Before embarking on our fieldwork journey, our initial impressions of Norway were shaped by its reputation as a robust social democratic welfare state, renowned for its comprehensive support systems and high standard of living.
Today’s seminar offered a profound shift in our understanding of the interplay between Norway’s social democratic welfare state and the lives of immigrants, refugees, and their families.
Before the session, many of us saw Norway’s extensive welfare model as a source of pride—a system designed to ensure equality and social protection. However, the seminar highlighted the significant power the state wields over families, particularly in areas like child-rearing and the targeting of low-income households, where immigrant families are often disproportionately impacted. This power, while ostensibly aimed at protecting children and ensuring equity, can also place immigrants at a disadvantage, reinforcing their marginalization within society.
One of our group’s most thought-provoking discussions revolved around the duration and process required to shed the labels of “refugee” or “immigrant” within Norwegian society. How long does it take to shed these identities and be accepted as fully Norwegian? The answer seems elusive, tied not only to legal status but also to societal perceptions. What does it take to be seen, to belong, or to be valued as a full human being in Norway? These questions remain at the core of our reflections, touching on themes of cultural interpretation, professional inclusion, and systemic biases. We began to ponder what it truly takes to belong, to be accepted as full human beings in a society that, while progressive, still grapples with subtle forms of exclusion.
One of the seminar’s also addressed the challenges and professional opportunities for immigrants and refugees, striking a deep chord with some of us who have firsthand experience navigating the Norwegian system. Bureaucratic hurdles and stringent policies often create smoother paths for Europeans than for those deemed outsiders. While such policies are framed as protective measures for citizens, they sometimes lack the flexibility to treat individuals with the humanity, fairness, and compassion they deserve. For professionals from immigrant and refugee backgrounds, these barriers can be disheartening, especially when compounded by the emotional toll of trying to prove one’s worth in a society that often equates “integration” with assimilation.
On a more optimistic note, another seminar which presented NOMKUS expanded our perspectives on career possibilities beyond the traditional routes of public sector work, academia, or NGOs. The discussion around entrepreneurship and opportunities in private businesses was particularly inspiring, showing us that there are ways to carve out meaningful careers while contributing to society in innovative ways. For many of us, this was a motivating reminder of the agency we hold to create change, even within systems that may seem rigid.
The debate around NOMKUS added another layer to our reflections. While the social entrepreneurship company clearly fills a gap, it sparked a divide in our group. Some of us felt it should be a public service provided by NAV or the welfare state itself, while others saw its merit as a private endeavor creating jobs and addressing specific needs. This debate highlighted the broader tension between providing necessary support and fostering economic opportunities within the framework of social welfare.
Similarly, the concept of cultural interpretation, presented as a research work as well as NOMKUS initiative, was critiqued as both necessary and overdue. Culture has always been integral to interpretation, and the fact that it is now treated as an add-on slapped with creative choice words “cultural interpretation” reflects a systemic oversight in Norway that many of us find troubling. The “concept” of “cultural interpretation”, initially perceived as an essential tool for understanding diversity, seemed redundant to some of us. We argued that culture is inherently woven into our interpretations and interactions, making the formal emphasis on cultural interpretation feel like an overextension rather than a natural extension of our social exchanges. Personal experiences within our group further highlighted these complexities.
Through these reflections, today’s seminar has illuminated the multifaceted nature of integration in Norway, revealing both the strengths and shortcomings of its welfare state model. It has reinforced the importance of approaching development studies with a nuanced understanding of cultural dynamics, systemic biases, and the lived experiences of those striving to belong. Development is deeply personal and inherently tied to larger systemic questions. It challenged us to think critically about fairness, inclusion, and the power dynamics at play in our chosen field—and, most importantly, about how we can be agents of change within it.
We grade today’s seminar: 3 stars out of 5.