Description
Governments, companies and civil society often adopt policies and initiatives to facilitate the social integration of diverse social groups, both within their own institutions and in society at large. These efforts, however, encounter a central tension. On the one hand, recognizing the specific challenges and needs of distinct social groups can be crucial to ensuring acknowledgement, inclusion and tailored support. On the other hand, such recognition risks reinforcing divisions and, paradoxically, promoting segregation. At what point does facilitating distinct social groups begin to undermine a broader sense of belonging and shared citizenship?
The cluster’s central aim is to examine how policies can help create conditions that foster cohesion within groups, between groups and in society at large. To this end, we ask: under what circumstances and through which mechanisms do policies promote or undermine cohesion, both within a group and across group boundaries? And how might these circumstances and mechanisms be harnessed to strengthen cohesion at all levels?
Organizational policies and initiatives aimed at diverse social groups evoke central underlying tensions between segregation and integration. On the one hand, such policies may contribute to strong in-group cohesion (bonding), yet at the cost of broader intergroup and societal/institutional cohesion (bridging). On the other hand, intra-group connections may be a vital foundation for individuals to feel socially and institutionally integrated in the first place.
To explore these dilemmas, we intend to focus on variations in policy types (e.g., identity- versus needs-based) and targets (e.g., minority versus majority groups, different minority groups). The proposed PhD projects are designed to examine complementary aspects of policy implementation, from both top-down (governmental) and bottom-up (firm employees) perspectives. We expect that the interplay between group, intergroup and societal/institutional cohesion is shaped by these salient features, and the research findings may provide evidence on the efficacy of different approaches.
Dive Deeper
We conceptualize social cohesion as any individual’s or group’s integration into bigger social entities, such as organizations and communities. We distinguish three categories of integration outcomes: structural integration (e.g., at the organizational level: access to promotions, turnover etc.; at the community level: access to jobs, housing, care etc.), social integration (e.g., social connections, intergroup attitudes) and psychological integration (e.g., perceived belonging, trust in leadership, inclusion).
We envision two PhD projects and potentially a third with co-funding from a societal partner, if feasible.
The PhD projects focus on different types of policies launched in different institutional contexts: in the public sector (Project 1), in the private sector (Project 2) and in the non-profit sector (optional Project 3). Together, they examine whether and how policies that recognize distinct identities affect intergroup and social cohesion and whether these effects vary depending on the institutional context and the nature of the target groups.
Each project operates at a different level of analysis: Project 1 addresses effects at the societal (municipal) level, Project 2 at the organizational level and optional Project 3 at the community level. The shared focus on policies, combined with the differentiated focus of each project, enables a systematic comparison of the dynamics and consequences of different types of policies across contexts.
Senior consortium members will synthesize the outcomes of the PhD projects in relation to the SOCION framework.
This project will study over time a) how national policies aimed at specific groups may result in variation in social cohesion outcomes at the local level and b) how municipalities translate national policies aimed at specific groups into local practice over time and how these variations affect these groups in terms of integration and feelings of belonging. In addition, it will study how these local practices are perceived and received by other groups. One question is under what conditions practices that focus on specific groups (e.g., knowledge migrants, refugees) provoke or prevent negative responses from other groups, who might perceive such measures as preferential treatment at their expense. This could increase tensions between both groups, thereby decreasing societal cohesion. The project will combine the disciplines of social and economic history with sociology.
Context, level of analysis and integration outcomes
Project 1 operates in the public sector context, with municipalities as the level of analysis. Types of integration outcomes include: structural (e.g., access to housing, jobs), social (e.g., intergroup marriage, volunteering) and psychological (e.g., trust in government, political preferences).
Cross-level analysis and methods
Project 1 focuses on analysis of vertical connections (i.e., municipal policies and groups), in combination with analysis of horizontal connections (of minority and majority groups). First ideas for methods include connecting municipal-level data on policy variation in specific themes in different periods (via CBS [Statistics Netherlands], VNG [Association of Municipalities] or content analysis of policy documents) with CBS microdata on social cohesion/integration at the municipal level at that time. Additionally, the project could conduct a comparative case study of municipalities with similar structural characteristics but differing policy approaches in domains such as housing and job placement services, and compare the analysis with other countries that have municipal-level datasets that provide information about certain identity group characteristics (e.g., refugee status, migrant background) including Germany and Sweden. The observational or survey data can be quantitatively analysed to assess the efficacy of policies that affect these groups over time as well as the municipalities in which they reside. Analytical approaches include statistical models suited to panel datasets that cover multiple individuals and municipalities over time.
This project will examine how organizational diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies shape the experiences of employee groups with stigmatized identities and their relationships with members of dominant groups. It will investigate the variations that emerge in organizational DEI policies and how these differences affect minority employees’ integration and belonging. A central focus is how such policies are perceived and received by both minority and majority groups. Policies that minority employees experience as supportive – by fostering identity safety, in-group cohesion and belonging – may simultaneously be perceived by majority employees as divisive or exclusionary. Conversely, approaches that resonate with majority employees by emphasizing shared needs and solidarity may be viewed by minority employees as insufficient for addressing identity-specific inequities. Specifically, the project will explore the conditions and mechanisms through which DEI policies contribute not only to in-group solidarity but also to intergroup cohesion, trust in leadership and broader perceptions of organizational inclusion among both minority and majority employees. In doing so, it aims to uncover how organizations can design policies that empower marginalized groups without unintentionally deepening divides, ultimately fostering climates in which all employees feel included. The project will combine the disciplines of social psychology and sociology.
Context, level of analysis and integration outcomes
Project 2 operates in the private sector context, with organizations as the level of analysis. Types of integration outcomes include: structural (e.g., access to jobs, promotion and retention), social (e.g., intergroup attitudes and collaboration with colleagues from different groups) and psychological (e.g., sense of belonging, trust in leadership and inclusion).
Cross-level analysis and methods
Project 2 focuses on analysis of vertical connections (i.e., organizational policies and groups) in combination with analysis of horizontal connections (of minority and majority groups). To shed light on conditions, studies can connect sectoral- or organizational-level data to employee outcomes. This includes collecting sectoral- or organizational-level data on DEI policies (via HR or expert surveys, policy documents, company reports) and linking it to CBS microdata. Besides collecting data, existing representative organizational surveys (e.g., WEA, ‘Werkgevers Enquête Arbeid’) can be used, which include measures of different organizational policies and practices of inclusion of minority groups. The project could also compare minority and majority employee outcomes from existing representative survey data (e.g., the NEA, Nationale Enquête Arbeidsomstandigheden) linked to CBS microdata on employees and employers. Multilevel modelling would be applied, with employees nested within organizations and/or sectors. Outcomes include retention, turnover intentions, belonging, intergroup cohesion, trust in leadership and perceived inclusion. The project would test whether the presence/type of DEI policies predicts variance in these outcomes. To shed light on mechanisms, the project can utilize organizational surveys and vignette experiments examining how minority group members perceive themselves and are perceived by majority members under different policy types. It can examine how employees’ perceptions of DEI policies – e.g., as identity-based versus needs-based – relate to structural, social and psychological integration outcomes, such as intergroup cohesion, belonging, trust, commitment and retention, using a survey among employees in a single organization. Complementing this, a vignette experiment could test how differently framed hypothetical policies influence anticipated experiences of inclusion and cohesion. A second vignette experiment could focus on policy recipients, exploring how minority group members perceive themselves and are perceived by majority members, depending on the type of policy the organization uses.
Civil society organizations often initiate programmes to strengthen intergroup cohesion and foster social cohesion within communities (e.g., at the neighbourhood level). This project could explore the variation in these initiatives, focusing on whether they are organized around shared identity or around common interests and needs – and how these organizational choices impact intergroup and societal cohesion. Particular attention could be paid to how these initiatives are perceived by majority groups and how such perceptions shape their broader impact on cohesion.
Context, level of analysis and integration outcomes
Project 3 operates in the non-profit sector context, with communities as the level of analysis. Types of integration outcomes are to be determined.
Cross-level analysis and methods
Project 3 focuses on analysis of vertical connections (i.e., civil society initiatives and groups) in combination with analysis of horizontal connections (of minority and majority groups). Methods could include conducting surveys among participants in initiatives and interviews with implementers of initiatives to identify the type of intervention (mixed groups or identity-based groups).