论文部分内容阅读
People of Turkish origin represent one half million in the US. With their continuous immigration patterns or growing presence in the US, issues of acculturation and cultural integration arise. The purpose of this study was to analyze the process of cultural integration in multicultural societies from the perspectives of first-generation Turkish immigrants currently residing in the US. The study used a qualitative research approach with semi-structured interview and data was collected for a four-week period during December 2010 and January 2011 among 15 persons (10 were male and five were female aged from 23 to 58). The interviews were conducted individually with each participant individually as well as one in a focus group comprised Turkish immigrants in order to investigate the of interaction Turkish people in the US culture. The analysis was made by examining five interview questions relating to adoption cultural integration with its definition. In this study, the researcher asked the participants the following five questions: (1) Why did you choose to live in the US? (2) Which do you consider to be your home country? Why? (3) How do you define “cultural integration”? (4) How should Turkish immigrants adapt to the host culture or should they? and (5) Do you think integration brings satisfactions/happiness? Why or why not?
Keywords: Turkish immigrants, cultural integration, multicultural education, qualitative study, US
Introduction
The Turkish American community is rapidly growing, diversifying and reflecting a more accurate picture of Turks today than in the past. In the social debate on the position of the first-generation of Turkish immigrants in the US, cultural integration is an important component. Some researchers including Uunk (2003) argued that in order to achieve an equal position, the members of the ethnic minorities should adjust to the norms and values of the receiving country, while others saw the distinct cultural habits, norms and values of ethnic groups as an enriching host culture that represented no hindrance to their social integration. The purpose of this study was to analyze the cultural integration of Turkish immigrants in multicultural societies from the perspectives of first-generation Turkish immigrants currently residing in the US. The US considers Turkey as a multi-level strategic partner in the Eurasia—Middle East Region for the long haul.
Consequently, they view the Turkish Americans as a key “heritage community”, and interlocutors between the two nations and societies (Evinch, 2009).
Very few studies have been carried out about the historical immigration patterns and cultural backgrounds of Turkish immigrants in the US. The first documented wave of immigration started in 1860s(Altschiller, 2009). These immigrants settled in large industrial cities and found employment as unskilled labors (Kaya, 2003, 2009; Micallef, 2004). The majority came to support their families in Turkey, because the Turkish economy suffered severely from the last World War (Balgamis & Karpat, 2008). The second wave came into play after 1950s. They were well-skilled, professional and highly educated groups immigrated to the US, the majority being medical doctors, engineers and scientists (Evinch, 2009). Today, Turkish Americans are visible in virtually every community and walk of life (Ak?apar, 2006; Balgamis & Karpat, 2008; Karpat, 1995). The third wave is in the late 1980s, immigrants came to America to flee religious persecutions, such as headscarf ban or political tyranny. They were eager to take advantage of economic or educational opportunities offered in the USA (Karpat, 1995). Distinguishing factor from previous groups was that a large number of professionals, such as doctors and engineers who came to the US for educational and training purposes in the late 1980s (Kaya, 2003; 2004).
The most recent wave of Turkish immigration was for educational and business purposes. Their competences vary widely. Some opened small businesses and created Turkish American organizations, thus, developing Turkish enclaves, particularly in the states where the majority of Turkish immigrants live. Still, others came for educational purposes. They also included an enormous number of academicians, graduate students, engineers, doctors and other professionals in the late 2000s. The most recent group represents a mixture of diverse social classes, educational levels and ideological positions. Most Turkish immigrants in the US had a college education (Kaya, 2003). Karpat (1995) also stated that the third wave of Turkish immigrants who came to the US were mostly college graduates who came for educational, training and financial purposes. But compared to Turkey, the cost of education in the US is much higher than it is in Turkey. Hence, these students have to find ways to support themselves at the same time as studying. Ak?apar (2006) mentioned that the MEB (Turkish Ministry of Education) and YOK (the Turkish Institution of Higher Education) gave financial support to around 2,200 students, and there was a significant number that received financial aid from various US institutions in the form of graduate or research assistantships. In addition, Akgun (2000) stated that many Turkish students were also supported by their families, while some worked to support themselves. Those who work to support themselves may end up with only working or starting their businesses because of the expense of paying high out-of-state tuitions and living expenses.
Since that year, there are more than 2,000 Turkish immigrants per year, because the revision of the American immigration law opened the door to more new people from Turkey (Grabowski, 2005). That increasing flow of immigrants led to the establishment of the TAA (Turkish American Associations) in the US. Estimates of the total population of Turkish Americans have range from 100,000 to 400,000 (Turkish American Forum, 2000). Since that time, ATA (Association of Turkish Americans) has served as the voice and advocate for the local Turkish American population. ATA has sponsored language schools, created a Turkish dance troupe and has sponsored or hosted the visit of cultural and performing groups from Turkey. ATA has also served as the community’s voice in issues, such as those relating to Turkey itself and those that bear upon the Turks resident in the US (Grabowski, 2005).
Furthermore, in 2006, the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History states that there is an estimated 500,000 Turks living in the US; from the beginning of Turkish immigration to the US, many immigrants have settled in or around large urban centers. Geographically, the greatest numbers who have settled in the largest Turkish communities are found in New York City, Chicago, Texas, Atlanta and California. Since the 1970s, the number of Turkish immigrants has risen to more than 4,000 per year. According to Micallef (2004), Turkish Americans are becoming increasingly visible and vocal in America. Roughly, two centuries after the first wave of Turkish speaking immigrants arrived in the US successfully. Statistically in 2011, approximately, there are between 500,000 and 600,000 Turkish immigrants are living in the US which is undocumented.
Methodology
Design
This study followed a qualitative research design. Qualitative research was used to understand social phenomenon from the standpoint of those involved (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), where through a series of scoping interview with first-generation Turkish immigrants in the Western US, the specific conceptual framework for the study emerged. Qualitative methods describe the world in relation to the location and people involved—that is the ontology (the nature of reality) of qualitative methods is that reality in the world is socially constructed, complex and ever changing. Accordingly, the epistemology (nature of knowledge) posits that, it is through personal interactions and explorations with the perceptions that participants hold that knowledge about the realities is attained (Glesne, 2006).
Participants
Table 1
Participant Demographics
As shown in Table 1, 15 adult participants (10 males and five females) aged from 23 to 58 (M = 39.4) for this study were purposefully selected. In qualitative research, purposeful selection is necessary for the researcher(s) in order to “best help the researcher understand the research questions” (Creswell, 2003, p. 185). The basic criteria for choosing particularly these participants are gender, years living in the US (at least five years), ethnicity, age, education and occupation.
The length of stay in the US gave them more experience about the US culture, education system and language. Their ethnicities were Turkish national, Kurdish, American-Turkish and one of them did not specify his ethnicity. The participants were highly educated in their field and most of them received their M.A./M.S. and Ph.D. degree in the US, and some of them received their college degrees in Turkey and came here to complete their graduate programs. Most of the participants found a job after completing their degrees. Some became faculty members teaching and researching in various colleges in the Western US, engineers other worked at well-known institutions in California States, specifically, in city of San Francisco, teachers and administrators who work at the school districts, and finally graduate students are working on the their Ph.D. programs.
It is worth pointing out that throughout this research, all participants were informed of the choice to have their own name or a pseudonym used. All of them preferred to use pseudonyms name.
Sample and Recruitment
The research took place during the Christmas Holiday from 2010 to 2011. The author conducted in-depth interviews with 15 first-generation Turkish immigrants who live in the Western US. Here, the qualitative research is uniquely suited to gathering insights into participants’ perceptions and cultural contexts (Tierney 1992; Tinto 1993). All of these participants were recruited during the Turkish communities’ seminar which was organized by BAYCC (BAY Area Cultural Connections) in Sacramento, a capital city of California.
The author used semi-structured with in-depth interview questions with probes to elicit participants’feelings, thoughts and opinions about their own experiences of cultural integration. The instrument of this study was a six-open-ended interview questionnaire including demographics of characteristics, such as gender, language, educational attainment, date of migration, ethnicity and occupation both in Turkey and US. The questions related to culture, language, their knowledge of the American culture and education, additional questions asked about cultural integration, contexts of being integrated, and advantages and disadvantages integration/being integrated.
The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. With permission from the participants, the author audio-recorded all the interviews and took field notes to supplement the recordings. After the data were initially analyzed, two participated in a focus group to reflect on the analysis of the data. These participants were selected because of their experience and understanding of both Turkish and American cultures, their levels of education and abilities to articulate their perceptions and their cultural backgrounds. One was a Turkish-American and had a master’s degree. The other one was a Turkish who grew up in San Francisco, and he graduated from Stanford University. Both of them worked in the same computer software company that the author did at the time of the interviews. The focus group discussion was audio-recorded and field notes were taken. Interviews with previous acquaintances were arranged individually. The author asked interviewees to refer others who fit the criteria and might be willing to participate.
Data Collection
The data was collected through in-depth interviews with open-ended and semi-structured with 15 individuals and one focus group with two participants who were first-generation Turkish immigrants in the Western US, particularly, from Reno, Nevada; San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Sacramento, California. In addition, audio recordings and written texts were collected from the interviews. The audio data was transcribed into text for thematic analysis and description, as it was the written notes the participants produced during the interview sessions. Finally, categories were formed according to the clarity and meaning the participants’ responses (transcribed and inscriptions) conveyed in relation to the questions that were asked (see Appendix A).
Date Analysis
The interviews were guided according to Creswell’s (1998) process for analyzing qualitative data, the interviews were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were then read first by author, and the read by other two members in focus-group. During the analysis of the data, each reviewer kept a journal in which memos and notes were recorded as this formed part of the audit trail (Nagy & Viney, 1994; Pooley, Breen, Pike, Cohen, & Drew, 2007) which helped reduce biases and reactions. Initially, a thematic content analysis(Miles & Huberman, 1994) was conducted for each of the six questions (see Appendix A) in order to determine the concepts that underpinned the participant’s understanding of cultural integration. The transcripts were not analyzed by gender, age, ethnicity or other socio-demographic characteristics, as the author were interested in whether these first-generation Turkish immigrants could integrate in the dominant society. The analysis is centered on the questions that were distributed. Each question is analyzed separately and the dialogue is presented after each question, while key points are highlighted in the analysis that follows.
Results
Question 1: Why Did You Choose to Live in the US?
The US has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all over the world. They value the contributions of immigrants, who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity(USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services), 2009). The responses to the first question in the immigration interview are quite obvious.
From the data, one can say that the participants justified the choices to live in the US with several arguments. The first reason is that they received a “green card” which identifies the bearer as an alien with permanent resident’s status, and they has been granted the authorization to live and work in the US on a permanent basis. Because of this opportunity, some of these participants had granted a green card and had chosen to live in the US. The second reason is to deal with the educational opportunities which are offered. The US advocate for first-rate education that is available for all immigrants. Regardless of their economic status, a high quality of education is available, in both science and social science fields with the highest-ranked colleges, and the educational attainment varies significantly among the different types of occupations. The third reason is a job satisfaction. Approximately 75% of respondents said that they were “extremely” satisfied with their jobs. Furthermore, most participants are employed in big institutions which bring a lot of advantages, such as satisfaction of income, social standing of occupations, academic freedom, time flexibility and technology opportunities. All these important satisfactory components bring happiness and positive reaction in their lives. The fourth reason is a mixture of educational, political and religious freedom. Some participants stated that the freedom of religion is generally understood that the US government permits religious practices of other sects beside the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths. Other respondents mentioned that they could practice their religious at any time and wherever they wish. Also, due to headscarf ban in education in Turkey since 1980s, many female Turkish immigrants migrated to the US to receive their higher education(Aydin, 2010). This is the rights for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views. Furthermore, in the US, educational freedom inquiry by students and faculties is also essential(including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss or imprisonment. Peace Democracy and Human Rights (2010) emphasized that excluding students from universities based on their political and religious views was a totalitarian practice that ruined careers and removed reform-oriented young people from future professional cohorts. Through that, many Turkish immigrants migrated to the US in early 1980s. Finally, as mentioned earlier, the current democratic elected government sends a lot of college students to US to receive their graduate degrees since 2000 which the author named fourth wave of Turkish immigrants’ migration to the US. From these all advantages from US side and some problematic issues that happened from 1980 through 2000 made choice of Turkish immigrants live in the US.
Question 2: What Do You Consider Your Home Country?
The use of the term “American or Turkish citizenship” to the Turkish immigrants’ respondents is quite altered. From the interviews, four of total participants considered that their home country was “Turkey”. For instance:
Murat (pseudonym) considered that his home country was Turkey, said: I do not feel that I am an American, because I was not born here and most members of my family live in Turkey.
Ali was completed: I will go back to Turkey sooner or later. I will not stay here forever.
And he concluded: America is country for immigration and America has never imposed an official language, and if current population levels continue as they are currently, it is likely to become Spanish or other languages so, how can I consider myself as an American? It is like that 50 counties located in a big land.
Another participant named Ayse said: I consider Turkey to be my home country, because it was where my ancestors came from. So, I do believe that where your ancestors come from that is your home country.
His friend Hakan added: Your home country will always be your home country because you were born there. You cannot change your citizen, though just move to another country and live there for a certain amount of years and apply for citizenship.
And he completed: I am a first generation immigrant person, I was not born here, and therefore, how I can consider myself as an American? But if I was born here that could be.
He also commented: I love this country because of diverse culture, language, respect, dialogue, freedom and democratic government, but considering being a home country is Turkey.
Through these, four participants perspectives that they do not consider themselves as an American, even though, they speak fluent English, adapted culture, language and received education and working in this country do not make as their home country because of a being a first generation immigrants and a short time-period to live in the US.
Most of participants (eight of them) considered themselves both Turkish and American. For example:
Kemal: I am considering myself both Turkish and American. I was born in Turkey but I was raised here, educated and still working here, therefore, I am a Turkish-American.
Fatma: I am from Turkey and I am a Turkish but here is a second home for me. In some sense, I feel here as my home country when I back to Turkey.
Kasim also state: I am not considering America is my home country but I think, I am becoming a part of this country too, as my second citizenship and also it offers freedom and diversity, so I like it a lot.
Another participant, Levent enthusiastically added: Because of educational, religious and political freedom that I consider America as my second home country.
And he continued: Peace, tolerance and dialogue are another part of good things of America that I like it a lot and this is my 16th years of being in this country. Therefore, I adopted and integrated in this wonderful society.
Also, some other participants were considering themselves as a Turkish-American citizenship, due to length of living in the US, and their citizenship makes immigrant integrated into dominant society.
Only three of the participants considered themselves as American. For instance:
Halil proudly said: My home country is the US; I do not care where my ancestors came from. That is what is wrong with this country, if you live and work here, then this is your home country, be proud of that.
He continued: I am here almost 35 years and raised here so, this is my country. It does not mean I am not Turkish; Yes, I am Turkish and also American.
Dilek added: I am definitely American—not born but raised. I do not claim much about Turkey as my “home”country. I am proud of being American, Am I supposed to say I am a “Turkish”?.
Another respondent—Mehmet said differently: I feel like I am an American when I am here but when I back to Turkey, probably, I will say I am a Turkish, so it depends on where you live.
He continued: It is a great benefits when you consider yourself where you live because it helps to integrate in a host society than it will bring success life for you.
Through these quotes from participants, consideration of receiving country depends on your long time living and beliefs of integrated in dominant society bring success and happiness.
Question 3: How Do You Define “Cultural Integration”?
The literature on immigrants’ cultural integration has established that “contexts of reception” and “modes of incorporation” are key factors that affect an immigrant group’s process of integration into the host society(Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Ellis & Almgren, 2009). Moreover, many researchers, including Bernard (1976), stated that cultural integration was difficult to define, because it was made up of many concepts. These different definitions from literature are not shared by the participants of this study. For instance,
Kasim defined integration as he said: To adopt into dominant society or host country.
Melek shares Kasim’s point of view, as he pointed out: Combined with racial, religious or ethnic group from receiving country.
Ali followed them saying: Being myself, yet functioning in the host society or gathering around the host community and understanding the background of each culture.
Sultan, a female participant, eagerly defined integration highlighting: Finding a place for you and your immediate family in the society so that you can enjoy your life in that (host) society, you can contribute to the well-being of the society while preserving your own identity.
The definition of integration from the first-generation of Turkish immigrants shows a typical lack of a clear understanding of the normative basis for taking a position in the host society.
Another factor worth mentioning is the immigrants’ abilities and willingness to participate fully as residents or citizens of the US. This element goes beyond their language competence, skills and educational characteristics. The key indicator of their integration is their levels of naturalization, since it represents their commitment to civic participation and loyalty to the adopted country. Those who are really involved would respond like Kemal as he said, “I am a naturalized citizen”, and Ayse added, “I am adopted in American society because I am speaking English fluently, educated me in the highest level, and I am a permanent residence in this country so, I am feeling happily to being a part of this community”. Approximately, 60% participants agreed with Kemal and Ayse. Also, Sultan continued and said, “Integration is like a harmony of original culture. So my original culture is bounded within American culture”. Integration associated with greater happiness among Turkish immigrants. More specifically, most Turkish immigrants who become naturalized citizens are happier than immigrants who refrain from naturalization. Among various factors, this includes Turkish immigrants’ legal status, citizenship, their location, educational level, their transnational activities and the political and economic conditions in the US which are integral to successful adaptation to their new place of residency.
Question 4: How Should Turkish Immigrants Adopt to the Host Culture?
As far as the host culture is concerned, the answers from these participants showed that members of minority groups, in a receiving country, should retain their cultures of origin and also maintain a positive relationship with the receiving culture. In other words, for some kind of integration to take place, a mutual accommodation is needed. Immigrant groups need to have the ability to live as a different cultural group and at the same time, adopt the values of the receiving society. Murat gave an example of how and why they should adapt in the host society.
As he said: We have to filter the host culture through our religious values and adopt those parts which are approved by our religion. We should seek to complete the host culture with nice part of our own culture as well.
He then continued: As America is a very diverse country, we should learn a lot from Americans, in terms of discipline, excellent work habits, rich culture, language, different types of religious, honesty and productive work place. We need learn all of these factors to adopt in this society because it will help us to a productive in our life.
Another participant, Fatma, commented: Rather than cultural, practical behaviors of Westerns are adoptable since Turkish teaching and particularly Islamic teaching has already emphasized them anyway.
Then, she added: Work, discipline, planning and educating oneself should be adopted in host society.
A third respondent, Levent, strongly advised: We have to adopt in this culture by attending school, even though, to have a higher degree but just to learn education system of this country.
Sultan completed his idea as he said: By visiting to American family and inviting them in our home to teach each other with our core values, cultural elements and cuisines that help to adopt in American culture.
Other participants emphasized different aspects, such as attending special days of receiving country. For example:
Kamuran said: We have to celebrate Americans’ special holidays, like Thanksgiving Holiday, Christmas, Labors Day, and so on. It will give a chance to learn everything and adopt where you live.
Another respondent, Halil continued and said: We should also visit different religious churches, learn other immigrants’ languages, participate in different cultural heritages, to join intercultural and interfaith dialogue would also help understand each other.
Hakan added: Dialogue, people in the US like to talk, research and learn more about other cultures. So, through the dialogue people can learn more about each other cultures. All these opportunities will give a mutual understanding among those different cultural group also lead immigrants to adopt and integrate in receiving society.
Through the participants’ answers, it is very clear that the Turkish immigrants are aware of adoption of receiving society. But in order to be able to adopt the values of the receiving society, the people of that society need to adapt to meet the needs of the immigrant groups. Moreover, in this democratic society, receiving communities also support mutual integration and help immigrants’ need, such as free language training, support for immigrants’ cultural activities, support for religious practices and support for sport activities. All these contributions help immigrants to feel at home in a new country and adjust to the realities of the American society.
Question 5: Do You Think Integration Brings Satisfactions/Happiness? Why?
Coming to question five, first and foremost most participants underlined that their satisfaction and happiness depended mainly on their living conditions in the USA. For instance, the Turkish-American who has a citizenship or permanent residency, high level of English proficiency, and who has a prestige in the job market, as well, is quite satisfied and joyful. Second, as Kamuran insisted, “It is important not to be alienated in a society and by being able to put away differences and worn on common points”. In other words, if the integration gives one the chance to be recognized and gives one the ability to share his beliefs and common points with others, most Turkish immigrant are happy to get involved. Because they think like Melek who said,“Personally, I think integration can bring happiness, if a person likes to research and likes to learn something about different countries cultures”. Metin, even, strongly highlighted, “Integration will bring satisfactory and happiness unless you do not lose your identity or your own culture”.
Through Kamuran, Melek and Metin’s comments, it seems that they are happy to integrate into American cultures, provided there is collaboration between American and Turkish values. This will help the Turkish immigrants to feel quite at ease because:
As Kasim put it: Feeling as an alien is not joyful. We should contribute the host culture with our own values, through integration, i.e., being a part of community.
Moreover, Hakan highlighted: The refusal of integration would be segregation, because it will not bring about any benefits or happiness. If some people who do not integrate in the receiving society do not understand each other and it is leading to mistrust, friction and prejudice.
He continued: Integration leads to acceptance, respect and mutual understanding on both sides which brings satisfaction and happiness.
However, though almost 85% of the first generation Turkish immigrants are happy to integrate the receiving society, only two respondents, Murat and Ali, did not share their views. For instance:
Murat said: Without integration, we are still happy as a family, everybody respects our choices around us, do we. So, why do I have to integrate in the society which I do not need?.
He is supported by Ali who added: Complete integration has one dimensional result which means discarding any goods in the name of integration and there is no reason a satisfaction/happiness should result with integration unless a selective integration by discarding only replacing things are better.
Through Murat and Ali’s viewpoints, one can see that 25% of the first-generation Turkish immigrants did not believe that integration, necessarily, brings happiness and satisfaction, because it is likely to end up with submission to the dominant culture.
Conclusions
Today, the Turkish-American community is rapidly growing, diversifying and reflecting a more accurate picture of Turks today. Turkish immigrants are proud of their history and culture, Turkish-Americans approach American integration confidently and enthusiastically. They feel at home with a secular, democratic society and open economy. They feel accepted with their unique Muslim or non-religious spirituality. They welcome the challenges of pursing opportunity and feel deep satisfaction in achieving their dreams. The brief analysis of the first-generation Turkish immigrants’ interviews exhibits their integration into the receiving society. This is, first, shown by their high levels of education, job satisfaction and happiness of being a part of the host society, upward mobility. Second, they match the theoretical framework to get all the required documentation of entry, learn the target language as quickly as possible regardless of their ages, and the first one who came are always to give a hand to their family member whenever they arrive from Turkey.
In addition, there is evidence of integration among immigrants of Turkish origin, particularly among the second and third generations. Their high level of education and fluency of English allows their access to information and public services, which is a key factor for their full participation in social, economic and political processes. Furthermore, their cultural integration is significant, since it maintains a harmony and a positive balance in a dominant society. It helps to reduce unnecessary conflicts, and with all parts of a society are linked together, it becomes more homogeneous. Finally, this study shows that the first-generation Turkish immigrants’ cultural integration in the American multicultural society is a successful experience.
References
Ak?apar, S. K. (2006). Turkish highly skilled migration to the US new findings and policy recommendations. Istanbul: Turkey, Koc University Press.
Akgun, B. (2000). The Turkish Diaspora in the US and its role in promoting Turkish-American relations. The Turkish Yearbook, 31, 99-118.
Altschiller, D. (2009). Turkish-Americans. Retrieved March 30, 2011, from http://www.everyculture.com/multi/ Sr-Z/Turkish-Americans.html
Aydin, H. (2010). Headscarf ban in Turkey: The importance of veiling. The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education, 6(1), 1-22.
Balgamis, A. D., & Karpat, H. K. (2008). Turkish migration to the US: From ottoman times to the present. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Bernard, S. W. (1976). The integration of immigrants in the United States. International Migration Review, 1(2), 23-33.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Sage Publication.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Sage Publication.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Sage Publication.
Ellis, M., & Almgren, G. (2009). Local contexts of immigrant and second-generation integration in the US. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(7), 1059-1076.
Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. (2006). Turkish people. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people
Evinc, G. (2009, September). Immigration, integratio and loyalty: The Turkish-American experience. The Paper Presented at the International Conference on the Social Integration and Community Development Association. Annapolis, M. D. Abstract Retrieved from http://www.sicda.org/2009Abstracts.html#gunay_abstract
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc..
Grabowski, J. J. (2005). Turkish-American society of northeastern Ohio records. Retrieved January 6, 2011, from http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=TIC
Karpat, K. (1995). The Turks in America. In S. de Tapia (Ed.), Turks in Europe and elsewhere (pp. 612-638). Paris: ERISM.
Kaya, I. (2003). Shifting Turkish-American identity formations in the US (p. 211). Tallahassee: Florida State University.
Kaya, I. (2004). Turkish-American immigration history and identity formation. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 24(2), 295-308.
Kaya, I. (2009). Identity across generations: A Turkish-American case study. Middle East Journal, 63(4), 617-632.
Kivisto, P. (2002). Multiculturalism in a global society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Micallef, R. (2004). Turkish-Americans: Performing identities in a transnational setting. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 24(2), 233-241.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Sage Publications.
Nagy, S., & Viney, L. (1994). The rigorous application of qualitative methods to constructivist research. Paper presented at the Australian Psychological Society Conference. Wollongong: New South Wales.
Peace Democracy and Human Rights. (2010). Punishing students for their opinions. Retrieved from http://www.arsehsevom.net/ 2010/12/punishing-students-for-their-opinions/
Pooley, J. A., Breen, L., Pike, L. T., Cohen, L., & Drew, N. M. (2007). Critiquing the school community: A qualitative study of children’s conceptualizations of their schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(2), 87-98.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1997). Immigrant America: A portrait. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The Journal of Higher Education, 63, 603-618.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turkish American Forum. (2000). Turkish-American. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.everyculture.com/ multi/Sr-Z/Turkish-Americans.html
USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services). (2009). Welcome to the US: A guide for new immigrants. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf
Uunk, W. (2003). The cultural integration of immigrants in the Netherlands: A description and explanation of modern attitudes of Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, Antilleans and the Indigenous population. In L. Hagendoorn, J. Veenman, & W. Volleberg(Eds.), Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands: Cultural versus socio-economic integration (pp. 199-227). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Keywords: Turkish immigrants, cultural integration, multicultural education, qualitative study, US
Introduction
The Turkish American community is rapidly growing, diversifying and reflecting a more accurate picture of Turks today than in the past. In the social debate on the position of the first-generation of Turkish immigrants in the US, cultural integration is an important component. Some researchers including Uunk (2003) argued that in order to achieve an equal position, the members of the ethnic minorities should adjust to the norms and values of the receiving country, while others saw the distinct cultural habits, norms and values of ethnic groups as an enriching host culture that represented no hindrance to their social integration. The purpose of this study was to analyze the cultural integration of Turkish immigrants in multicultural societies from the perspectives of first-generation Turkish immigrants currently residing in the US. The US considers Turkey as a multi-level strategic partner in the Eurasia—Middle East Region for the long haul.
Consequently, they view the Turkish Americans as a key “heritage community”, and interlocutors between the two nations and societies (Evinch, 2009).
Very few studies have been carried out about the historical immigration patterns and cultural backgrounds of Turkish immigrants in the US. The first documented wave of immigration started in 1860s(Altschiller, 2009). These immigrants settled in large industrial cities and found employment as unskilled labors (Kaya, 2003, 2009; Micallef, 2004). The majority came to support their families in Turkey, because the Turkish economy suffered severely from the last World War (Balgamis & Karpat, 2008). The second wave came into play after 1950s. They were well-skilled, professional and highly educated groups immigrated to the US, the majority being medical doctors, engineers and scientists (Evinch, 2009). Today, Turkish Americans are visible in virtually every community and walk of life (Ak?apar, 2006; Balgamis & Karpat, 2008; Karpat, 1995). The third wave is in the late 1980s, immigrants came to America to flee religious persecutions, such as headscarf ban or political tyranny. They were eager to take advantage of economic or educational opportunities offered in the USA (Karpat, 1995). Distinguishing factor from previous groups was that a large number of professionals, such as doctors and engineers who came to the US for educational and training purposes in the late 1980s (Kaya, 2003; 2004).
The most recent wave of Turkish immigration was for educational and business purposes. Their competences vary widely. Some opened small businesses and created Turkish American organizations, thus, developing Turkish enclaves, particularly in the states where the majority of Turkish immigrants live. Still, others came for educational purposes. They also included an enormous number of academicians, graduate students, engineers, doctors and other professionals in the late 2000s. The most recent group represents a mixture of diverse social classes, educational levels and ideological positions. Most Turkish immigrants in the US had a college education (Kaya, 2003). Karpat (1995) also stated that the third wave of Turkish immigrants who came to the US were mostly college graduates who came for educational, training and financial purposes. But compared to Turkey, the cost of education in the US is much higher than it is in Turkey. Hence, these students have to find ways to support themselves at the same time as studying. Ak?apar (2006) mentioned that the MEB (Turkish Ministry of Education) and YOK (the Turkish Institution of Higher Education) gave financial support to around 2,200 students, and there was a significant number that received financial aid from various US institutions in the form of graduate or research assistantships. In addition, Akgun (2000) stated that many Turkish students were also supported by their families, while some worked to support themselves. Those who work to support themselves may end up with only working or starting their businesses because of the expense of paying high out-of-state tuitions and living expenses.
Since that year, there are more than 2,000 Turkish immigrants per year, because the revision of the American immigration law opened the door to more new people from Turkey (Grabowski, 2005). That increasing flow of immigrants led to the establishment of the TAA (Turkish American Associations) in the US. Estimates of the total population of Turkish Americans have range from 100,000 to 400,000 (Turkish American Forum, 2000). Since that time, ATA (Association of Turkish Americans) has served as the voice and advocate for the local Turkish American population. ATA has sponsored language schools, created a Turkish dance troupe and has sponsored or hosted the visit of cultural and performing groups from Turkey. ATA has also served as the community’s voice in issues, such as those relating to Turkey itself and those that bear upon the Turks resident in the US (Grabowski, 2005).
Furthermore, in 2006, the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History states that there is an estimated 500,000 Turks living in the US; from the beginning of Turkish immigration to the US, many immigrants have settled in or around large urban centers. Geographically, the greatest numbers who have settled in the largest Turkish communities are found in New York City, Chicago, Texas, Atlanta and California. Since the 1970s, the number of Turkish immigrants has risen to more than 4,000 per year. According to Micallef (2004), Turkish Americans are becoming increasingly visible and vocal in America. Roughly, two centuries after the first wave of Turkish speaking immigrants arrived in the US successfully. Statistically in 2011, approximately, there are between 500,000 and 600,000 Turkish immigrants are living in the US which is undocumented.
Methodology
Design
This study followed a qualitative research design. Qualitative research was used to understand social phenomenon from the standpoint of those involved (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), where through a series of scoping interview with first-generation Turkish immigrants in the Western US, the specific conceptual framework for the study emerged. Qualitative methods describe the world in relation to the location and people involved—that is the ontology (the nature of reality) of qualitative methods is that reality in the world is socially constructed, complex and ever changing. Accordingly, the epistemology (nature of knowledge) posits that, it is through personal interactions and explorations with the perceptions that participants hold that knowledge about the realities is attained (Glesne, 2006).
Participants
Table 1
Participant Demographics
As shown in Table 1, 15 adult participants (10 males and five females) aged from 23 to 58 (M = 39.4) for this study were purposefully selected. In qualitative research, purposeful selection is necessary for the researcher(s) in order to “best help the researcher understand the research questions” (Creswell, 2003, p. 185). The basic criteria for choosing particularly these participants are gender, years living in the US (at least five years), ethnicity, age, education and occupation.
The length of stay in the US gave them more experience about the US culture, education system and language. Their ethnicities were Turkish national, Kurdish, American-Turkish and one of them did not specify his ethnicity. The participants were highly educated in their field and most of them received their M.A./M.S. and Ph.D. degree in the US, and some of them received their college degrees in Turkey and came here to complete their graduate programs. Most of the participants found a job after completing their degrees. Some became faculty members teaching and researching in various colleges in the Western US, engineers other worked at well-known institutions in California States, specifically, in city of San Francisco, teachers and administrators who work at the school districts, and finally graduate students are working on the their Ph.D. programs.
It is worth pointing out that throughout this research, all participants were informed of the choice to have their own name or a pseudonym used. All of them preferred to use pseudonyms name.
Sample and Recruitment
The research took place during the Christmas Holiday from 2010 to 2011. The author conducted in-depth interviews with 15 first-generation Turkish immigrants who live in the Western US. Here, the qualitative research is uniquely suited to gathering insights into participants’ perceptions and cultural contexts (Tierney 1992; Tinto 1993). All of these participants were recruited during the Turkish communities’ seminar which was organized by BAYCC (BAY Area Cultural Connections) in Sacramento, a capital city of California.
The author used semi-structured with in-depth interview questions with probes to elicit participants’feelings, thoughts and opinions about their own experiences of cultural integration. The instrument of this study was a six-open-ended interview questionnaire including demographics of characteristics, such as gender, language, educational attainment, date of migration, ethnicity and occupation both in Turkey and US. The questions related to culture, language, their knowledge of the American culture and education, additional questions asked about cultural integration, contexts of being integrated, and advantages and disadvantages integration/being integrated.
The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. With permission from the participants, the author audio-recorded all the interviews and took field notes to supplement the recordings. After the data were initially analyzed, two participated in a focus group to reflect on the analysis of the data. These participants were selected because of their experience and understanding of both Turkish and American cultures, their levels of education and abilities to articulate their perceptions and their cultural backgrounds. One was a Turkish-American and had a master’s degree. The other one was a Turkish who grew up in San Francisco, and he graduated from Stanford University. Both of them worked in the same computer software company that the author did at the time of the interviews. The focus group discussion was audio-recorded and field notes were taken. Interviews with previous acquaintances were arranged individually. The author asked interviewees to refer others who fit the criteria and might be willing to participate.
Data Collection
The data was collected through in-depth interviews with open-ended and semi-structured with 15 individuals and one focus group with two participants who were first-generation Turkish immigrants in the Western US, particularly, from Reno, Nevada; San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Sacramento, California. In addition, audio recordings and written texts were collected from the interviews. The audio data was transcribed into text for thematic analysis and description, as it was the written notes the participants produced during the interview sessions. Finally, categories were formed according to the clarity and meaning the participants’ responses (transcribed and inscriptions) conveyed in relation to the questions that were asked (see Appendix A).
Date Analysis
The interviews were guided according to Creswell’s (1998) process for analyzing qualitative data, the interviews were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were then read first by author, and the read by other two members in focus-group. During the analysis of the data, each reviewer kept a journal in which memos and notes were recorded as this formed part of the audit trail (Nagy & Viney, 1994; Pooley, Breen, Pike, Cohen, & Drew, 2007) which helped reduce biases and reactions. Initially, a thematic content analysis(Miles & Huberman, 1994) was conducted for each of the six questions (see Appendix A) in order to determine the concepts that underpinned the participant’s understanding of cultural integration. The transcripts were not analyzed by gender, age, ethnicity or other socio-demographic characteristics, as the author were interested in whether these first-generation Turkish immigrants could integrate in the dominant society. The analysis is centered on the questions that were distributed. Each question is analyzed separately and the dialogue is presented after each question, while key points are highlighted in the analysis that follows.
Results
Question 1: Why Did You Choose to Live in the US?
The US has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all over the world. They value the contributions of immigrants, who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity(USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services), 2009). The responses to the first question in the immigration interview are quite obvious.
From the data, one can say that the participants justified the choices to live in the US with several arguments. The first reason is that they received a “green card” which identifies the bearer as an alien with permanent resident’s status, and they has been granted the authorization to live and work in the US on a permanent basis. Because of this opportunity, some of these participants had granted a green card and had chosen to live in the US. The second reason is to deal with the educational opportunities which are offered. The US advocate for first-rate education that is available for all immigrants. Regardless of their economic status, a high quality of education is available, in both science and social science fields with the highest-ranked colleges, and the educational attainment varies significantly among the different types of occupations. The third reason is a job satisfaction. Approximately 75% of respondents said that they were “extremely” satisfied with their jobs. Furthermore, most participants are employed in big institutions which bring a lot of advantages, such as satisfaction of income, social standing of occupations, academic freedom, time flexibility and technology opportunities. All these important satisfactory components bring happiness and positive reaction in their lives. The fourth reason is a mixture of educational, political and religious freedom. Some participants stated that the freedom of religion is generally understood that the US government permits religious practices of other sects beside the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths. Other respondents mentioned that they could practice their religious at any time and wherever they wish. Also, due to headscarf ban in education in Turkey since 1980s, many female Turkish immigrants migrated to the US to receive their higher education(Aydin, 2010). This is the rights for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views. Furthermore, in the US, educational freedom inquiry by students and faculties is also essential(including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss or imprisonment. Peace Democracy and Human Rights (2010) emphasized that excluding students from universities based on their political and religious views was a totalitarian practice that ruined careers and removed reform-oriented young people from future professional cohorts. Through that, many Turkish immigrants migrated to the US in early 1980s. Finally, as mentioned earlier, the current democratic elected government sends a lot of college students to US to receive their graduate degrees since 2000 which the author named fourth wave of Turkish immigrants’ migration to the US. From these all advantages from US side and some problematic issues that happened from 1980 through 2000 made choice of Turkish immigrants live in the US.
Question 2: What Do You Consider Your Home Country?
The use of the term “American or Turkish citizenship” to the Turkish immigrants’ respondents is quite altered. From the interviews, four of total participants considered that their home country was “Turkey”. For instance:
Murat (pseudonym) considered that his home country was Turkey, said: I do not feel that I am an American, because I was not born here and most members of my family live in Turkey.
Ali was completed: I will go back to Turkey sooner or later. I will not stay here forever.
And he concluded: America is country for immigration and America has never imposed an official language, and if current population levels continue as they are currently, it is likely to become Spanish or other languages so, how can I consider myself as an American? It is like that 50 counties located in a big land.
Another participant named Ayse said: I consider Turkey to be my home country, because it was where my ancestors came from. So, I do believe that where your ancestors come from that is your home country.
His friend Hakan added: Your home country will always be your home country because you were born there. You cannot change your citizen, though just move to another country and live there for a certain amount of years and apply for citizenship.
And he completed: I am a first generation immigrant person, I was not born here, and therefore, how I can consider myself as an American? But if I was born here that could be.
He also commented: I love this country because of diverse culture, language, respect, dialogue, freedom and democratic government, but considering being a home country is Turkey.
Through these, four participants perspectives that they do not consider themselves as an American, even though, they speak fluent English, adapted culture, language and received education and working in this country do not make as their home country because of a being a first generation immigrants and a short time-period to live in the US.
Most of participants (eight of them) considered themselves both Turkish and American. For example:
Kemal: I am considering myself both Turkish and American. I was born in Turkey but I was raised here, educated and still working here, therefore, I am a Turkish-American.
Fatma: I am from Turkey and I am a Turkish but here is a second home for me. In some sense, I feel here as my home country when I back to Turkey.
Kasim also state: I am not considering America is my home country but I think, I am becoming a part of this country too, as my second citizenship and also it offers freedom and diversity, so I like it a lot.
Another participant, Levent enthusiastically added: Because of educational, religious and political freedom that I consider America as my second home country.
And he continued: Peace, tolerance and dialogue are another part of good things of America that I like it a lot and this is my 16th years of being in this country. Therefore, I adopted and integrated in this wonderful society.
Also, some other participants were considering themselves as a Turkish-American citizenship, due to length of living in the US, and their citizenship makes immigrant integrated into dominant society.
Only three of the participants considered themselves as American. For instance:
Halil proudly said: My home country is the US; I do not care where my ancestors came from. That is what is wrong with this country, if you live and work here, then this is your home country, be proud of that.
He continued: I am here almost 35 years and raised here so, this is my country. It does not mean I am not Turkish; Yes, I am Turkish and also American.
Dilek added: I am definitely American—not born but raised. I do not claim much about Turkey as my “home”country. I am proud of being American, Am I supposed to say I am a “Turkish”?.
Another respondent—Mehmet said differently: I feel like I am an American when I am here but when I back to Turkey, probably, I will say I am a Turkish, so it depends on where you live.
He continued: It is a great benefits when you consider yourself where you live because it helps to integrate in a host society than it will bring success life for you.
Through these quotes from participants, consideration of receiving country depends on your long time living and beliefs of integrated in dominant society bring success and happiness.
Question 3: How Do You Define “Cultural Integration”?
The literature on immigrants’ cultural integration has established that “contexts of reception” and “modes of incorporation” are key factors that affect an immigrant group’s process of integration into the host society(Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Ellis & Almgren, 2009). Moreover, many researchers, including Bernard (1976), stated that cultural integration was difficult to define, because it was made up of many concepts. These different definitions from literature are not shared by the participants of this study. For instance,
Kasim defined integration as he said: To adopt into dominant society or host country.
Melek shares Kasim’s point of view, as he pointed out: Combined with racial, religious or ethnic group from receiving country.
Ali followed them saying: Being myself, yet functioning in the host society or gathering around the host community and understanding the background of each culture.
Sultan, a female participant, eagerly defined integration highlighting: Finding a place for you and your immediate family in the society so that you can enjoy your life in that (host) society, you can contribute to the well-being of the society while preserving your own identity.
The definition of integration from the first-generation of Turkish immigrants shows a typical lack of a clear understanding of the normative basis for taking a position in the host society.
Another factor worth mentioning is the immigrants’ abilities and willingness to participate fully as residents or citizens of the US. This element goes beyond their language competence, skills and educational characteristics. The key indicator of their integration is their levels of naturalization, since it represents their commitment to civic participation and loyalty to the adopted country. Those who are really involved would respond like Kemal as he said, “I am a naturalized citizen”, and Ayse added, “I am adopted in American society because I am speaking English fluently, educated me in the highest level, and I am a permanent residence in this country so, I am feeling happily to being a part of this community”. Approximately, 60% participants agreed with Kemal and Ayse. Also, Sultan continued and said, “Integration is like a harmony of original culture. So my original culture is bounded within American culture”. Integration associated with greater happiness among Turkish immigrants. More specifically, most Turkish immigrants who become naturalized citizens are happier than immigrants who refrain from naturalization. Among various factors, this includes Turkish immigrants’ legal status, citizenship, their location, educational level, their transnational activities and the political and economic conditions in the US which are integral to successful adaptation to their new place of residency.
Question 4: How Should Turkish Immigrants Adopt to the Host Culture?
As far as the host culture is concerned, the answers from these participants showed that members of minority groups, in a receiving country, should retain their cultures of origin and also maintain a positive relationship with the receiving culture. In other words, for some kind of integration to take place, a mutual accommodation is needed. Immigrant groups need to have the ability to live as a different cultural group and at the same time, adopt the values of the receiving society. Murat gave an example of how and why they should adapt in the host society.
As he said: We have to filter the host culture through our religious values and adopt those parts which are approved by our religion. We should seek to complete the host culture with nice part of our own culture as well.
He then continued: As America is a very diverse country, we should learn a lot from Americans, in terms of discipline, excellent work habits, rich culture, language, different types of religious, honesty and productive work place. We need learn all of these factors to adopt in this society because it will help us to a productive in our life.
Another participant, Fatma, commented: Rather than cultural, practical behaviors of Westerns are adoptable since Turkish teaching and particularly Islamic teaching has already emphasized them anyway.
Then, she added: Work, discipline, planning and educating oneself should be adopted in host society.
A third respondent, Levent, strongly advised: We have to adopt in this culture by attending school, even though, to have a higher degree but just to learn education system of this country.
Sultan completed his idea as he said: By visiting to American family and inviting them in our home to teach each other with our core values, cultural elements and cuisines that help to adopt in American culture.
Other participants emphasized different aspects, such as attending special days of receiving country. For example:
Kamuran said: We have to celebrate Americans’ special holidays, like Thanksgiving Holiday, Christmas, Labors Day, and so on. It will give a chance to learn everything and adopt where you live.
Another respondent, Halil continued and said: We should also visit different religious churches, learn other immigrants’ languages, participate in different cultural heritages, to join intercultural and interfaith dialogue would also help understand each other.
Hakan added: Dialogue, people in the US like to talk, research and learn more about other cultures. So, through the dialogue people can learn more about each other cultures. All these opportunities will give a mutual understanding among those different cultural group also lead immigrants to adopt and integrate in receiving society.
Through the participants’ answers, it is very clear that the Turkish immigrants are aware of adoption of receiving society. But in order to be able to adopt the values of the receiving society, the people of that society need to adapt to meet the needs of the immigrant groups. Moreover, in this democratic society, receiving communities also support mutual integration and help immigrants’ need, such as free language training, support for immigrants’ cultural activities, support for religious practices and support for sport activities. All these contributions help immigrants to feel at home in a new country and adjust to the realities of the American society.
Question 5: Do You Think Integration Brings Satisfactions/Happiness? Why?
Coming to question five, first and foremost most participants underlined that their satisfaction and happiness depended mainly on their living conditions in the USA. For instance, the Turkish-American who has a citizenship or permanent residency, high level of English proficiency, and who has a prestige in the job market, as well, is quite satisfied and joyful. Second, as Kamuran insisted, “It is important not to be alienated in a society and by being able to put away differences and worn on common points”. In other words, if the integration gives one the chance to be recognized and gives one the ability to share his beliefs and common points with others, most Turkish immigrant are happy to get involved. Because they think like Melek who said,“Personally, I think integration can bring happiness, if a person likes to research and likes to learn something about different countries cultures”. Metin, even, strongly highlighted, “Integration will bring satisfactory and happiness unless you do not lose your identity or your own culture”.
Through Kamuran, Melek and Metin’s comments, it seems that they are happy to integrate into American cultures, provided there is collaboration between American and Turkish values. This will help the Turkish immigrants to feel quite at ease because:
As Kasim put it: Feeling as an alien is not joyful. We should contribute the host culture with our own values, through integration, i.e., being a part of community.
Moreover, Hakan highlighted: The refusal of integration would be segregation, because it will not bring about any benefits or happiness. If some people who do not integrate in the receiving society do not understand each other and it is leading to mistrust, friction and prejudice.
He continued: Integration leads to acceptance, respect and mutual understanding on both sides which brings satisfaction and happiness.
However, though almost 85% of the first generation Turkish immigrants are happy to integrate the receiving society, only two respondents, Murat and Ali, did not share their views. For instance:
Murat said: Without integration, we are still happy as a family, everybody respects our choices around us, do we. So, why do I have to integrate in the society which I do not need?.
He is supported by Ali who added: Complete integration has one dimensional result which means discarding any goods in the name of integration and there is no reason a satisfaction/happiness should result with integration unless a selective integration by discarding only replacing things are better.
Through Murat and Ali’s viewpoints, one can see that 25% of the first-generation Turkish immigrants did not believe that integration, necessarily, brings happiness and satisfaction, because it is likely to end up with submission to the dominant culture.
Conclusions
Today, the Turkish-American community is rapidly growing, diversifying and reflecting a more accurate picture of Turks today. Turkish immigrants are proud of their history and culture, Turkish-Americans approach American integration confidently and enthusiastically. They feel at home with a secular, democratic society and open economy. They feel accepted with their unique Muslim or non-religious spirituality. They welcome the challenges of pursing opportunity and feel deep satisfaction in achieving their dreams. The brief analysis of the first-generation Turkish immigrants’ interviews exhibits their integration into the receiving society. This is, first, shown by their high levels of education, job satisfaction and happiness of being a part of the host society, upward mobility. Second, they match the theoretical framework to get all the required documentation of entry, learn the target language as quickly as possible regardless of their ages, and the first one who came are always to give a hand to their family member whenever they arrive from Turkey.
In addition, there is evidence of integration among immigrants of Turkish origin, particularly among the second and third generations. Their high level of education and fluency of English allows their access to information and public services, which is a key factor for their full participation in social, economic and political processes. Furthermore, their cultural integration is significant, since it maintains a harmony and a positive balance in a dominant society. It helps to reduce unnecessary conflicts, and with all parts of a society are linked together, it becomes more homogeneous. Finally, this study shows that the first-generation Turkish immigrants’ cultural integration in the American multicultural society is a successful experience.
References
Ak?apar, S. K. (2006). Turkish highly skilled migration to the US new findings and policy recommendations. Istanbul: Turkey, Koc University Press.
Akgun, B. (2000). The Turkish Diaspora in the US and its role in promoting Turkish-American relations. The Turkish Yearbook, 31, 99-118.
Altschiller, D. (2009). Turkish-Americans. Retrieved March 30, 2011, from http://www.everyculture.com/multi/ Sr-Z/Turkish-Americans.html
Aydin, H. (2010). Headscarf ban in Turkey: The importance of veiling. The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education, 6(1), 1-22.
Balgamis, A. D., & Karpat, H. K. (2008). Turkish migration to the US: From ottoman times to the present. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Bernard, S. W. (1976). The integration of immigrants in the United States. International Migration Review, 1(2), 23-33.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Sage Publication.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Sage Publication.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Sage Publication.
Ellis, M., & Almgren, G. (2009). Local contexts of immigrant and second-generation integration in the US. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(7), 1059-1076.
Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. (2006). Turkish people. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people
Evinc, G. (2009, September). Immigration, integratio and loyalty: The Turkish-American experience. The Paper Presented at the International Conference on the Social Integration and Community Development Association. Annapolis, M. D. Abstract Retrieved from http://www.sicda.org/2009Abstracts.html#gunay_abstract
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc..
Grabowski, J. J. (2005). Turkish-American society of northeastern Ohio records. Retrieved January 6, 2011, from http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=TIC
Karpat, K. (1995). The Turks in America. In S. de Tapia (Ed.), Turks in Europe and elsewhere (pp. 612-638). Paris: ERISM.
Kaya, I. (2003). Shifting Turkish-American identity formations in the US (p. 211). Tallahassee: Florida State University.
Kaya, I. (2004). Turkish-American immigration history and identity formation. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 24(2), 295-308.
Kaya, I. (2009). Identity across generations: A Turkish-American case study. Middle East Journal, 63(4), 617-632.
Kivisto, P. (2002). Multiculturalism in a global society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Micallef, R. (2004). Turkish-Americans: Performing identities in a transnational setting. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 24(2), 233-241.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Sage Publications.
Nagy, S., & Viney, L. (1994). The rigorous application of qualitative methods to constructivist research. Paper presented at the Australian Psychological Society Conference. Wollongong: New South Wales.
Peace Democracy and Human Rights. (2010). Punishing students for their opinions. Retrieved from http://www.arsehsevom.net/ 2010/12/punishing-students-for-their-opinions/
Pooley, J. A., Breen, L., Pike, L. T., Cohen, L., & Drew, N. M. (2007). Critiquing the school community: A qualitative study of children’s conceptualizations of their schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(2), 87-98.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1997). Immigrant America: A portrait. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The Journal of Higher Education, 63, 603-618.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turkish American Forum. (2000). Turkish-American. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.everyculture.com/ multi/Sr-Z/Turkish-Americans.html
USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services). (2009). Welcome to the US: A guide for new immigrants. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf
Uunk, W. (2003). The cultural integration of immigrants in the Netherlands: A description and explanation of modern attitudes of Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, Antilleans and the Indigenous population. In L. Hagendoorn, J. Veenman, & W. Volleberg(Eds.), Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands: Cultural versus socio-economic integration (pp. 199-227). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited.