| Bibliography: |
2.
Sam, D.L., & Berry, J.W. (2010). Acculturation: When Individuals and Groups of Different Cultural Backgrounds Meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 472–481..
3.
Hogg M.A. (2006) Intergroup Relations. In: Delamater J. (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Boston, MA
−
Brown, R, & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255-343.
4.
Padilla, A. M., & Perez, W. (2003). Acculturation, social identity and social cognition: A new perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 35-55.
5.
Rumbaut, R.G. (2008). The Coming of the Second Generation: Immigration and Ethnic Mobility in Southern California. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 620, 196-236.
7.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O. and Bachman, G. (1999), Prejudice Toward Immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221-2237.
8.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–920.
9.
Schwartz, S. (2007). A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied Psychology, 48, 23-47.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.10142
10.
Inglehart, R. (2006). Mapping Global Values. Comparative Sociology, 5, 115-136.
−
Foner, N. & Alba, R. (2008). Immigrant Religion in the U.S. and Western Europe: Bridge or Barrier to Inclusion?. International Migration Review, 42, 360-392.
11.
Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework, Journal of Refugee Studies, 21, 166–191.
12.
Ryan, L. (2011), Migrants' social networks and weak ties: accessing resources and constructing relationships post‐migration. The Sociological Review, 59, 707-724.
14.
Castles, S., & Miller, M. (2009). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world, 4th edition. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
−
Koopmans, R. (2010). Trade-Offs between Equality and Difference: Immigrant Integration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State in Cross-National Perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36, 1-26.
|
| Assessment methods and assessment criteria: |
Class presentations (15%)
As the amount or readings per topic will often be too large to be read by all, presentations will help to provide information in an efficient way. One or two times you will be asked to prepare a short presentation. Half of the grade will come from the instructor, the other half from the students.
Class participation (10%)
Discussion of theory from the readings as well as practical, applied topics is central in this course. You are expected and encouraged to contribute actively and meaningfully to the class by (1) reading the assigned literature; (2) contributing to discussions by asking good questions, (3) and generally helping to create an atmosphere that is conducive to discussion. The grade will be determined by the students.
Questions to be answered before the start of class (30%). The questions
will be posted online, to be answered individually, or cooperatively (forum style). The two lowest scored answers/ contributions will not be considered for the final assessment (in other words, 2 “classes” can be skipped)
Final essay, based on an individually formulated question of personal interest related to the course topic (45%). The length of the essay should be between 2000 and 2500 words (excluding references, abstract, etc.). The question must be answered making use of concepts and materials during the course, and should relate to multiple course topics. 60% is needed to pass, based on the sum of grades of all components.
Part of the assessment is based on so called peer assessment; students
assessing each other’s contributions. For this to work it is imperative that
everyone participates in this. Not doing so will lead to a reduction in one’s
own assessment for the respective component.
The following grading scale is used:
97% or more = 5!
92-96% = 5
84-91% = 4.5
76-83% = 4
68-75% = 3.5
60-67% = 3
below 60% = 2 (fail)
IMPORTANT: There is no possibility to re-take (parts of) the assessment,
or make up for a fail grade.
Attendance rules
No more than 2 unexcused absences are permitted. Further absences
require an excuse. If more than 4 classes are missed a student will not
pass the course.
|
