personal lives and their involvement in the buddy programme. Additionally, some buddies cited the reluctance of their social circles to embrace migrants and ethnic-cultural diversity as a reason not to integrate the newcomers. One buddy states: “Those around me, my family, think I am crazy, that I would be better off doing other things with my time. So they are not open to meeting him [the newcomer].”

The perception of danger expressed within the buddy’s social network additionally exacerbates the division between the in-group of host society members and the out-group of migrants (Rashid & Cepeda-García, 2021). While the buddy may serve as a vital intermediary between the newcomer and the host society, restricting the newcomer’s interaction with members of the majority population may deprive them of economic, social, and cultural capital necessary for integration into the host society. The segregation of social networks thus risks undermining the objectives of buddy programmes by excluding newcomers by the dominant group, in this case volunteer buddies (Paré, 2022). In other words, the us versus them categorisation as perceived by the buddy's social network may hinder achieving network expansion for newcomers through buddy programmes. One newcomer stated, although he was open to meeting other people: “My buddy never said: Come to my place for dinner. I don’t know. […] I didn't meet anyone else besides him.”

Power negotiations and strategies

Most buddies indicated that some degree of equality in the relationship with the newcomer is crucial to creating a safe space. Specifically, we find that several buddies make a concerted effort to minimize any potential asymmetry in their relationship with the newcomer. In this regard, a buddy noted that: “If I positioned myself above the newcomer, that would not create trust. That doesn't work. I think that the newcomer would drop out very quickly.” This aligns with prior research on befriending, which asserts that the negotiation of power is essential for fostering trust (Balaam, 2015, p. 29). Consequently, dyads employ strategies aiming to address or minimize power asymmetries. We distinguish between the following strategies: conceptualising the relationship as kinship or friendship (1), intercultural exchange (2), self-determination in informational support (3), and focusing on commonalities (4).

i. Conceptualising the relationship as kinship or friendship

Some newcomers and buddies strive to develop a family-like tie, with some dyads even keeping in touch for several years, beyond the official end of the buddy programme. Different buddies stated being like a ‘grandmother’ or ‘parent’ for the newcomer with whom they were matched, which may be also partly due to their often higher age. Several newcomers on the other hand, perceived their buddy as their ‘brother’ or ‘sister’, and in some cases, considered their buddy's family as their own. In this way, the binary opposition between host society members as an in-group and newcomers as an out-group may be blurred and partially dissolved in these established family-like relationships (Kutsenko et al., 2020). Moreover, perceiving the dyadic relationship as kinship may be a way to accept the care of the other and, in doing so, to deal with status inequalities, as illustrated by the following quotes (Stock, 2019): “Yes, we became good friends and this family [the family of the buddy] is like a second family to me, my Belgian family (Newcomer 7).” “You are a certain replacement for their own home, their own family. They [newcomers] try to compensate for the lack of family feeling that way (Buddy 5).” This contrasts with one buddy who claims that a parent-child relationship can actually establish a hierarchy over the newcomer, leading him to distance himself from forging a kinship tie:

I have to be careful. I am not the father because I could be the father of the newcomer’s family, you know? Because sometimes it feels like a father-son relationship. I talk to him [the newcomer] like I talk to my children.

However, when the newcomer is introduced into the buddy's social network, this can foster a sense of belonging which allows newcomers to break away from their status as ‘the Other' in the host society: “Yeah, I also met his friends, so now I have some network here. I used to feel very much as a stranger, now I would say less because I know local people (Newcomer 4).” When conceptualizing the relationship as friendship or kinship, some dyads call each other, and not only the volunteer, ‘buddy’ as a way of emphasising equivalence between them. Multiple respondents on the other hand, who considered each other as family or friends, stopped referring to each other as ‘buddies’. The stronger the interpersonal bond between buddies and newcomers, the more inclined they were to detach their relationship from the organisational and official context of the buddy programme. One buddy expressed this sentiment: “We have known each other for a long time, and now, there is a point where I can no longer perceive him [the newcomer] as a buddy, but as a friend.” Consequently, buddies tended to perceive this relationship as part of their private sphere, which can be interpreted as a way of justifying this unconventional relationship and, more importantly, as the abandonment of practices of social distancing toward migrants (Kutsenko et al., 2020).

ii. Intercultural exchange

Another frequently mentioned strategy for addressing power imbalances is to demonstrate genuine interest in newcomers and their ethnic-cultural backgrounds. While the primary focus of the buddy programme is to acquaint newcomers with the customs, norms, and values of the host society, buddies can also ask newcomers questions about the culture of their country of origin, considering these ideas, values, and beliefs as equal to their own. Cultural exchange can, to some extent, compensate for power inequalities stemming from the devaluation of newcomers’ cultural capital within buddy programmes, where integration is still often perceived as assimilation (Stock, 2019). In this regard, a buddy noted that:

The buddy programme already starts from the idea that someone has to be integrated. So the newcomer becomes subordinate, and I actually try to minimize that to some extent, because I am also interested in the trajectory of the newcomer, the cultural elements, where the newcomer comes from, et cetera. That’s incredibly fascinating to me. So, in that way, I think I do take steps to achieve equality.

Food sharing, for instance, is found to be an important reciprocal act that can serve as a way to better comprehend one another and discuss cultural practices (Vescan et al., 2023):

The buddy can learn about our culture, learn a new culture. I’ve invited him to our house, and then we cooked and enjoyed a traditional dish together. Maybe it was good for him, at least it was something different. (Newcomer 14)

Intercultural exchange, as a De-othering practice, builds upon Jensen’s (2011) concept of ‘capitalization’ as a form of agency, wherein newcomers can allow their otherness to be valued. While buddies and newcomers do not outright reject Othering discourses, they selectively appropriate certain elements to assign them symbolic value. In addition, through sharing cultural aspects with a non-judgemental stance, the majority of buddies reported substantial learning from their interactions with newcomers. One buddy mentioned adjusting his views on integration, religion, and politics due to conversations with the newcomer. More specifically, some buddies gained deeper insights into the world of newcomers, including their cultural backgrounds and the barriers they face in the host society. Several buddies found the experience of learning about the newcomer's culture enriching, as illustrated by the following quote: “Actually, a world opens up to you of what it means to be a refugee.”

To obtain this kind of information on migrant integration and different cultures, buddies predominantly depend on newcomers, causing power inequalities to shift in favour of the latter. Consequently, the outcomes of the relationship are not one-sided, but participation in the buddy programme can benefit both dyad members. This way, newcomers can feel they are making a valuable contribution to the relationship. Nevertheless, the strategy of intercultural exchange risks equating newcomers with their cultural backgrounds, thus as members of a homogeneous out-group (Rashid & Cepeda-García, 2021). Moreover, it is argued that capitalization has a dimension of reproduction as it draws on stereotypical images (Jensen, 2011, p.66).

iii. Self-determination in informational support

Buddies indicated that they inform newcomers about various services and institutions that may be useful in a new place of residence, such as mutual insurance companies, hobbies, and schools. Moreover, norms, values, and customs of Belgian society are discussed. In this regard, informational support can be an important lever to include newcomers in the host society (Stock, 2019). Although newcomers are not able to return this type of informational support due to their position as newly arrived migrants and consequently their limited knowledge of the host society, buddies can negotiate this asymmetry by allowing newcomers to take the lead (Vescan et al., 2023). Buddies offer advice, suggestions, and potential solutions to newcomers’ inquiries. However, they refrain from assuming an authoritarian role and instead empower newcomers to make the final decisions, rejecting any possibility of elevation at the expense of newcomers (Kutsenko et al., 2020). This strategy is illustrated by the following quotes: “Ultimately, it's their decision. I'm never going to say: 'You have to do this or that.' You can possibly say: 'Look at it in this or that way. Maybe you can do this or that' (Buddy 15).” “I hate paternalism. What that they can do themselves, they should do themselves (Buddy 16).”

This De-othering practice is thus twofold. On the one hand, informational support seeks to counter the exclusion of newcomers in society; on the other hand, buddies reject a possible hierarchy inherent in this type of support by emphasising the self-determination of newcomers (Kutsenko et al., 2020). In this way, buddies aim to empower newcomers to take the initiative themselves. Additionally, several buddies expressed the hope that the relationship would transition from a hierarchical dynamic, characterised by the provision of guidance and advice, to one in which the newcomer's self-reliance takes precedence, overcoming their subordinate position in the receiving society. However, one buddy acknowledged a tendency to intervene promptly when a newcomer encounters difficulties, thereby denying them the opportunity to seek solutions independently. This observation suggests that implementing this strategy may pose challenges, particularly when altruistic motivations dominate (Vescan et al., 2023).

iv. Focusing on commonalities

Another possible strategy to negotiate power asymmetries is to emphasise commonalities in the dyadic relationship. This is in line with the common in-group identity model, where a common identity is developed through the interaction between the in-group and the out-group, allowing the newcomer’s status to shift from "the Other" to "we” (Rashid & Cepeda-García, 2021). Focusing on shared interests has proven to be an effective strategy for several dyads in minimizing (cultural) differences and consequently status inequalities, thereby overcoming negative identity constructions. Furthermore, highlighting similarities may eliminate the idea of the hierarchisation of identities, as buddies and newcomers are reduced to the same identity formation (Chimakonam, 2020, p.63). This is exemplified by the following quote from a buddy who shared a common interest in photography with the newcomer:

That common interest was more than enough to overcome that gigantic difference between us in culture, in background, in age, in gender. Everything was different except for that. That was more than enough. That was incredibly helpful. Absolutely, that's the strength of a simple, mutual interest.

Conversely, focusing on similarities can establish the newcomer as an individual with unique interests and preferences, regardless of their migration background. This concept contrasts with 'the migrant Other’ as a representative of an imagined collective (Rashid & Cepeda-García, 2021). The significance of commonalities is supported by previous studies demonstrating that deep-level similarities (interests, attitudes, beliefs, values, and other personal characteristics) among dyad members are related to more emotional support and the development of a strong relational bond (Neuwirth & Wahl, 2017). While an emotional connection is not guaranteed, shared hobbies and interests have the potential to foster a positive relationship beyond a care logic (Stock, 2019). Unsurprisingly, shared interests facilitated dyads in identifying activities to engage in together, possibly enhancing their interpersonal communication. The following quote illustrates that commonalities in De-othering as a conversational strategy can reject the newcomer's subordinate position (Chimakonam, 2020):

It's not like every time I meet him [the buddy], I talk about my personal issues. No, we can go to the cinema and we don't talk about it. We talk about the film. We go out and say: "Hey! This film is good. This film is not good. This screenplay is better. This director is worse et cetera”. (Newcomer 6)

Discussion and conclusion

Although buddy programmes are aimed at facilitating the integration of newcomers into the host society, they implicitly and explicitly categorise newcomers as an out-group. This categorisation may lead to suboptimal integration outcomes and the further exclusion of migrants (Rashid & Cepeda-García, 2021). Moreover, care logics might reinforce power hierarchies between buddies and newcomers (Stock, 2019). Drawing on (De-)Othering theory, this paper examines power dynamics and negotiations within buddy programmes for newly arrived migrants. With this study, we contribute to the literature on buddy-, and more specifically befriending programmes for newcomers by (a) highlighting power asymmetries experienced by both newcomers and volunteers who took on the role of buddy to support the newcomer and (b) discussing strategies employed by dyad members to negotiate these asymmetries.

The concept of Othering appeared well suited for understanding power structures (Jensen, 2011). Despite good intentions, the us versus them categorisation proved inevitable in the minds of some buddies and provided a basis for practicing ‘Othering’, introducing elements of hierarchy and exclusion in the relationship. We find that power asymmetries are reflected in Othering practices of emotional detachment, financial differences, and social network gatekeeping by buddies towards newcomers. Consequently, the newcomer is othered in relation to the majority population, which potentially undermines the objective of integration within the befriending intervention (Rashid & Cepeda-García, 2021). However, it should be noted that previous research suggested that asymmetries in buddy relationships are not necessarily perceived negatively by the newcomers involved (Vescan et al., 2023). In addition, four De-othering strategies to subvert these inequalities employed by both dyad members were identified: conceptualising the relationship as kinship or friendship, intercultural exchange, self-determination in informational support, and focusing on commonalities. These efforts to mitigate differences to some extent suggest buddies’ awareness of unequal power dynamics and their belief in the necessity of (partially) subverting hierarchy to foster a positive relationship with newcomers, aiming for integration outcomes such as a sense of belonging and self-reliance. Furthermore, De-othering practices in buddy programmes underscore the significance of newcomers’ agency, as these strategies may signify both a rejection of assuming a subordinate social position and an effort to fully integrate into the host society (Kutsenko et al., 2020). Contrary to what is often assumed, Othered newcomers emerge as active agents. In this context, the concept of Othering, with its inherently binary thinking, may pose challenges in acknowledging agency as it fails to see the in-between (Jensen, 2011).

These results allow us to conclude that both Othering and De-othering practices coexist within buddy programmes for newcomers. The simultaneous presence of these contrasting tendencies may explain the mixed results of buddy programmes based on the befriending principle on networking outcomes for newcomers. Consistent with previous research, this study demonstrated that the relationships between buddies and newcomers varied considerably. Some dyads formed friendship or kinship bonds, resulting in the newcomer's social network expansion beyond the dyad, while others maintained superficial and formal relationships, limited to one-to-one interactions (Brinker, 2021; Mahieu & Van Caudenberg, 2020). This has significant implications for buddy programmes within the Flemish civic integration context, as the ‘official’ objective of network expansion for newcomers may not be realised.

Limitations of our exploratory study need to be acknowledged, particularly that our examination of power asymmetries and strategies to negotiate power differences is not exhaustive. Moreover, socially desirable responses by volunteer buddies cannot be completely ruled out. Othering discourse can be latent, hiding behind a rhetoric of tolerance and understanding (Kutsenko et al., 2020). However, these findings open avenues for future research. Recent literature stresses the important role intermediaries are able to play in compensating for power imbalances in the relationship between host society members and newcomers in homestay programmes (Brinker, 2021). Future research could therefore address the role of coordinators of buddy programmes, responsible for matching dyad and monitoring the dyadic relationship, in negotiating power asymmetries within an organisational context. Furthermore, future studies could adopt longitudinal research protocols to gain insights into the development of relational dynamics over time (Vescan et al., 2023). It would be interesting to examine how power asymmetries and negotiations evolve, and whether or not buddy programmes could detach newcomers from their Otherness.

Footnotes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The Ethics Committee for Social Sciences and Humanities of the University of Antwerp granted permission (SHW_21_150). All participants provided verbal and/or written informed consent.

References

Balaam

M-.C.

(2015). A concept analysis of befriending. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 71(1), 24-34.

Behnia

(2007). An Exploratory Study of Befriending Programs with Refugees: The Perspective of Volunteer Organizations. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies , 5(3), 1-19.

Brinker, L-.D. (2021). Security net and ambassadors for social inclusion? the role of intermediaries in Host–Refugee relationships in homestay programs. Social Inclusion , 9(4), 232-242.

Chimakonam

J. O.

(2020). Othering, Re-othering and De-othering. Interrogating the Skolombo's Fight-Back Strategy. In Imafidon, E. (Ed.) Handbook of African Philosophy of Difference. Handbooks in Philosophy (pp. 433-488). Champ: Springer.

Cocanour

(2017). Informed consent—It's more than a signature on a piece of paper. The American Journal of Surgery , 214(6), 993-997.

De Cuyper

Crijns

(2023). Matching mentors and recent immigrants: matching criteria in social mentoring programmes for newcomers. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring , 21(2), 21-34.

De Cuyper

Vandermeerschen

Purkayastha

(2019). Migrant mentoring to work: defining an old-but-innovative instrument. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring , 17(2), 108-121.

Harris

L.C.

Ogbonna

(2023). Equal opportunities but unequal mentoring? The perceptions of mentoring by Black and minority ethnic academics in the UK university sector. Human Resource Management Journal , 33(4), 940-956.

Jensen

S. Q.

(2011). Othering, identity formation and agency. Qualitative Studies , 2(2), 63–78.

10.

Kutsenko

Bataeva

Babenko

(2020). De-Othering politics and practices of forced migrants in modern society. Ideology and Politics Journal , 2(16), 62-82.

11.

Lester

Goodloe

Johnson

Deutsch

(2019). Understanding mutuality: Unpacking relational processes in youth mentoring relationships. Journal of Community Psychology , 47(1), 147-162.

12.

Mahieu

Van Caudenberg

(2020). Young refugees and locals living under the same roof: Intercultural communal living as a catalyst for refugees’ integration in European urban communities, Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1), 12.

13.

Neuwirth

Wahl

(2017). Effects of the similarity between mentees and mentors on the evaluation of the ‘Mentoring for Migrants Program'. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring , 15(2), 140-154.

14.

Palinkas

Horwitz

Green

et al. (2015). Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research , 42(5), 533-544. 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

15.

Paré, C. (2022). “Selective Solidarity? Racialized Othering in European Migration Politics.” Amsterdam Review of European Affairs, 1(1), 42-61.

16.

Penninx

R.B.

Garcés-Mascareñas (2016). The concept of integration as an analytical tool and as a political concept. In B. Garcés-Mascareñas, Penninx

(Eds.), Integration Processes and Policies in Europe. Context, Levels and Actors, IMISCOE research series (pp. 11–30). London: Springer Open.

17.

Raithelhuber

(2021). ‘If we want, they help us in any way’: how ‘unaccompanied refugee minors’ experience mentoring relationships. European Journal of Social Work, 1-16.

18.

Raithelhuber

(2023). Mentoring for social inclusion: a call for social work to engage with an emerging model of social intervention. European Journal of Social Work, 1-2.

19.

Rashid

Cepeda-García

(2021). Self-Categorising and Othering in Migrant Integration: The Case of Entrepreneurs in Berlin. Sustainability , 13(4), 2145.

20.

Steel

Lämsä

A.-M.

Jyrkinen

(2019). Paradoxes of Mentoring: An Ethnographic Study of a Mentoring Programme for Highly-educated Women with Migrant Backgrounds. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research , 11(2), 275-297.

21.

Stock

(2019). Buddy Schemes between Refugees and Volunteers in Germany: Transformative Potential in an Unequal Relationship? Social Inclusion, 7(2), 128-138.

22.

Van Robaeys

Lyssens-Danneboom (2016). Duo-werkingen in Vlaanderen: Eerste tussentijds onderzoeksverslag . Antwerpen: Expertisecentrum Krachtgericht Sociaal Werk.

23.

Vescan

I.A.

Van Keer

R-.L.

Politi

et al. (2023). Dyadic relations between refugees and volunteers: Support exchange and reciprocity experienced in buddy projects in Flanders Belgium. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology 5 100132.