Reconceptualising ‘integration as a two-way process’ | Klarenbeek, L.M. | ResearchPod

Transcript: Reconceptualising ‘integration as a two-way process’

Alex: Welcome to another episode of ResearchPod. Today, we're looking at how researchers talk about immigrants joining a new society. Sam, there's a common idea that this is a "two-way process," but you've been looking at a paper that suggests we're getting that wrong. What's the core puzzle here?

Sam: Lea Klarenbeek argues that while scholars claim integration is a two-way street, they don't actually treat it that way in their research. The central claim is that we still secretly treat the host society as a fixed, perfect benchmark, while expecting only the immigrant to change. This creates a logical trap where the "two-way" label ends up masking a one-way demand.

Alex: So even when researchers say it's a two-way street, they're still essentially asking the immigrant to do all the heavy lifting?

Sam: Exactly. Most studies focus on how well an immigrant fits into the existing rules and habits of the host country. By doing that, they treat the host society as something that doesn't need to change itself. It's like watching a dance where one partner is told they must perfectly match the other's steps, while the other partner is told they don't have to move at all.

Alex: That makes sense. So the problem is that we're defining the "goal" of integration as the immigrant becoming just like the people who were already there.

Sam: That's the heart of it. When we define integration as an "end state"—a final destination where everyone looks the same—we quietly draw a line between people who belong and people who don't. The paper calls this "relational inequality." Think of it like a club where the existing members decide who gets in based on how much the newcomer acts like them. The power to set those rules is what the author calls "gatekeeping power."

Alex: So the "two-way" part is just a label, but the actual research is still built on the idea that the host society is the standard everyone else has to reach?

Sam: Precisely. And the paper argues that to fix this, we need to shift our focus to what sociologists call "relational sociology." Instead of studying individuals as separate pieces, we look at the connections and power dynamics between groups. Imagine, rather than watching one person struggle to learn the steps, you zoom out and study the space between the dancers—the relationship itself. That's the shift the paper is calling for.

Alex: If we change the focus to the relationship, does that actually change how we measure integration?

Sam: It does, significantly. We stop asking "how well did the immigrant integrate?" and start asking "how are the social boundaries between these groups being negotiated?" It's about social standing—whether the society itself is willing to shift its own boundaries to include the newcomer as an equal—not just whether someone has a job or a passport.

Reconceptualising ‘integration as a two-way process’

Klarenbeek, L.M.

Jul 11, 2026·4:55·user_upload

Integration as a two-way processMigration StudiesReconceptualisationRelational inequalityBoundary-makingRelational sociology

Listen

5 min

Briefing

Research Question and Approach

Integration research is dominated by the rhetoric that integration is a two-way process, yet this concept remains poorly defined and inconsistently applied. Lea M. Klarenbeek examines how this lack of theoretical rigor leads scholars to inadvertently rely on one-way models, where the burden of change falls solely on migrants. Drawing on relational sociology, boundary theory, and relational equality, the author seeks to move beyond these contradictions by shifting the unit of analysis from individual migrant characteristics to the power-laden social relations that define membership.

The Problem with One-Wayness

The author identifies two primary failures in one-way conceptualizations of integration. First, they are undesirable: they treat the receiving society as a static, homogenous entity and stigmatize outsiders as inherently deficient or deviant. This creates a permanent division between those who must integrate and those who are already considered 'legitimate' members. Second, they are analytically infeasible. Because social boundaries are maintained through complex, reciprocal social interactions, it is impossible for one group to unilaterally dismantle them. By ignoring the role of the 'insider' in maintaining these boundaries, researchers fail to capture the reality of social change.

A Relational Reconceptualization

Klarenbeek proposes an ontological shift. Instead of viewing integration as an end state of socioeconomic parity (e.g., employment or education levels), she defines it as the absence of social boundaries that distinguish between 'legitimate' and 'non-legitimate' members. In this view, integration is a matter of social standing and relational equality. A robust two-way framework must treat both insiders and outsiders as active participants in the process of boundary-making. This requires researchers to focus on the power relations that allow some groups to define others as 'foreign' or 'non-legitimate' and to develop new metrics that track the dissolution of these exclusionary social boundaries.

Why It Matters

This paper is significant because it highlights the 'non-epistemic' impact of academic research. Integration studies do not exist in a vacuum; they provide the symbolic knowledge used to justify policy and public discourse. By exposing the internal contradictions in how we talk about integration, the author provides a necessary foundation for researchers to avoid legitimizing exclusionary policies while working toward a more equitable understanding of social membership.

Key Terms and Definitions

Relational Inequality — A condition where social boundaries create unequal standing between groups, regardless of their individual socioeconomic achievements.
Social Boundary — A distinction made by individuals that shapes attitudes and behaviors, often resulting in the unequal distribution of resources and social opportunities.
Two-Way Process — A theoretical framework where both insiders and outsiders actively participate in and are responsible for the process of integration, rather than just the migrant.
Social Standing — The degree to which an individual is recognized as a legitimate member of society, which dictates their access to political, social, and cultural capital.
One-Wayness — A conceptual bias in integration research that disproportionately emphasizes the responsibility of migrants to adapt to a supposedly static and already-integrated receiving society.

Reconceptualising ‘integration as a two-way process’: Research Paper Podcast