Communi y Psychology in Global Pe spec i e
CPGP, Comm. Psych. Glob. Pe sp. Vol 2, Issue 1, 73 – 86
73
HOW ARE WE STUDYING MIGRANT WELL-BEING?
A CRITICAL VIEW FROM A LIBERATING COMMUNITY
PSYCHOLOGY APPROACH
Vi ginia Paloma*, Manuel Ga cía-Ramí ez*, Ca los Camacho**
and Lucas Olmedo*
The imp o emen o mig an popula ion well-being is bo h a goal in i sel as well as a
necessa y componen o achie ing a cohesi e mul icul u al socie y. To con ibu e o his
challenge, his wo k (a) e iews how mig an well-being has been s udied by mains eam
psychology; (b) assesses i s de elopmen om a c i ical iew; and (c) p oposes
heo e ical and me hodological app oaches o analyze his phenomenon om a mo e
comp ehensi e pe spec i e. Thus, we emphasize he need o de eloping analyses which
explo e he impac o opp essi e con ex ual ac o s on mig an s’ well-being. These
analyses mus go beyond indi idual and cul u alis pe spec i es and conside mig an s
as ac i e agen s who s uggle and ans o m he con ex along hei accul u a ion
p ocess. Fu he mo e, hese analyses ha e o p oduce speci ic p oposals o imp o e
mig an s’ well-being. In o de o achie e he o me , a libe a ing communi y psychology
app oach oge he wi h he use o inno a i e me hodologies o analysis (i.e. mul ile el
analysis and sys em dynamics) is p oposed as he app op ia e amewo k and ools o
o e coming he men ioned challenges.
Keywo ds: accul u a ion, libe a ion, mig an , social jus ice, well-being
1. In oduc ion
People who mig a e usually aim o imp o e hei li ing condi ions, hence, hei own well-
being. Howe e , hese expec a ions a e no always achie ed, especially in ecei ing con ex s ha
a e mo e opp essi e owa d mig an s (Ga cía-Ramí ez, De la Ma a, Paloma, & He nández-Plaza,
2011).
This is he case o Andalusia, he mos sou he n egion o Spain, whose g ow h model
(cu en ly unde e ision) demanded a high olume o mig an wo ke s du ing he i s yea s o
he XXI cen u y. This popula ion has su e ed mul iple isks o social ulne abili y. Mos
* Depa men o Social Psychology, Uni e si y o Se illa, Spain
** Depa men o Expe imen al Psychology, Uni e si y o Se illa, Spain
74
mig an s li ing in Andalusia a e placed in disen anchised neighbo hoods o in seg ega ed u al
a eas wi h no access o basic esou ces such as elec ici y o wa e ; wi h communi y se ices
sca cely adap ed o hei needs (He nández-Plaza, Ga cía-Ramí ez, Camacho, & Paloma, 2010).
In addi ion, he mig an popula ion li ing in Andalusia ha e buil hei social ne wo ks mos ly on
compa io s o e hnically simila people, ha ing li le p esence membe s om hos communi ies
as sou ces o social suppo (Ma ínez, Ga cía-Ramí ez, & Maya Ja iego, 2001). In he same
ega d, bu also ein o ced by he ac ual economic c isis, 64% o Andalusians ha e a nega i e
opinion owa d mig a ion (OPAM, 2013). Like in some o he coun ies, he ision o mig an s as
compe i o s is gaining s eng h, uelling a endency owa d he social agmen a ion o hos
con ex s (Ga cía-Ramí ez e al., 2011). The ha d condi ions ha mig an wo ke s ha e su e ed
a e jus one o he exp essions o inequali y ha eme ge om a social model buil on he sca ci y
o social jus ice alues.
As a consequence, we ha e he challenge o de elop heo e ical amewo ks and o implemen
social policies ha can imp o e he well-being o mig an s g oups. We assume ha i is a goal in
i sel as well as a necessa y componen o achie ing a cohesi e mul icul u al socie y. Likewise,
we can s a e ha he well-being o cul u al mino i ies ep esen s a aluable indica o o he social
jus ice wi hin a socie y (Fonseca & Malhei os, 2005). In o de o mo e o wa d in his di ec ion,
his wo k (a) e iews how mig an well-being has been s udied by mains eam psychology; (b)
assesses i s de elopmen om a c i ical iew; and (c) p oposes a libe a ing communi y
psychology app oach and he use o inno a i e echnologies in o de o analyze his phenomenon
om a mo e comp ehensi e pe spec i e.
2. The S udy o Well-being om he Psychology o Accul u a ion
The concep o well-being was de eloped a ound he XIX cen u y, a e he social ins abili y
p o oked by he indus ial e olu ion (Blanco & Vale a, 2007). F om he psychological ield,
many s udies ha e unde s ood he e m well-being as he posi i e e alua ion ha a pe son makes
abou he own li e, hus, he li e sa is ac ion (Diene & Diene , 1996; Mye s & Diene , 1995;
Veenho en, 1994). This cogni i e dimension cons i u es, oge he wi h he posi i e and nega i e
a ec ions, he heo e ical concep o subjec i e well-being.
T ying o explain he well-being o di e en popula ions, psychology has mainly s udied he
ollowing de e minan s (Diene , 1994; Mye s & Diene , 1995): (a) economic le el, people wi h
mo e esou ces no mally show highe le els o well-being, al hough once he basic needs a e
co e ed his alue emains s able; (b) employmen , hose who eel ha hey do a meaning ul
wo k show be e well-being han hose unemployed; (c) eligion, pa icipa ing in eligious
e en s is posi i ely ela ed o well-being; (d) ma i al s a us, ma ied people show highe le els
o well-being han o he s; (e) social con ac s, sa is ac ion wi h lo e issues and ha ing iends o
sha e p i a e issues is connec ed wi h li e sa is ac ion; ( ) physical heal h, is posi i ely ela ed o
well-being; and (g) pe sonali y, people who a e ex o e , op imis ic, wi h high sel -es eem and
pe sonal con ol show highe le els o well-being.
The ocus on hese dimensions—all o hem indi iduals—en ails ha “ex e nal ac o s o en
ha e only a modes impac on well-being epo s […] and ha [subjec i e well-being] is o en
s ongly co ela ed wi h s able pe sonali y ai s” (Diene , Oishi, & Lucas, 2003, p. 406).
Likewise, Vennho en (1994) suppo s ha mos o he di e ences conce ning li e sa is ac ion
75
a e ela ed o socio-emo ional ac o s, al hough he ecognizes ha li e sa is ac ion is mo e simila
in coun ies wi h simila socio-economic si ua ions, whe e human igh s a e espec ed and whe e
i exis s good access o knowledge.
The psychology o accul u a ion (PA) has been s udying he well-being o mig an popula ion.
This pe spec i e s a es ha when wo o mo e g oups come in o con ac accul u a ion p ocess
happens, a “dual p ocess o cul u al and psychological change” (Be y, 2005, p. 698). Cul u al
changes e e o ans o ma ions in social s uc u es and ins i u ions, as well as in he cul u al
p ac ices o he g oups in con ac ; while psychological changes e e o modi ica ions in he
beha io o he in ol ed people.
PA ocuses on hose psychological changes; i s objec o s udy is he adjus men ha a pe son
expe iences when he/she changes o cul u al en i onmen . T adi ionally, he analysis is spli in o
wo domains: (1) psychological adjus men , o deg ee o well-being o a ce ain pe son; and (2)
socio-cul u al adjus men , o deg ee o compe ences which allow a pe son o be in eg a ed in o
he new cul u al en i onmen . Acco ding o Wa d and Kennedy (1999), he li e a u e ela ed o
s ess and coping s a egies is used as a amewo k o s udy psychological adjus men , which is
empi ically measu ed wi h ins umen s ha ocus on di e en symp oms de i ed om cul u al
shock ( ension, dep ession, ea , a igue o con usion). Socio-cul u al adjus men uses an
in e p e a i e amewo k and ies o measu e he “adjus men ” o he indi idual o a new
en i onmen .
This pe spec i e assumes ha “despi e subs an ial a ia ions in he li e ci cums ances o he
cul u al g oups ha expe ience accul u a ion, he psychological p ocesses ha ope a e du ing
accul u a ion a e essen ially same o all he g oups” (Be y & Sam, 1997, p. 296; ci . in
Chi ko , 2009, p. 96). Hence i is suppo ed he exis ence o uni e sal ac o s which explain he
psychological adjus men and he well-being o mig an s. A e a li e a u e e iew o PA looking
a hese ac o s, Jibeen and Khalid (2010) conside ha sociodemog aphic a iables (e.g., age,
gende , educa ion) and a iables ela ed o accul u a ion (e.g. leng h o s ay in he hos coun y,
easons o mig a ing, simila i ies be ween he coun y o o igin and he hos coun y,
willingness o mig a ion) de e mine he le els o mig an s’ well-being. Mo e speci ically, h ee
app oaches de eloped wi hin he PA a e e iewed below.
Fi s ly, he PA connec s he success o mig an s’ cul u ally adjus men o he new con ex
wi h hei well-being; due o he ela ionship es ablished be ween socio-cul u al and
psychological adjus men . LaF omboise, Coleman, and Ge on (1993) suppo ha “ he key o
psychological wellbeing may well be he abili y o de elop and main ain compe ence in bo h
cul u es” (p. 402). Thus ha ing bicul u al compe ences, i.e. ha ing knowledge, posi i e a i udes,
communica i e skills and p ope beha io s wi hin bo h cul u es, can be conside ed among he
main ac o s o well-being. Fo example, mig an s who a e p o icien in he hos language ha e
highe sala ies (a leas 15%), which is ela ed o a highe le el o well-being (Chiswick &
Mille , 2002).
A second app oach wi hin PA ocuses, as he main ac o s o well-being, on he accul u a i e
s ess and he coping s a egies used by mig an s. Mig an s o en su e s ess when ying o
sol e o minimize he con lic s ha me ge when making con ac wi h cul u ally di e en g oups
(Mena, Padilla, & Maldonado, 1987). Highe deg ees o accul u a i e s ess a e connec ed wi h
lowe le els o well-being (Jibeen & Khalid, 2010). In o de o o e come his s ess, he coping
s a egies o ien ed owa d asks and he use o he sense o humo p o oke g ea e psychological
adjus men ; whe eas a oidance s a egies a e connec ed wi h dep essi e symp oms (Jibeen &
Khalid, 2010; Wa d & Kennedy, 2001).
76
Thi dly, acco ding o he bi-dimensional accul u a ion model (Be y, 2005; Phinney,
Ho enczyk, Liebkind, & Vedde , 2001), he ype o cul u al iden i y de eloped de e mines he
well-being and psychological adjus men o a pe son. These au ho s suppo ha mig an people
de elop ce ain ypes o iden i y acco ding o: (1) e hnic iden i y, de ined as sel -iden i ica ion,
eelings o belonging, sha ed alues and commi men owa d hei e hnic g oup; and (2) na ional
iden i y, which implies eelings o belonging and posi i e a i udes owa d he hos popula ion.
Combining hese c i e ia eme ge ou possible accul u a i e s a egies o ypes o iden i ies:
bicul u al (high le els o bo h ypes o iden i ies), sepa a ed (high e hnic iden i y and low
na ional iden i y), assimila ed (low e hnic iden i y and high na ional iden i y) and ma ginalized
(low le els o bo h ypes o iden i ies). The au ho s ind ha people who de elop a bicul u al
iden i y ob ain highe le els o psychological adjus men and well-being; besides, hose who
de elop a ma ginalized iden i y ob ain he wo s le els. Assimila ion and sepa a ion ob ain
in e media e le els o adjus men .
The o me is consis en wi h he indings o Yoon, Lee, and Goh (2008), who ound ha (a)
he acquisi ion o he new cul u e has a posi i e, di ec and meaning ul e ec on he well-being
o mig an s; and (b) main aining one’s cul u e has also a posi i e e ec on well-being (al hough
i p esen s lowe explana o y powe , possibly due o he sca ce a iabili y o he da a on his
dimension). The e o e he iden i ica ion wi h hei own e hnic g oup is c ucial o sel -concep
and psychological unc ioning o he membe s o cul u al mino i ies in a di e se socie y,
de e mining hei happiness (Phinney & Ong, 2007).
In hei a emp o unde s and he mo i es ha push mig an s o adop di e en accul u a ion
s a egies, Zlobina, Basabe, and Páez (2008), s a e ha bicul u al indi iduals “a e mo e o ien ed
[ han he sepa a ed] o be compe en and success ul and o ha e good expe iences in hei li es”
(p.149), he sepa a ed a e “less o ien ed owa d success […] and pleasan expe iences ela ed o
y new hings o open o changes” (p.149). The assimila ed, “a e mo e o ien ed owa d sel -
p omo ion and new expe iences” (p. 149). Howe e , Phinney e al. (2001) s a ed ha he ype o
iden i y de eloped no only depends on he pe sonal ea u es o p e e ences o mig an s bu also
on he public policies, he a i udes o he ecei ing socie y, and on he local ci cums ances
(concen a ion o mig an s, neighbo hood ac i i ies, e c.). They s a e ha “i , howe e , he hos
socie y is accep ing o immig an s, newcome s will ha e he choice o being bicul u al” (p. 506),
ne e heless “when immig an s a e no encou aged o allowed o e ain hei own cul u e while
in eg a ing in o he new socie y, some a e likely o eel o ced o choose be ween he wo op ions
o sepa a ion and assimila ion” (p. 499). In pa allel, Be y (2005, 2008) a gues ha bicul u al
iden i y can only be eely chosen by mig an g oups when he mains eam socie y is open and
inclusi e owa d cul u al di e si y.
In he same ega d, Bou his, Mon a uli, El-Geledi, Ha ey, and Ba e e (2010), y o include
he policies implemen ed in he des ina ion coun y as a de e minan ac o ha in luence he
ype o iden i y chosen by mig an s bu also he ype o iden i y ha hos communi ies p e e ha
mig an s choose. Acco ding o hese au ho s, highe le els o well-being will be ob ained when
he gap be ween he p e e ences o he wo g oups is low, and mo e conc e ely, when bo h
g oups choose bicul u al iden i ies as hei p e e ed op ion. This idea is suppo ed by Roccas,
Ho enczyk, and Schwa z (2000), whose indings sus ain ha he e is a nega i e ela ion be ween
he li e sa is ac ion o mig an s and he gap pe cei ed by mig an s be ween hei chosen ype o
iden i y and he ype o iden i y p e e ed by he dominan g oup. The o me is especially
impo an o people wi h a highe deg ee o con o mism, ha is, a need o compliance wi h
social no ms which a ec nega i ely hei pe sonal com o s and well-being. Fu he mo e, Na as
77
e al. (2005) s a e ha he e is highe isk o con lic be ween na i es and mig an s when
disc epancies be ween he co e dimensions o he in ol ed cul u es appea (i.e., ways o
hinking, alues, eligious belie s, habi s).
Summing up, PA conside s he in luence o i e ac o s on he well-being o mig an s: (a)
socio-demog aphic a iables (e.g., age, gende , educa ion), (b) speci ic a iables ela ed o he
accul u a ion p ocess (e.g., leng h o s ay in he hos coun y, easons o mig a ing, simila i ies
be ween he coun y o o igin and he hos coun y, willingness o mig a ion), (c) hei
compe ence wi hin he new cul u al en i onmen , (d) he de elopmen o e ec i e coping
s a egies o educe accul u a i e s ess, and (e) he de elopmen o bicul u al iden i y—i
possible wi hin an en i onmen ha p omo es his iden i y op ion. In he nex sec ion we will
assess he wo k de eloped by he PA om a libe a ing communi y psychology app oach.
3. A C i ical View o Psychology o Accul u a ion conce ning Mig an
Well-being
In spi e o he gene al ag eemen abou he key ole ha con ex ual ac o s (public policies,
deg ee o concen a ion o mig an s in a ce ain a ea, neighbo hood ac i i ies, among o he s)
play in he p ocesses o accul u a ion (Be y, 2005; Rudmin, 2006), ew esea ch has been done
abou how his con ex ual ac o s in luence on mig an s well-being (He e o, Fuen e, & G acia,
2011; Na ion, 2008; Shinn & Toohey, 2003). Hence, i is igno ed ha “indi iduals’ place o
esidence in luences hei oppo uni ies and li e ou comes” (Osypuk, Galea, McA dle, &
Ace edo-Ga cia, 2009, p. 26); minimizing he con ex and assigning all he explana o y a iance
o indi idual di e ences (Shinn & Toohey, 2003).
As a esul , mos s udies ha e en i ely ocused on he analysis o he indi idual le el (Albee,
1998; Jones, 1994). Al hough social exclusion has been associa ed wi h low le els o well-being,
psychology has ocused on (a) explaining social issues om indi idual ea u es (Na ion, 2008),
and (b) aining p oblem sol ing skills, asse i eness, s ess educ ion echniques and coping
s a egies (Kie e , 1984). P illel ensky (2012) a gues ha he esea che s who ha e s udied well-
being “ a ely i e e in oke jus ice in hei explana ions. In mos cases, cul u e, age, ma iage,
social suppo , unemploymen , and adap a ion igu e p ominen ly on he lis o well-being
p edic o s; jus ice, howe e , does no ” (p. 2). Thus, he e is a endency o “indi idualize
wellness: he p oblema ic si e is he indi idual who is unwell, no he condi ions su ounding
he ” (p. 18). Howe e , he indi idual emphasis o accul u a ion heo e ical amewo k is
challenged by he asymme ic in e g oup ela ions oge he wi h he poli ical, social and
economic powe inequali ies ha many mig an s ace (Ga cía-Ramí ez e al., 2009).
Mo eo e , PA analyzes social g oups aken in o accoun hei cul u e, excluding any o he
dimension (Ca pen e -Song, No dques , & Longho e , 2007). This kind o analysis, which
conside s cul u e as a synonym o iden i y and explains in e g oup ela ions exclusi ely om i ,
has been called “essen ialis ” mul icul u alism (Oli e i, 2008). F om his poin o iew, social
con lic s and inequali ies a e g ounded in cul u al ac o s, hus no poli ical in e en ion would be
needed wi hin he social s uc u e. Al hough con lic s be ween mig an s and na i e neighbo s
a ise in some neighbo hoods and ci ies; hese con lic s a e o en a consequence o esiden ial
seg ega ion, dep i a ion o access o social esou ces, unemploymen o social exclusion (MTIN,
2007). This analysis ma ches wi h he iew o UNESCO (2009) when s a ed ha “i exis s a

78
emp a ion o conside ha cul u al ac o s mo i a e con lic s when hey a e jus he excuse o
igge hem; hei main mo i e a e oo ed in poli ical and socioeconomic ac o s” (p. 32).
Bha ia and Ram (2001) c i icize he uni e salis pe spec i e o PA, since i unde alues “ he
asymme ical ela ions o powe and he inequali ies and injus ices aced by ce ain immig an
g oups” (p. 8). Likewise, some s udies show how he opp essi e condi ions o he con ex can
minimize he posi i e e ec o language p o iciency on he well-being o mig an s (He nández-
Plaza e al., 2010) and ha he de elopmen o ich cul u al iden i ies seem o be ese ed o
hose wi h enough economic esou ces (Oli e i, 2008). On he o he hand, his o ic and poli ical
ac o s a e a ely b ough in o he analysis, assuming ha bo h majo i y and mino i y g oups a e
in a balanced ela ion o s a us and powe . The answe s o mino i ies a e conside ed as
“p e e ences” chosen wi hin a ee choice scena io, being each pe son en i ely esponsible o
hei “decision” (Rudmin, 2006). Hence, he mains eam accul u a ion li e a u e has impo an
limi a ions since i does no conside he ole o powe and opp ession (Sonn & Lewis, 2009).
The esea ch ha a emp s o assess he impac o injus ice in he li es o people is sca ce
(P illel ensky & Fox, 2007).
The bidimensional accul u a ion model sus ains ha he o ien a ion owa d o igin e hnic
cul u e and owa d he ecei ing cul u e can be independen and inclusi e. Ne e heless,
Flanne y, Reise, and Yu (2001) ound ha bo h dimensions a e no independen o each o he in
eal li e ( = -0.55). This esul sugges s ha opp essi e condi ions o many ecei ing con ex s
(no aken in o accoun in he majo i y o s udies) make incompa ible e hnic and na ional
iden i ies, o cing mig an s o choose be ween wo op ions, assimila ion o sepa a ion. In his
sense, Rudmin (2006) s a es ha ma ginalized iden i y canno be conside ed as a decision aken
by he indi iduals hemsel es. Fu he mo e, di e en au ho s suppo ha beyond he bicul u al
iden i y, accul u a ion models need o b ing in mo e han wo cul u es in o hei explana o y
amewo ks, as ecei ing communi ies a e o en composed by mul iple cul u es (Bou his e al.,
2010; Pe sky & Bi man, 2005).
Finally, ecen c i iques ha e challenged he applicabili y o he knowledge p oduced by
mains eam PA in ega d o inc ease he well-being o mig an g oups (He nández-Plaza e al.,
2010). On he one hand, bicul u al iden i y - linked o well-being - can only be de eloped in
con ex s open o di e si y; while on he o he hand he e a e no p oposals ha lead mig an
g oups o each well-being in opp essi e o in ole an con ex s, which a e he as majo i y
(Paloma, Ga cía-Ramí ez, De la Ma a, & Amal, 2010; Paloma & Manzano-A ondo, 2011).
4. P oposal o Fu u e Lines om a Libe a ing Communi y Psychology
App oach
This wo k assessmen implies he need o de elop analyses ha explo e he impac o he
condi ions o opp essi e con ex s on he well-being o mig an s. These analyses o e come he
indi idual and cul u alis le els, mo eo e , hey conside mig an g oups as ac i e agen s who
s uggle and ans o m he con ex whe e hey li e along hei accul u a ion p ocess, bu also
agen s who make use ul p oposals o imp o e mig an s’ well-being (Alba e al., 2010; Ga cía-
Ramí ez e al., 2011). We sugges he libe a ing communi y psychology app oach oge he wi h
he use o inno a i e me hodologies o analysis (i.e. mul ile el analysis and sys em dynamics) as
79
he adequa e amewo k and ools o o e coming he challenges men ioned abo e (Ga cía-
Ramí ez e al., 2011; Paloma, Ga cía-Ramí ez, & Camacho, 2014).
4.1 A Libe a ing Communi y Psychology App oach o he S udy o Mig an Well-being
As de ended in p e ious wo ks (Ga cía-Ramí ez e al., 2011; Paloma e al., 2014; Paloma,
Ga cía-Ramí ez, & Camacho, 2012), we p opose a libe a ing communi y psychology app oach
(LCPA) o in eg a e communi y psychology alues (i.e., well-being, sense o communi y, espec
o human di e si y, social jus ice, empowe men and ci izen pa icipa ion, collabo a ion and
communi y s eng hs, and empi ical g ounding) and he emphasis o libe a ion psychology o
ans o m opp essi e social con ex s ha gene a e human su e ing (Ma ín-Ba ó, 1986; Moane,
2003). LCPA wo ks o es ablish (a) a new ho izon, wi h he goal o es ablishing an e ec i e
amewo k which ocuses on he needs o opp essed g oups; (b) a new epis emology, whe e
knowledge is buil om he bo om and alida ed in p ac ice; and (c) a new p axis, whe e
scien i ic wo k aims o ans o m he eali y and balances powe ela ions be ween g oups
(Ma ín-Ba ó, 1986). This app oach u ges he ein oduc ion o he con ex because ‘‘al hough
psychological eali y only acqui es conc e eness in indi iduals, i s o igin is in he social
s uc u e’’ (Ma ín-Ba ó, 1983, p. 98). Thus, his app oach conside s he ole o con ex s whe e
he mig a ion p ocesses ake place, explo es he powe ela ions es ablished be ween ecei ing
and mig an g oups, and sugges s he ans o ma ion o ecei ing socie ies as a way o achie e
well-being o all collec i es (Paloma & Manzano-A ondo, 2011). I unde s ands ha he well-
being shown by mig an collec i es eeds on he dynamics o in e dependence gene a ed be ween
con ex ual and indi idual de e minan s in ol ed in he se lemen p ocess (Paloma e al., 2014).
This social jus ice app oach con ibu es o he unde s anding o mig an well-being h ough
inco po a ing (a) he dimension o ulne abili y and isk o mig an s’ social exclusion, in e ms
o opp ession, and (b) he de elopmen o mig an s eng hs in e ms o acqui ing a c i ical
hinking owa d injus ices and gene a ion o p ac ices o p o ec hemsel es, esis and o e come
opp ession acco ding o hei alues, cul u e, and needs (Ga cía-Ramí ez e al., 2011; Sonn &
Lewis, 2009).
Fu he mo e, we assume ha mig an well-being is s ongly condi ioned by he exis ing social
jus ice o he ecei ing socie y (Paloma e al., 2014). Social jus ice is de ined “as he ai and
equi able alloca ion o bu den, esou ces, and powe in socie y” (P illel ensky, 2008, p. 362). We
unde s and ha well-being depends on dimensions placed in di e en ecological le els:
indi idual (e.g. language p o iciency, sel -pe cei ed heal h, coping s a egies), ela ional (e.g.
possibili y o amily euni ica ion, mul icul u al suppo ne wo ks), o ganiza ional (e.g. access o
cul u ally sensi i e communi a ian se ices), communi y (e.g. esiden ial seg ega ion, openness
o di e si y o he ecei ing socie y), and socie al (e.g. wo k, amily, educa ion, heal h, e c.
policies). Thus, we ag ee wi h P illel ensky (2008, pp. 359-360) ha well-being is a posi i e s a e
o a ai in indi iduals, ela ionships, o ganiza ions, communi ies, and he poli ical en i onmen ,
b ough abou by he simul aneous and balanced sa is ac ion o ma e ial and psychological
needs; and by he mani es a ion o social jus ice in hese i e ecological domains.
80
4.2 Inno a i e Me hodologies o he S udying o Mig an Well-being
The models o da a analysis o en used wi hin Social Sciences do no cap u e he sys emic,
dynamic and mul ile el complexi y ha he s udy o well-being equi es. Di e en au ho s
exp ess he weakness o a me hodological app oach based on linea analysis o link a iables
besides, no being consis en wi h he complexi y o social phenomena s udied (Hi sch, Le ine,
& Mille , 2007). The libe a ing communi y psychology app oach suppo ed in his wo k equi es
ools o analysis whe e he in luence o dimensions placed in di e en le els o analysis (i.e.
indi idual, ela ional, o ganiza ional, communi a ian, and socie al) explain he deg ee o well-
being exp ess by mig an s. In his wo k we suppo he use o mul ile el analysis and sys em
dynamics.
Mul ile el eg ession analysis is a ool which “allows us o sys ema ically s udy he
in e ac ion o s uc u al and psychological de e minan s o complex social phenomena” (Peh son
& G een, 2010, p. 710), and “is an empi ical way o unde s anding he ela ionship be ween he
s uc u e and he indi idual” (Hje m, 2007, p. 1258). This p ocedu e is adequa e when we wan
o analyze he ecological complexi y o a phenomenon (Long, 2005) whose a iables belong o
di e en le els o analysis. I is no only impo an he e ec o indi idual ac o s on well-being,
bu also he con ex s whe e mig an s a e embedded (Luke, 2005). In addi ion, Pe ig ew (2006)
suppo s ha (a) wo king a he same ime wi h he indi idual and con ex ual le el p o oke no
alling in o he composi ional allacy (i.e. elabo a e conclusions abou he con ex ual le el om
an indi idual analysis) no in he ecological allacy (i.e. elabo a e conclusions abou he
indi iduals om a con ex ual analysis); and ha (b) he use o his app oach ensu es a close
alignmen o eali y, making easie he ans e ence o esul s. F om a me hodological
pe spec i e, i is assumed ha people who li e in he same a ea sha e some ea u es, which
dis inguish hem om people who li e in o he e i o ies. This lack o independency be ween
ga he ed obse a ions b eaks one o he equi emen s om con en ional echniques o analysis,
hus in his si ua ions he use o mul ile el analysis is needed (Nezlek, 2008).
This kind o ool has p oduced inno a i e esul s in p e ious wo ks which ied o explain (a)
he in luence o coun y ea u es on he well-being o he popula ion on a global le el (Ingleha ,
Foa, Pe e son, & Welzel, 2008); (b) he in luence o he con ex in he ela ion be ween language
p o iciency and li e sa is ac ion o mig an s in Spain (He nández-Plaza e al., 2010); and (c) he
well-being o mig an popula ion in Finland (Jasinskaja-Lah i, Liebkind, & Pe honiemi, 2007),
Canada (Jibeen & Khalid, 2010), Holland (Ve kuy en, 2008), and Spain (Paloma e al., 2014).
Using his p ocedu e we ha e es ed how he well-being o he Mo occan communi y in Sou he n
Spain is closely de e mined by (a) he le el o social jus ice in he ecei ing con ex (openness o
di e si y o ecei ing communi ies, cul u al sensi i i y o communi y se ices, and esiden ial
in eg a ion); and (b) he indi idual s eng hs o he mig an popula ion (use o ac i e coping
s a egies, sa is ac ion wi h he ecei ing con ex , and esiden ial s abili y in he new
en i onmen ). These esul s empi ically suppo he impac ha di e en ecological le els o
analysis ha e on well-being and highligh he ac i e ole ha people de elop in hei ela ionship
wi h he en i onmen (Paloma e al., 2012, 2014).
Sys em dynamics includes a ma hema ical ool, which is highly p omising in he s udy o
complex social phenomena. This app oach equi es he inclusion wi hin he model o e e y
elemen , which can help o explain he objec o s udy, in di e en le els o analysis. The
in e dependen ela ionship among he elemen s o he model is ansla ed in o ci cula ela ions,
mo e comp ehensi e han linea ela ions, and impossible o sol e wi hou simula ion
81
p ocedu es. This me hodological app oach is an answe o he scien i ic deba e abou he need
o de ining social in e en ions wi hin sys ems and no as insula ed ac s (Hawe, Shiell, &
Riley, 2009). In his sense, one o he g ea e s eng hs o hese models is ha hey p o ide us
wi h ools o make i ual expe imen s ha an icipa e he beha io o he sys em unde possible
in e en ions in di e en o i s own elemen s (Home & Hi sh, 2006). They allow making
simula ions in o de o p opose e ec i e in e en ions o inc ease he well-being o mig an s.
LCPA equi es aking in o accoun he psychopoli ical alidi y o ou communi y esea ch
(P illel ensky, 2004). The concep has bo h an epis emological and a ans o ma i e aspec .
Epis emological alidi y would imply aking in o accoun he ole o powe in e e y ecological
le el o analysis ela ed o mig an s’ well-being. In his case, powe means access o ma e ial and
psychosocial esou ces, and he oppo uni y and capaci y o achie e well-being (Nelson &
P illel ensky, 2002). I equi es iden i ying he main opp essi e (o jus ) con ex ual ac o s a
di e en ecological le els, which in luences nega i ely (o posi i ely) he achie emen o high
le els o well-being among mig an popula ion. Fo ha pu pose, i is impo an o sea ch and
gi e oice o hese adi ionally silenced g oups, hus gua an ee ha hey can con ibu e o de ine
hei own eali y. Bo h mul ile el eg ession analysis and sys em dynamics can help us o design
an explica i e and comp ehensi e amewo k o mig an s’ well-being.
T ans o ma i e alidi y e e s o he po en ial o ou esea ch ac i i ies o educe powe
inequali ies, inc ease poli ical ac i ism, and os e pa icipa ion and commi men among
mig an s and membe s o he ecei ing socie y (P illel ensky, 2004). The o me obliges us o
conside he need o c ea ing in e en ions o imp o e mig an s’ well-being h ough he
p omo ion o di ec changes wi hin he social s uc u e o ecei ing socie ies, and h ough he
enhancing o s eng hs wi hin his opp essed popula ion. Thei communi y engagemen as ac i e
agen s in he social sphe e could uel p ocesses o indi idual and con ex ual ans o ma ions in
o de o each a balanced ela ion o powe among e e y pa y in ol ed (P illel ensky, 2008).
Sys em dynamics can help us o simula e which po en ial public policies and social in e en ions
a e he bes o p o oke he desi ed changes wi hin a complex ne wo k o in e ela ed ac o s a
di e en ecological le els and a di e en empo al spaces. The e o e, epis emological and
ans o ma i e psychopoli ical alidi y o e , espec i ely, c i e ia o a mo e c i ical
in es iga ion o he s a us quo and in e en ion ha acili a es social change (Da idson e al.,
2006).
This p oposal has some limi a ions. Fi s , we ecognize ha LCPA is no necessa ily
applicable o all mig a o y ansi ions. I is pa icula ly ele an o hose displaced g oups
en e ing he ecei ing con ex o signi ican ly disad an aged condi ions. Second, we limi ou
discussion o wo inno a i e quan i a i e echnologies wi hin his ex . Al hough i has no been
he ocus o his pape , we wan o s ess he ele ance ha quali a i e me hods ha e in he
design o communi y esea ch, in o de o in ol e and gi e oice o he mig an s in he
iden i ica ion and p oblem sol ing which a ec hem di ec ly (Paloma, He e a, & Ga cía-
Ramí ez, 2009). Thi d, al hough we ad oca e o he dialogue wi h o he disciplines, we ha e
used in his pape a e m ha could be no inclusi e in he li e a u e, i.e. “libe a ing communi y
psychology app oach”. We op o his e minology because o he ocus o his pape in he
psychological science and because o he audience o his jou nal (communi y psychologis s).
Howe e , we p e e o use he e m “social jus ice app oach” in a mul idisciplina y academic
con ex .
The heo e ical and me hodological app oach de ended in his pape y o con ibu e o (a) he
conside a ion o he ole o powe and opp ession in he mig a ions phenomena (Sonn & Lewis,