Critical Social Inclusion of Adult Migrant Language Learners in Working Life : Experiences From SFI and LINC Programs

This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails. Au ho (s): Ti le: Yea : Ve sion: Copy igh : Righ s: Righ s u l: Please ci e he o iginal e sion: CC BY 4.0 h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ C i ical Social Inclusion o Adul Mig an Language Lea ne s in Wo king Li e : Expe iences F om SFI and LINC P og ams © Tobias Pö zsch, Sanna Saksela‐Be gholm. Published e sion Pö zsch, Tobias; Saksela-Be gholm, Sanna Pö zsch, T., & Saksela-Be gholm, S. (2023). C i ical Social Inclusion o Adul Mig an Language Lea ne s in Wo king Li e : Expe iences F om SFI and LINC P og ams. Social Inclusion, 11(4), 47- 57. h ps://doi.o g/10.17645/si. 11i4.7154 2023 Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages X–X h ps://doi.o g/10.17645/si. 11i4.7154 A icle C i ical Social Inclusion o Adul Mig an Language Lea ne s in Wo king Li e: Expe iences F om SFI and LINC P og ams Tobias Pö zsch 1,* and Sanna Saksela‐Be gholm 2 1Swedish School o Social Science, Uni e si y o Helsinki, Finland 2Depa men o Social Sciences and Philosophy, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland * Co esponding au ho ( [email p o ec ed]) Submi ed: 5 May 2023 | Accep ed: 6 Sep embe 2023 | Published: in p ess Abs ac How can in eg a ion educa ion p og ams acili a e he mo e seamless inclusion o mig an newcome s in o wo king li e and ci il socie y? T adi ionally, in eg a ion policy and p ac ice ha e been amed wi hin a na ion‐s a e discou se in which iews o mig an inco po a ion a e g ounded wi hin a bo de ed na ionalism embodying a na i e–mig an dicho omy ha ei ies he iew o he “mig an o he ” as a subjec de ined by i s “lack” in compe ence and agency. In ou quali a i e mul iple case s udy, we explo ed he b idging po en ial o in eg a ion p og ams in acili a ing he inclusion o mig an s uden s wi hin wo king li e in Helsinki and Edmon on. We examined he “inclusec ionali ies,” e e ing o he in e sec ions o inclusion and exclusion ha posi ion adul s en olled in SFI (Swedish o Immig an s) and LINC (Language Ins uc ion o Newcome s o Canada) language in eg a ion p og ams in he liminal spaces be ween belonging and o he ing. Guided by an unde s anding o c i ical social inclusion whe e mig an s se he bounda ies o in e ac ions wi h au ho i ies based upon hei own needs and in e es s, we p opose a ans o ma ional app oach. He e mig an lea ne s pa icipa e in a s uc u al p ocess whe e he luid na u e o social, poli ical, and economic a angemen s is consis en ly enego ia ed on p inciples o egali a ianism and he ull exe cise o c i ical agency, he ein en isioned as delibe a e ac ion esis ing he social domina ion o acialized mino i ies by challenging and ede ining ins i u ional s uc u es. Keywo ds adul mig an s uden ; c i ical social inclusion; inclusec ionali y; wo king li e in eg a ion Issue This a icle is pa o he issue “Adul Mig an s’ Language Lea ning, Labou Ma ke , and Social Inclusion” edi ed by And eas Fejes (Linköping Uni e si y) and Magnus Dahls ed (Linköping Uni e si y). © 2023 by he au ho (s); licensee Cogi a io P ess (Lisbon, Po ugal). This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License (CC BY). 1. In oduc ion A cha ac e is ic o bo h Canadian and Finnish social pol‐ icy ini ia i es discussing in eg a ion egimes o newly a i ed mig an s is he he o ic ha s a e‐sponso ed in e‐ g a ion p og ams should closely align wi h na ional eco‐ nomic needs (Ci izenship and Immig a ion Canada [CIC], 2010; Minis y o Economic A ai s and Employmen in Finland, 2016). The p esc ibed se lemen p ocess equi es ha mig an s pa icipa e ully in he labou ma ‐ ke , wi hin a nebulously de ined b oade objec i e o inc easing hei o e all socie al pa icipa ion (Kaushik & D ole , 2018; Saukkonen, 2017). Acco ding o he 2010 Finnish In eg a ion Ac , o example, mig an inclu‐ sion in o socie y can be conside ed success ul when hey ha e secu ed employmen (Finnish Minis y o Educa ion and Cul u e, 2016). As a esul , he main h us o bo h Finnish and Canadian in eg a ion edu‐ ca ion p og ams is on enhancing employabili y and acc uing language compe ences. Failing ha implies ha one’s in eg a ion, concei ed o in p ima ily indi id‐ ual e ms, mus be conside ed unsuccess ul (Pöyhönen & Ta nanen, 2015). Howe e , he e is also a ecogni‐ ion ha mig an skills and compe ences ha e been unde u ilized wi hin wo king li e and ha hei educa‐ ional jou neys a e o en long, con olu ed, some imes Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages X–X 1 unca ed, and equen ly us a ing (Finnish Minis y o Educa ion and Cul u e, 2016; OECD, 2018). A selec ion o esea ch examining he obs acles o e ec i e labou ma ‐ ke inclusion o Finnish and Canadian mig an s includes de iciencies in in o ma ion and guidance, a lack o ecogni ion o o eign c eden ials and p e ious wo k expe ience, employe s’ equi emen s o na i e wo k‐ ing expe ience and language luency, insu icien lan‐ guage skills, disc imina ion and ins i u ional acism, and a lack o social suppo as well as employmen ne ‐ wo ks (Alho, 2020; E o e e al., 2020; Kaushik & D ole , 2018; Masoud e al., 2020; Nakhaie & Kazemipu , 2013; Pöyhönen & Ta nanen, 2015; Sakamo o e al., 2010). Consequen ly, in eg a ion p og ams such as SFI and LINC mi o wide changes in social policy wi hin he wel a e s a e, which p omo e ma ke ‐o ien ed in e en‐ ions and measu able ou comes by emphasizing he acc uemen o skills and compe ences ha a e de ined acco ding o labou ma ke demands (Haque, 2017; Kä kkäinen, 2017). I emains a poin o discussion i mig an s a e au oma ically cons ued as unemployed wi hin hese p og ams which he eby seek o amelio a e his pe cei ed lack o employabili y h ough p ocesses o deskilling, eskilling, and upskilling (Ga s en & Jacobsson, 2004). Al hough bo h Canada and Finland a e na ions whe e o icial bilingualism is cons i u ionally ensh ined, p ac ices a y acco ding o how and whe e in eg a ion p og ams a e o e ed in he mino i y languages o F ench (CAN) and Swedish (FIN). Regional ac o s such as he p o‐ po ion o mino i y language speake s in a gi en locali y, dis inc local/p o incial legisla ions, and a gene al will‐ ingness o p edisposi ion o engage wi h mino i y con‐ ce ns a ec hei a ailabili y. In his a icle, we explo e he b idging po en ial o in eg a ion p og ams in acili a ing he inclusion o mig an s uden s wi hin wo king li e a No Ques College in Edmon on, Canada, and he Swedish Adul Educa ion Ins i u e (A bis) in Helsinki, Finland, using a mul iple case s udy app oach. We examine he “inclusec ionali ies,” e e ing o he in e sec ions o inclusion and exclusion ha posi ion adul mig an s en olled in LINC (Language Ins uc ion o Newcome s o Canada) and SFI (Swedish o Immig an s) language in eg a ion p og ams in he lim‐ inal spaces be ween belonging and o he ing (Pö zsch, 2020). Guided by an unde s anding o c i ical social inclu‐ sion whe e mig an lea ne s enego ia e social, poli ical, and economic a angemen s wi h majo i ies based on p inciples o egali a ianism and he ull exe cise o c i ical agency, we p opose a ans o ma ional app oach. He e inclusion is no p esc ip i e bu a dynamic, in ol ing, and e ol ing p ocess. 2. In eg a ion s. C i ical Social Inclusion 2.1. Why De ini ions Ma e Na ional in eg a ion educa ion p og ammes such as LINC and SFI ha e ended o adop a “ci ic in eg a‐ ionism” (Joppke, 2009) in which “good” mig an s a e ei ied by demons a ing language p o iciency, illing labou ma ke niches, and adop ing canons o libe al alues. Howe e , and his cons i u es he co e o ou a icle, such p og ams also p esc ibe how in e ac ions be ween s uden s and s a con igu e inclusion. They expose inclusec ionali ies as well as he a endan limi‐ nal spaces in which mig an s uden s a e subsequen ly posi ioned. Some imes hey can be bo h included and excluded wi hin he same shi ing zone (e.g., he labou ma ke ). How s uden s a e posi ioned depends g ea ly on who se es as an a bi e o e which exp essions o mig an di e si y ei he “help” o “hinde ” inclu‐ sion. Gi en he in e dependence o inclusec ionali ies, desc ibing he p ocess o social inclusion in in eg a ion educa ion p og ams ma e s, o as Ahmed (2012, p. 183) s a es, “ he e y p omise o inclusion can be he con‐ cealmen o exclusion.” I is, he e o e, impe a i e o explo e whe e he concep s and a ending p ac ices o in eg a ion and c i ical social inclusion di e ge as hey a e o en employed synonymously o in e changeably. Gi en he s a ic and o en s igma izing implica ion o he e m “immig an ,” in his a icle we ha e chosen o employ he mo e luid and less pejo a i e desc ip ion o “mig an ” in e e ing o adul s uden s in in eg a ion educa ion p og ams while acknowledging ha i oo is a con es ed e m. 2.2. In eg a ion Wes e n in eg a ion policy has been c i icized as a hinly eiled a emp o assimila e cul u al and o he di e ‐ ences in o he essen ialis na a i es o homogenous na ional cul u es (Fa ell, 2022; Schinkel, 2018). I a ge s in eg a ing he “mig an o he ” wi hin a la gely s a ic, unc i ically depic ed na ional home—no gene al soci‐ e al ans o ma ion (Hage, 2000). The majo i y’s unde ‐ lying a i ude o “we know wha ’s bes o immig an s” obs mig an s o hei c i ical engagemen c ea ing ela‐ ionships o dependence on he ecei ing socie y o which hey a e la e chas ised (Goldbe g, 2015). Ano he di icul y is ha in eg a ion is o en gauged as ei he a p esen s a e o an ou come. I is measu ed in labou ma ke pa icipa ion, language compe ence, educa ional diplomas, e c., and he eby obscu es he link be ween ou comes and s uc u al cons ain s (C ul & Schneide , 2012). A mo e on ological c i ique ocuses on he social imagina y which in o ms ou concep ions o in eg a ion. When in eg a ion e e s o pe sons “ou side o socie y,” who need o be g a ed in, socie y hen becomes ci ‐ cumsc ibed as he myopic domain o en i led majo i‐ ies who a e gi en an exemp ion om such in eg a ion egimes. Socie y hus concei ed has no in eg a ion p ob‐ lems. Howe e , i i we e posi ed ha socie y includes all who mo e wi hin i s na ional/in e na ional domain hen aiming in eg a ion measu es solely a dis inc indi idu‐ als o g oups o “mig an o he s” becomes p oblema ic (Schinkel, 2019). Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages X–X 2 The in e minable mig a ion wo ies embedded in his exclusiona y unde s anding o socie y may, in ac , mask ea s o “ eal” in eg a ion (Beauzamy & Fé on, 2012; Len in & Ti ley, 2011). On he one hand, “we” mus be seen o wan o in eg a e “ hem” while pa a‐ doxically ea i ming he “ u h” o hei non‐in eg abili y in o de o jus i y hei illibe al ea men . In in eg a ion discou se, g oups o mig an s uden s a e ypically iden‐ i ied by wha hey lack, such as linguis ic compe ences o wo k expe ience in he ecei ing coun y. Acco dingly, mig an lea ne s a e expec ed o upda e o e o m adi‐ ions and skills ha a e p esupposed o impede hei abil‐ i y o in eg a e. In his way, in eg a ion p og ams become a medium o deskilling and e‐skilling s uden s p edi‐ ca ed on assump ions o “ he lack” (Kä kkäinen, 2017). Explana ions o pe o mance de ici s a e a ibu ed o he obse ed cha ac e is ics o indi iduals o o he ness o he g oup and a e no placed a he doo o he edu‐ ca ional sys em in which hey pa icipa e o which hey subsequen ly lea e (Hil , 2015). 2.3. C i ical Social Inclusion By con as , c i ical social inclusion shi s he adap ion bu den om mig an s o socie y. This ansposi ional eimagining o inclusion o ces majo i ies o u n hei gaze om he mig an o he on o hemsel es o in e ‐ oga e how hei aken‐ o ‐g an ed en i lemen s a e e lec ed in and ep oduced by socie y. This necessi a es ha ci il ins i u ions ackle inequali ies based on class, gende , ace, and eligion as s uc u al impedimen s o he e ec i e exe cise o poli ical agency and con on hegemonies (S ewa , 2000). Recognizing ha socie al s uc u es a e icissi udinous is a p e equisi e o social ans o ma ion on his scale. Inclusion, so en isaged, is no based on in eg a ionis esponses ha p esume mig an subsump ion in o some hing as aguely de ined and s a ic as “socie y.” I en ails a clea ecogni ion ha inclusion’s egali a ianism goals a e illuso y i he assump‐ ions and p ac ices egula ing e e yday social and ins i‐ u ional li e emain e hnically skewed and acially blink‐ e ed. Inhe en ly, his implies a adical ans o ma ion o he aims and pe o mance o inclusion. The bounda ies o solida i y a e ed awn, “no by ans o ming hose on he ou side o clones o inside s, bu by alo izing he di e si y ha hey b ing wi h hem” (Ki is o, 2015, p. 25). In ou de ini ion o c i ical inclusion, mig an s a e egali a ian collabo a o s in enego ia ing poli ical, social, and economic a angemen s wi h majo i ies on p inci‐ ples o social jus ice (Askonas & S ewa , 2000). How inclusion is p ac iced is no p esc ibed by majo i ies bu is ecip ocally nego ia ed and ansac ed wi h acial‐ ized mino i ies. I s means and schemes a e mu able and adap able o he singula i ies o social ci cums ances. Social inclusion in his sense is no seen as a mo e benign and less assimila ionis e sion o in eg a ing mig an s in o a p e‐de ined socie y bu a he in o a p ocess o social imagining ha is ans o ma i e, emana ing om mig an s’ own needs and ci cums ances. When his hap‐ pens, he bounda ies o solida i y can expand (A ac & Rosenbe ge , 2013). Thus, he mos c ucial di e ence be ween in eg a ion and inclusion es s in he ideological and p ac ical con en s wi h which hese a e in es ed. The inclusion challenge is o emb ace socie y as a dynamic, mul i udinous cons uc wi hin which social bounda ies a e de ined and con es ed by di e se pa icipan s wi h unequal access o sou ces o powe and a enues o pe ‐ suasion; and o acknowledge his inequali y as la gely s uc u al while a emp ing o alle ia e i . As such, i mus be ecognized ha all p ojec s o inclusion po en ially gene a e new o ms o exclusion which a e subjec , in u n, o c i ique and democ a ic e o m (Pö zsch, 2018). 2.4. S uc u al Resea ch Examining LINC and SFI In eg a ion P og ams P e ious esea ch ha sc u inizes LINC and SFI om a s uc u al pe spec i e, by analysing he unconscious soci‐ e al and ins i u ional no ms shaping pedagogy and in e‐ g a ion egimes is gene ally spa se. Howe e , he e a e no able excep ions. Among hem, a e hose ha ha e in e oga ed he ami ica ions o en enching p inciples o neolibe alism and new public managemen , exem‐ pli ied by a ocus on mig an employabili y and sel ‐ su iciency (see Ca lson & Jacobson, 2019; Y. Guo, 2013; Haque, 2017; Paque & Xha dez, 2020; Sandwall, 2013; Slade, 2015; Webb, 2017). Addi ionally, s udies ha e c i‐ iqued he hea y ocus on language acquisi ion in unde ‐ lining ha language p o iciency alone is no a gua an o o social inclusion o socio‐economic ad ancemen (see Ennse ‐Kananen & Pe i , 2017; Pö zsch, 2020; Rosén, 2014). Resea ch has also p oblema ized he “de iciency discou se” in which mig an lea ne s a e iden i ied by wha hey lack in pe cei ed language as well as cul‐ u al and employmen compe ences (see Gibb, 2015; He zbe g, 2015; Hil , 2015). These s udies pose he ques ion o whe he he policy goal—“ ull” inclusion in socie y—is a all ealizable i exclusion p ocesses a e an in e nal pa o inclusion p ocesses. Mo e gene ally, he concep o mig an employabili y de ined h ough “indi idual esponsibili y” (Colliande e al., 2022; E o e e al., 2020; Fejes & Be glund, 2010; Lindblad & Lundahl, 2020) and “deskilling & eskilling” (Aydine & Ride , 2022; S. Guo, 2015; O iga, 2021), as being equa ed wi h “success ul” in eg a ion (Nakhaie & Kazemipu , 2013; Pöyhönen & Ta nanen, 2015) and as “c ea ing liminal‐ i ies” (Died ich & Omano ić, 2023; Kaushik & D ole , 2018; Sakamo o e al., 2010; Yijälä & Nyman, 2017) is cen al o ou discussion. 3. Me hodology 3.1. Me hods and Da a We examined how social inclusion was concei ed, con‐ es ed, and p ac ically ope a ionalized wi hin LINC and Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages X–X 3 SFI cu icula modules designed o enhance mig an employabili y and labou ma ke pa icipa ion. Resea ch ques ions guiding ou inqui y we e: Wha is he b idging po en ial o SFI and LINC in eg a ion p og ams in acili a ‐ ing he inclusion o adul mig an s uden s wi hin wo k‐ ing li e? Wha a e he esul ing inclusec ionali ies in posi‐ ioning adul mig an s uden s c ea ed by hese e o s a wo k‐li e inclusion? Th ough bo h semi‐s uc u ed and in‐dep h quali‐ a i e in e iews, we o eg ounded he expe iences o s a , s uden s, and employe s. This s udy ook inspi‐ a ion om esea ch designs ha embody a collabo‐ a i e, pa icipan ‐cen ed app oach (B own & S ega, 2005). Acco dingly, we spen ex ended ieldwo k pe i‐ ods in Helsinki and Edmon on be ween he yea s o 2018–2019. We adop ed a mul iple case s udy esea ch app oach ins ead o a compa a i e case s udy app oach o ep esen he expe iences o con ibu o s. The la ‐ e seeks simila i ies and di e ences among cases based on a ew speci ied a ibu es. Howe e , his ocus on p e‐desc ibed a iables o opics o compa isons can obscu e he si ua ionali y and complexi y o cases and deli e mo e simplis ic a he han “ hick desc ip‐ ions” (S ake, 2006, p. 82). By con as , he aim o mul iple case s udies app oaches is o elucida e new in o ma ion abou a b oad pa e n ha holds ac oss cases and analyze he commonali ies ha cha ac e ‐ ize hem. The e o e, in p esen ing ou indings we ha e no adop ed he compa a i e app oach by jux a‐ posing and sepa a ely con as ing No Ques o A bis cases bu sough o highligh ecu ing pa e ns as well as s eng hs and weaknesses accompanied by he mos ep esen a i e illus a i e quo es ha connec ou c oss‐case hemes. The ma e ial consis s o 53 in‐dep h, semi‐s uc u ed in e iews wi h eache s, adminis a o s, s uden s, sup‐ po pe sonnel, and ep esen a i es om wo king li e (32 om A bis and 21 om No Ques ). In e iew an‐ sc ip s and obse a ion logs gene a ed a mul i ace ed quali a i e da ase , analyzed using ATLAS. i aided induc‐ i e con en analysis. This included s ages o coding, ca ‐ ego iza ion, and heming. In he coding s age, single codes including bo h emic and e ic labels we e inse ed in he ma gins o collec ed da a a chi e iles ep esen ‐ ing he en i e y o he ieldwo k ma e ial. This s age was ollowed by ca ego iza ion, i.e., labels we e subse‐ quen ly subsumed unde code g oups and la e ca e‐ go ies. In his g ouping, al hough codes we e aken om he en i e da abase in ATLAS. i, a ag was made nex o each elemen o da a o indica e which case na a‐ i e i o igina ed om. Code g oups ep esen ed in a‐ ins i u ional ac o s such as cu iculum s uc u e, s udy choices, s uden and eache pa icipa ion, disc imina‐ ion, e c., as well as ex a‐ins i u ional ac o s including liaising, employe eadiness, goal se ing, p ac ice expe‐ iences, and alue bases among o he s. This ini ia ed he so ing o codes in o ela ed ca ego ies depending on hei con ex ual linkages and in e ela ions. In e iew guides helped o s eamline he coding p ocess as in e ‐ iews ollowed a ce ain sequen ial hy hm. The lexi‐ ble na u e o he code amily p og am in ATLAS. i also allowed o a c ea i e eo de ing and e‐con igu ing o code g oups and in e linkages in a i ing a hemes. Os ensibly, he heming s age in he s udy began a he ea ly. Du ing da a collec ion and in he i s s ages o ana‐ lysis, ce ain subjec i e u hs embedded in he ma e ial began o eme ge (i.e., he ole o enabling and disabling s uc u al ac o s). This cogni i e eadiness was e ined du ing he mapping s ages o subsequen ieldwo k pe i‐ ods. The code amily p og am se ed as he means o c ys allizing he inal hemes. In making heme choices, he shee equency o pa icula codes did no necessa ‐ ily dic a e inal heme selec ion. In ac , i was some imes he a ypical o ma ginal ca ego ies ha encapsula ed a pa icula poignancy in desc ibing he phenomenon o wo k‐li e inclusion. Some conside a ions ha helped in heming we e hinking abou how hemes linked up wi h esea ch ques ions and how hey e lec ed he bo de ed eali y o single cases. Fo example, is he chosen heme one which holds ue o all case s udies? Be o e mak‐ ing a inal selec ion hen, we e isi ed he No Ques and A bis ma e ial sepa a ely and compa ed he associa ions he hemes had wi h he da a. Ul ima ely, ou analysis yielded he ollowing inal hemes: “ i ing in” and “back‐ g ound ma e s.” In conduc ing in e iews (45–90 min.), enues, imes, and da es we e adap ed o he wishes and needs o he in e iewees. Pa icipan s c ea i ely challenged and pe ‐ sonalized ou dialogues on la ge hema ic a eas co e ‐ ing “sel ‐ e lexi i y” (i.e., how in o man s e lec ed on hei own unde s anding o and con ibu ion o inclusion wi hin wo king li e), inclusion’s “pe o mance” deno ‐ ing how inclusi e p ac ices we e p ac ically ope a ional‐ ized wi hin and beyond ins i u ions, and he “s uc‐ u al ac o s” aiding o impeding i s implemen a ion. In in e iews wi h mig an s uden s, he policy o gi ‐ ing oice and choice dic a ed a angemen s. SFI lea n‐ e s spoke ei he Swedish o English, he la e o en being he p e e ed choice as mos s uden s’ compe‐ ence in English exceeded hei Swedish language p o‐ iciency. Un o una ely, ou ieldwo k a No Ques was unca ed by he Co id pandemic and hus LINC s uden in e iews ha we e scheduled o 2020 could no be comple ed. This also accoun s o he unde ep esen a‐ ion o LINC s uden oices in he analysis. 3.2. E hical Conside a ions We buil a ounda ion o us wi h s udy pa icipan s and ele an ga ekeepe s by es ablishing con ac s in ad ance including p epa a o y isi s o he schools. Gaining access o mig an s uden g oups was aided by in oduc o y in o ma ion sessions whe e we solici ed hei pa icipa ion by dis ibu ing o mal le e s o con‐ sen and explained he olun a y na u e o pa icipa‐ ion as well as issues o con iden iali y, p i acy, and da a Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages X–X 4 secu i y. To ensu e con iden iali y, he iden i ies o in e ‐ iewees we e p o ec ed by assigning pseudonyms and by he non‐disclosu e o iden i ying backg ound in o ma‐ ion. When wo king wi h ulne able pa icipan s such as mig an s uden s, da a access by whom and o wha pu poses is a ecu ing ques ion. We he e o e de ised a da a managemen plan ha ensu ed ha du ing and a e he p ojec , all da a would be secu ed in a locked s o age and sa ed on secu e se e s wi h each ile p o‐ ec ed by a passwo d. We also had o submi a ho ough e hical applica ion be o e commencing he No Ques College ieldwo k. Sepa a e e hical applica ions we e no a equi emen o he Finnish case s udies. 3.3. Si e Desc ip ions: No Ques LINC and A bis SFI LINC is a ede ally unded p og am in oduced by he Canada Employmen and Immig a ion Commission (pa o CIC) in 1992 (Ce a iuc & Ricen o, 2012). Acco ding o i s mission s a emen , i aims o acili a e he in e‐ g a ion o mig an s in o Canadian cul u e by p o id‐ ing language and se lemen aining and by ex ending possibili ies o de elop employmen and social compe‐ ences. In he p o ince o Albe a, p e equisi es o s u‐ den eligibili y include ha ing pe manen esidence s a‐ us and a p elimina y Canadian Language Benchma k (CLB) assessmen (CIC, 2015). Du ing he ime o ou ieldwo k, No Ques College’s LINC p og am educa ed mo e han 1500 mig an s uden s in in eg a ion classes anging om CLB le els 3–8. S uc u ed a ound po olio‐ based lea ning assessmen s as he ounda ion o cu ‐ icula de elopmen , i g ouped s uden s o he same educa ional backg ound oge he acco ding o hei p e‐ ious educa ional his o ies. In ecogni ion o he a ied li e si ua ions o s uden s, No Ques College’s LINC o e s a wide ange o ull and pa ‐ ime s udies, as well as specialized classes o ganised in lexible ime schedules (Le eb e, 2014). In 2019, he p og am was in a phase o ansi ion o mee he Canadian Fede al Go e nmen ’s inc easing employmen ocus o newly a i ed mig an s wi h all CLB le els now ea u ing in‐class modules on employ‐ men including hemes on CV‐w i ing and job in e ‐ iew p epa a ion (Paque & Xha dez, 2020). In addi‐ ion, he newly in oduced, go e nmen ally subsidized LincWo ks p og am p esen ed CLB 3–5 s uden s wi h oppo uni ies o engage in paid, en y‐le el job in e n‐ ships. Communi y se ice‐lea ning modules p o ided mig an lea ne s a CLB 6–7 le els wi h expe ien ial lea n‐ ing componen s. Concomi an ly, LINC p o ided employ‐ men ce i ica e aining in ood sa e y, i s aid, and occupa ional heal h o acili a e wo kplace en y. These modules we e embedded wi hin a comp ehensi e ne o s uden suppo se ices including wo kplace‐in eg a ed lea ning (WIL) s a who liaised wi h wo k‐li e collabo a‐ o s and ma ched lea ne s wi h placemen s, social wo k‐ e s, employmen counselo s, and a ca ee cen e ha assis ed in secu ing employmen . Unlike he Finnish SFI cou ses, howe e , obliga o y wo k in e nship pe iods o all pa icipa ing s uden s we e no an in eg al pa o LINC. The Swedish A bis SFI ep esen s an in e es ing case as i is embedded wi hin a majo i y language (Finnish) en i onmen o e ing in eg a ion educa ion in he o he o icial (and mino i y) language, Swedish. A bis o e s an SFI p og am o iginally concei ed o as a pilo wi hin he na ional in eg a ion p ojec Pa icipa ing in Finland (Ta nanen e al., 2013). I s cu iculum is based on he guidelines laid down by he Na ional Boa d o Educa ion (Finnish Na ional Boa d o Educa ion, 2012) and on he Ac on he P omo ion o Immig an In eg a ion (1386/2010) aimed a ad ancing mig an in eg a ion by acili a ing hei ac i e pa icipa ion in wo king li e and ci ic ac i i ies. SFI is a ge ed a mig an newcome s wi h s a u o y in eg a ion suppo including an in eg a‐ ion plan om he local employmen se ices bu can also be accessed as olun a y s udies as pa o ia bildningen, o he in o mal, s a e‐subsidized adul edu‐ ca ion sys em. I comp ises 20 hou s/week o compul‐ so y language lea ning in one o he o icial languages (Finnish o Swedish). Acco ding o A bis’ own mission s a emen (Helsing o s A bis in eg a ionsg upp, 2012, p. 5), “ he educa ion aims o p omo e social jus ice and help mig an s o adap o and engage wi h Finnish socie y while simul aneously a i ming hei own cul u al back‐ g ound.” Pa icipa ion is p eceded by an en ance es ocusing on eading, w i ing, and lis ening skills, g am‐ ma knowledge, as well as ma h and IT skills. A bis o e s oca ional componen s in ou hema ic a eas: (a) wo king li e skills; (b) knowledge o wo king li e; (c) ca ee choice; and (d) in e nships. The “wo k‐ ing li e skills” cou se p o ides p ac ical skills ele an o he Finnish labou ma ke , whe eas he goal o he “knowledge o wo king li e” cou se is ha he s uden s ecei e basic ac s abou wo king li e p ac ices as well as labo legisla ion. The s uden s also become amilia wi h job sea ch channels o enhance hei employabil‐ i y in addi ion o pa icipa ing in CV and job applica ion wo kshops. Du ing he “ca ee choice” cou se, he s u‐ den s ecei e indi idual ca ee supe ision and c ea e a ca ee plan. The inal pa consis s o an in e nship in a Swedish‐speaking o ganiza ion o six weeks. Impo an suppo ha complemen s he wo k o language each‐ e s a e ca ee supe iso s and in e nship p o ide s. 4. Findings A conside a ion in ep esen ing ou indings was ha any iden i ied heme(s) should inhe en ly highligh ecu ‐ ing c oss‐case pa e ns in keeping wi hin a mul iple case s udy app oach. We ha e he e o e a oided sepa a ing cases in o a Finnish/Canadian compa a i e dicho omy and chosen hose quo es ha mos poignan ly desc ibe ecu ing pa e ns as well as s eng hs and weaknesses o wo king li e inclusion p esen a No Ques College LINC as well as A bis SFI. Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages X–X 5 4.1. Fi ing In The ollowing quo e nea ly encapsula es a ecu ing heme wi hin ou esea ch, namely ha he h us and di ec ion o cu icula componen s a ge ing wo king li e inclusion wi hin LINC and SFI in eg a ion p og ams aimed la gely a mig an s “ i ing in” o mee labou ma ke and employe needs: And hen we alked abou he Canadian wo k‐ place…how can you change and i in, so i wo ks o you employe . (LINCWo ks cu iculum planne ) Gi en he a icula ed p io i y ha hese p og ams align wi h social policy di ec i es aimed a enhancing mig an employabili y in bo h Canada and Finland, a clea shi owa ds wo k‐li e in eg a ion was e iden . LINC’s cu ‐ icula employmen modules a all CLB le els as well as SFI’s compulso y in e nships o all mig an lea n‐ e s a es o his. Some esea ch pa icipan s es i ied ha hese had se e al inclusi e ou comes including s u‐ den empowe men : One lady om Sy ia, he d eam was o be in child‐ ca e, wen h ough he job in e iew. I was no easy and she did amazing. They hi ed he and I swea o he nex wo days she smiled like….She was so happy and so i ’s kind o like a d eam coming ue. (LINCWo ks planne ) The job‐ma ching endea ou s unde aken by WIL s a who liaised wi h wo k‐li e collabo a o s pai ing lea n‐ e s wi h placemen s a e assessing s uden needs and wishes ep esen ed ano he cons uc i e way in which LINC a emp ed o b idge he school–labou ma ‐ ke di ide. In eg a ed o subsidized wo k placemen s wi hin also p o ided hose mig an lea ne s who seemed “s uck” epea ing he same CLB le els mul iple imes, an oppo uni y o a esh s a , he chance o es ablish com‐ muni y con ac s, and o p ac ice o he skills. Such p o‐ g ams supplemen ed an awa eness o he impo ance o s uc u al suppo s in acili a ing mig an employmen i go e nmen al aims, as well as educa ional goals, we e o be me . Simila ly, in he Finnish con ex , success ul in e nships could wo k as b idge builde s o he labou ma ke and he Swedish‐speaking communi y a la ge in p o iding oppo uni ies o SFI s uden s o imp o e hei language and o ganisa ional skills, and expand hei social ne wo ks: I is impo an o us o unde s and whe e hey a e going wi h a i e‐yea in e al, i.e., whe e his pe son wan s o end up. And because we ha e so many wo k assignmen s, we ake his backg ound in o accoun . One o he ainees wo ked wi h main aining a eg‐ is e sys em, answe ed he phone, helped a e en s. Ano he has wo ked a a ai wi h ma ke ac i i ies. My ecommenda ion hi s p e y high when I know lo s o people and ha e a massi e ne wo k. The s u‐ den s ha e ealized i hemsel es, when hey see which people mo e a ound he e and who hey mee . (CEO o a Swedish‐speaking associa ion) The employe s’ commi men o de o e hei ime o he s uden s’ needs and o inco po a e hem in o he wo k cul u e was o u mos impo ance o a success ul in e n‐ ship. This was also emphasized by A bis s a who p o‐ ided employe s wi h ins uc ions: A bis ad ised us o gi e he s uden meaning ul wo k‐ ing asks, bu hey also poin ed ou [ ha ] he p i‐ o i y in he p og am was o p o ide he s uden wi h an oppo uni y o ex end his social ne wo ks and be pa o ou co ee communi y. (Head o a Finnish‐Swedish NGO) Al hough inding in e nships o highly educa ed mig an s p o ed di icul , he majo i y o he in e ‐ iewed SFI s uden s we e sa is ied wi h hei p ac ice placemen e en when hese did no always ma ch hei p e ious educa ion o wo k expe ience. The indings, howe e , also demons a e ha he cu icula modules aiming a labou ma ke inclusion gene a ed hei own unique inclusec ionali ies. LINCWo ks, o example, was a op‐down ini ia i e wi h a cu iculum desc ibed by eache s as in lexible and p esc ip i e. I embodied a dis‐ inc ocus on pe sonal change by emphasizing compe‐ ences such as “so skills,” sweepingly de ined as social and beha iou al employmen skills mig an s seemingly lacked. Topics on disc imina ion and acism in wo king li e, as well as how o con on and add ess hese we e conspicuous by hei absence. A poignan example o he exclusiona y ou comes o pu po edly inclusiona y mea‐ su es was how s uden s we e selec ed o LINCWo ks: S uden s we e pu in o hose classes. So, hey didn’ choose i , and he e was some backlash, so we we e ins uc ed no o call i LINCWo ks. Because s uden s didn’ wan o hink ha hey we e pu in o he LINCWo ks class, as he e was a bi o a s igma….They dese e o know, and ha ’s pa o ea ing s u‐ den s wi h espec and no being so pa e nalis ic. (LINCWo ks eache ) The “s igma” desc ibed abo e was oo ed in s u‐ den s´ pe cep ions ha a p og am unneling hem in o low‐wage, en y‐le el wo k would s ymie hei language lea ning, dep i e hem o oppo uni ies o ad ance‐ men , and se hem apa . O he conce ns, howe e , we e mo e undamen al in na u e and ques ioned he neo‐libe al ideology unde pinning he inc easing employ‐ men ocus as po en ially c ea ing a mig an unde class: One o my conce ns is ha we a e c ea ing his unde ‐ class. We a e saying, oh, come o Canada, we’ll gi e you enough language ha you can clean ho els o Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages X–X 6 he es o you li e. S uden s ha e aspi a ions beyond ha , and I hink we do hem a disse ice i we don’ ealize ha and acili a e hei ulle in eg a ion in o Canada….I eally s uggle wi h his. A e we saying ha [paid] wo k is he only way o be a success ul pa ic‐ ipan in ou cul u e, ou socie y? Wha kind o wo k a e we p epa ing s uden s o ? Is i jus o ill in hose low‐wage jobs nobody wan s o do? (LINC eache ) 4.2. Backg ound Ma e s Ano he pe haps unin ended side e ec o he p eoccu‐ pa ion wi h p ima ily job‐ ela ed skills was ha i ailed o ecognize he he e ogenei y o s uden backg ounds, occupa ional aspi a ions, and pe sonal o educa ional choices, hus pa adoxically emo ing choice: How we app oach wo k doesn’ speak o a lo o women who’ e been wo king in adi ional oles. I was e y demo i a ing when we we e alking abou employmen because in his class he women we e ei he on he e ge o becoming g andmo he s who had wo ked ha d o ge hei amilies he e sa e, o hey we e eally young moms who a e jus like, yeah, I wanna wo k someday. P og ams a e ocused on e ail, cleaning, unskilled cons uc ion and none o hose speak o whe e hese g oups o women a e. (LINC eache ) The abo e quo e illus a es no only he exclusiona y ou ‐ comes o he myopic ocus on paid wo k which ails o alida e he wid h and b ead h o socie al pa icipa ion bu also desc ibes he liminal posi ion o hose mig an lea ne s who do no i he paid jobseeke p o ile. Lack o ecogni ion o s uden s’ educa ional and social back‐ g ound was also cha ac e is ic o SFI classes. Fo exam‐ ple, an SFI eache showed a lis o “bes jobs” based on open acancies wi h an emphasis on low‐skilled wo k. These we e ma ke ed as “easily accessible jobs” o “jobs o look o .” Such he o ic acili a es he de alua ion o he exis ing skills, expe iences, and di e se educa ional backg ounds o SFI s uden s. A angen ial esul o helping s uden s “ i in” o mee labou ma ke and employe needs was he discou se o “managing expec a ions” and “ ans e able skills” wi hin wo king li e‐cen ed cu icula modules. The sub ex o exho ing s uden s o adjus hei expec a ions— o be “ ealis ic”—in ela ion o u u e ca ee plans and he choice o wo k in e nships some imes se ed as a jus i‐ ica ion why hei p ac ice o employmen wishes could no always be me : We ge a lo o [complain ] calls. In one example, we asked a s uden who no mally wo ks wi h ou senio s on ec ea ion o help sweep up lea es because ou g oundskeepe was sho someone, and he s uden said no, ha ’s no wha he’s he e o do. Bu we also ha e o wo k on coaching hem a bi i hey wan ha eally good e e ence o mo e up in a ca ee o e ime ha hey ha e o ake on hese addi ional esponsibili ies when asked. (LINC p og am planne ) Wha is in e es ing in he abo e quo e is ha ins ead o ecognizing he s uden ’s agency in ques ioning he occu‐ pa ional bounda ies o his job, he la e is essen ially old o “go along o ge along” because an employe ’s posi i e e e ence ou weighs such conce ns. Thus, hose mig an s who ailed o “manage hei expec a ions” ol‐ lowing LINC and employe needs we e consigned o he liminal posi ion o being included wi hin he labou ma ‐ ke a he expense o hei own ini ia i e and aspi a‐ ions. Also, in SFI in e nships, s uden needs we e some‐ imes subo dina ed o hose o employe s by equi ing mig an lea ne s o wo k in jobs nei he i ing hei edu‐ ca ion no mo i a ion. Fo example, wo SFI s uden s wo ked alone in an a chi e du ing hei en i e in e n‐ ship, whe eas ano he s uden wi h a backg ound in law wo ked in a kinde ga en. In e es ingly hough, employ‐ e s s essed ha hey oo lacked in o ma ion abou s u‐ den s’ cul u al, social, and poli ical backg ounds. Gi en ha some s uden s had a i ed as auma ized e ugees om coun ies s ill plagued by wa , his unde lines he impo ance o majo i ies engaging wi h acialized mino i ies be o e subjec ing hem o ixed in eg a ion o employmen egimes. The he o ic o “ ans e able skills” ollowed a sim‐ ila logic. I essen ially p opaga ed he necessi y o eskilling s uden s by elling hem ha main aining hei p e ious ca ee s may be di icul due o di e ing employ‐ men s anda ds, bu ha hei skillse could be ead‐ jus ed o con o m o ela ed occupa ions whe e labou ma ke sho ages exis ed. Al hough s a a emp ed o mee s uden s’ wishes by ma ching hem wi h wo k‐ ing li e pa ne s, hey also admi ed o coaxing hem o selec ela ed al e na i es: We y and help b oaden ha pe spec i e and ind ways o hem o see ha , “[i ] I wanna be an admin‐ is a i e assis an so I’m gonna go olun ee a a non‐p o i and wo k a he ecep ion desk.” Maybe you i le is no adminis a i e assis an , bu ob i‐ ously you’ e ge ing expe ience on you esume o help you ge he e. We s uggle a lo wi h s uden s, o hem o unde s and he concep o ans e able skills and he ac ha i you wo k in an o ice he e, i ’ll help ge you skills ha will e en ually lead o he ca ee you wan . (LINC planne ) These poignan examples om he LINC p og am e eal once again he impac o inclusec ionali ies and hei esul ing liminal posi ioning o mig an lea ne s. While he p edominan discou ses o Wes e n immig a ion egimes posi ion employed mig an s as success ully in eg a ed—as included—i becomes appa en how mig an oices and compe ences a e easily de alued and excluded wi hin his na a i e. Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages X–X 7 5. Discussion To build an unde s anding o how LINC and SFI in e‐ g a ion educa ion acili a es he wo k‐li e inclusion o adul mig an lea ne s, ou s udy e ealed a numbe o inclusec ionali ies and he a endan liminal spaces which si ua ed s uden s be ween belonging and o he ‐ ing. The heme o mig an s “ i ing in” o mee labou ma ke needs, o example, illus a es he pa adoxi‐ cal na u e o he double ges u es o inclusion and exclusion (Popkewi z, 2009). While he pedagogical shi om p edominan ly language compe ence acc ue‐ men o employabili y signals a ecogni ion ha social inclusion demanded mo e om in eg a ion p og ams, how employabili y was ope a ionalized in neo‐libe al e ms simul aneously delimi ed mig an pa icipa ion and agency. Gi en he esou ce capaci y, ex ensi e ins i u ional suppo s, and b ead h o cu icula choice wi hin No Ques LINC, i became appa en ha o ganising wo k‐ ing li e modules was easie o la ge p og ams han hose in esou ce and pe sonnel‐s apped communi y‐ based educa ional p o ide s like A bis. No Ques LINC’s ne wo k o employe s, social wo ke s, counselo s, and o he ca ee planning ini ia i es was unma ched and a es ed o social inclusion being seen as a mul i‐ sec o ial socie al conce n (Lindblad & Lundahl, 2020). The job‐ma ching and labou ma ke liaising done by WIL s a as well as a p epa edness among employe s ex ended empowe ing oppo uni ies o s uden s who we e, o a ious easons, no bes se ed by class oom‐ based, language‐cen e ed pedagogies. A he same ime, by aming employabili y wi hin a na a i e o pe sonal esponsibili y and change, mig an s bo h indi idually and as a g oup became he objec s o speci ic e o s o amelio a e he “immig an condi ion” (He zbe g, 2015), he eby excluding hei aspi a ions in o de o “ i hem in o” he labou ma ke (Hil , 2015). P esc ip i e cu ic‐ ula s essed adap a ion while omi ing discussions on dis‐ c imina ion, gende inequali y, and occupa ional igh s in p esen ing an idealized uni e sal wo kplace cul u e (Y. Guo, 2013; Slade, 2015). The ec ui men p ocesses in LINCWo ks whe e s uden s we e en olled wi hou hei knowledge o conceal he cou se’s “low‐wage job unnel‐ ing” s igma illus a ed ano he exclusiona y ou come o op‐down employabili y schemes and he liminal posi‐ ion in which i placed mig an lea ne s. SFI s uden s could also bene i om a mo e a ge ed coo dina ion o in e nships which ully in ol e hem in he planning and implemen a ion o hei p ac ice pe iods and ecip ocally connec in e nship lea ning mo e closely o language and cul u al s udy modules in class. C ucially, employe s mus ex end s uden s’ g ea e oppo uni ies o exe cise hei language skills and amilia ize hemsel es wi h wo king cul u es, while in ol ing hem in Swedish‐speaking com‐ muni y ne wo ks. Wi hin he “ i ing in o ill he domes ic skills gap” discou se ha included an emphasis on ans e able skills, managing expec a ions, and de‐skilling he e is a dange ha employabili y goals become hegemonic ales in which mig an s’ p io wo k skills and quali ica ions a e de alued (Webb, 2017). These ea s a e encapsula ed in he LINC ins uc o ’s quo e on he c ea ion o an e hnic unde class as an inclusec ional ou come o wo k‐li e in e‐ g a ion modules whe e mig an subjec i i ies a e con‐ s uc ed h ough hei abili y o nego ia e and su i e he “ icious cycle o skilling” (Masoud e al., 2020, p. 116). This cycle becomes a disempowe ing eskilling eadmill whe e, in o de o mee labou ma ke demands, s u‐ den s a e compelled o in e minably “ e‐educa e” hem‐ sel es while elinquishing hei own ca ee aspi a ions. Aydine and Ride (2022) a gue ha he insecu i ies in he a ious s ages o he mig a ion and se lemen p o‐ cess ha e he cumula i e e ec o compounding mig an ulne abili ies. The e is also e idence ha collabo a ions be ween employe s and public o ganiza ions in p o id‐ ing in e nships ollowed he “ i ing in” sc ip (Died ich & Omano ić, 2023). A an elemen a y le el, he LINC eache ’s que y i he only alue s uden s ha e is ha o a wo ke o ce ain p e‐selec ed occupa ions ep e‐ sen s a c ucial commen a y on labou ma ke inclusion e o s which equa e success ul in eg a ion wi h secu ‐ ing any so o employmen . This employabili y he o ic was u he pedagogically de ined in he p eeminence gi en o componen s in wo king li e modules ha posi‐ ioned mig an s uden s as neolibe al subjec s who mus become lexible li elong lea ne s and en ep eneu ial subjec s made esponsible o hei own employmen ou comes (Haque, 2017, p. 107). These sus ained a de i‐ ciency discou se while aci ly enabling disc imina ion by employe s (E o e e al., 2020; Sakamo o e al., 2010). Mo eo e , i en enched powe hie a chies by exemp ‐ ing majo i ies om in e oga ing hei own assump ions embedded in cu en labou ma ke policies and in eg a‐ ion egimes (Pö zsch, 2020). Ou indings a e in line wi h p e ious s udies showing ha mig an s’ mul iple subjec i i ies a e o en no aken in o conside a ion in “p agma ic” cu icula discou ses a ound labou ma ke pa icipa ion. The e is a dange ha i s uden ‐cen e ed, pa icipa o y app oaches a e eplaced wi h a numbe o p esc ibed skills and no ma‐ i e beha iou s mig an s a e o “pe o m” in occupa‐ ional se ings, one imposes no only whose knowledge is alued, bu also nulli ies he ecip ocal b idging po en‐ ial o such p og ams (Ennse ‐Kananen & Pe i , 2017; Gibb, 2015; Sandwall, 2013; Webb, 2017). E idence om No Ques LINC’s new labou ma ke ini ia i es sug‐ ges s ha his was p ecisely wha was happening unde moun ing go e nmen al and adminis a i e p essu es o ind employmen o LINC lea ne s. While labou ma ke in eg a ion modules idealized employed mig an s as suc‐ cess ully in eg a ed—as included—i became appa en how mig an oices and compe ences a e easily de al‐ ued and excluded wi hin his na a i e. Social Inclusion, 2023, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages X–X 8