Titlebook: Integrating Immigrants in Europe; Research-Policy Dial Peter Scholten,Han Entzinger,Stijn Verbeek Book‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 2015 The Editor(s) (if appli

音樂學(xué)者

沒有準(zhǔn)備

組成

Research-Policy Dialogues in the United Kingdomthat reported in the 2000s: the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain in 2000 (CMEB); the Community Cohesion Review Team (CCRT) in 2001; and the Commission on Integration and Cohesion in 2007 (CIC).

Expiration

Book‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 2015ponse to distinct political events or to specific problems. On the other, politicisation has not thwarted all efforts to develop more institutionalised dialogue structures between producers and users of knowledge. In addition, research has contributed to policymaking in very different ways in variou

Intact

Research-Policy Dialogues on Migrant Integration in Europe: A Conceptual Framework and Key Question this introductory chapter some main hypotheses are developed for each of these three aspects. These hypotheses will serve as guidance for the entire book. In Part I of the book forms and functions of research-policy dialogues will be further explored, mostly on a comparative basis. Part II analyses

Angiogenesis

Migration Statistics in Europe: A Core Component of Governance and Population Researchulation. In 2010, member states also reached an agreement on indicators for immigrant integration. Yet, this chapter argues that, in spite of increased harmonisation of statistics, a comparison of migration data between EU member states remains complicated, for example because of conceptual differen

Banquet

Consultative Commissions and the Rethinking of Integration Policies in the Netherlands and Germany: s that became fiercely contested in public and political debate. The work of the migration scholars that had been consulted also became part of these contestations. Although both commissions have been able to make some contribution to a reframing of national policies, the comparative analysis of the

Lice692

addict

AUGER

Research-Policy Dialogues in Germanyures were set up, which encouraged the use of research outcomes in policymaking. However, in all cases analysed in more detail in this chapter, the political primacy has remained over the use (or misuse) of the relevant research outcomes. This seems to be the case primarily at the federal level, and