Discussion of findings in relation to Capability Approach

The Capability Approach, as applied to this study, shifts the focus from the ‗means‘ of participants‘ social media use (issues of access and platforms used) to the outcomes or

‗capabilities‘ that it offers them, which are of value to them. Following Sen‘s own view that

―the assessment of capabilities has to proceed primarily on the basis of observing a person‘s actual functionings‖ (1999, p. 131), I approached the identification of capabilities associated with social media use by analysing what participants reported that they were able to achieve from using it. This approach has also been applied in empirical research by Andrade and Doolin (2016) and others. The achieved functionings that my participants‘ identified, as presented in the previous chapter, were: 1) communication; 2) social connection; 3) learning;

72 4) access to information; 5) self-representation. Based on these findings, I suggest five

corresponding capabilities that social media use offers to refugees: effective communication;

social connectedness; participation in learning opportunities; access to information; and expression of self.

 Effective communication. The ability to easily and reliably communicate with family and friends in different parts of the world, for some on a daily basis, was the most important thing about social media for participants in this study. Social media, particularly messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Skype, enabled them to share information about their own lives and to keep track of the lives of their loved ones in almost real-time. This ability was a source of great comfort. In fact, it was described by several participants as a ―need‖. If this need for communication was not fulfilled, it could negatively affect their mood and outlook. It can therefore be supposed that social media can provide a vital means of emotional and psychological support for refugees.

 Social connectedness. Social media played a role for participants in establishing relationships - with people that they met through social media or were known to them as acquaintances in ‗real life‘, as well with as those that they only communicated with online. Even if online connections did not result in offline ones, they were still

regarded as valuable, and social media offered a neutral space in which to ‗meet‘ and share experiences. Online social networks could, therefore, provide for refugees a sense of belonging and inclusion and help progress their integration in the host country.

 Participation in learning opportunities. YouTube in particular was a vital resource for participants for learning; they reporting using it to learn languages (Norwegian and English), and for learning how to ‗do‘, fix, and make things that they needed or wanted. It seemed that most participants almost took for granted the ability to access learning opportunities online - ―[YouTube] I use it for everything‖ (Farah) - and often did not recognise their activity as learning. However, it seems clear that without social media as a resource, they would have had difficult satisfying these learning needs so easily. It would be interesting to probe this further and to consider the potential of social media as a means of delivering educational programmes to refugees and asylum seekers. This is especially pertinent for asylum seekers since, as Nasim found, they are not usually allowed to participate in education programmes, including language

73 learning, whilst their applications are being assessed. They therefore have very

limited learning opportunities; social media may provide a means of accessing these.

 Access to information. Being able to find out about events in their home countries and access information needed to navigate the social and practical challenges of their new lives in Norway was important to most participants. It gave them a sense of control and the ability to make choices in their everyday lives. Access to information about local opportunities (such as volunteer opportunities) might also, in turn, have important benefits for social connections, participation, and integration.

 Expression of self. Although Nasim was the only participant in the study who directly identified self-representation as a valued achievement of his use of social media, the impact that the ability to do this - to present and express himself on his terms - had on his self-esteem and sense of control (and perhaps had on the way that his Norwegian Facebook ‗friends‘ responded to him so warmly and helpfully), makes it worth including as a potential capability of social media use for refugees. As a marginalised group, often discredited in the media, refugees do not have many other outlets through which they can demonstrate who they are and what they can offer to their new

society, in their own voice. Using social media for self-expression, and the benefits derived by doing this, could therefore be an intriguing area for further research.

Undoubtedly, being able to realise the capabilities identified could be positive for refugees in terms of offering them emotional support, social connections, a sense of community and belonging (in their home country and new society), as well opportunities to participate and integrate in a new society. In turn, realising these capabilities could enhance their sense of agency and well-being.

„Capabilities‟ findings in the context of other studies

The capabilities identified in this study share strong similarities with capabilities identified in the limited number of empirical studies which have examined the use of digital technologies by refugees, particularly the studies of AbuJarour and Krasnova (2017) and Andrade and Doolin (2016). Both identified communication (termed in these studies ‗effective

telecommunication‘ and ‗communicating effectively‘); social connectedness; and access to information (termed ‗participating in an information society‘), as capabilities that ICT enabled refugees to realise. Whilst AbuJarour and Krasnova (2017) also identified

74

‗participation in education programmes‘, which relates to the learning capability identified in this study, this referred to more formal educational programmes delivered online and

YouTube ‗lessons‘ rather than informal learning. They also identified some additional capabilities that did not emerge from this study, including: ‗communicating with

government‘, ‗translation services‘, ‗mobility‘ (geographical navigation), and ‗safety and emergency services‘ (AbuJarour & Krasnova, 2017). However, most of the participants in the AbuJarour and Krasnova study were refugees living in shelters and awaiting asylum

application decisions, so their immediate needs and concerns were likely to be different from the participants in this study. Furthermore, neither of these studies, nor others reviewed, focussed on capabilities associated with social media specifically, but looked at ICTs (of which social media is a part).

In relation to social connectedness, other studies with migrant groups have shown that online support groups and Internet-mediated social support can help with adaptation during

resettlement (Hiller & Franz, 2004; Mikal & Woodfield, 2015). A recent study exploring social media use by refugees in the Netherlands found that social media was particularly important for building social connections with the native population through the coordination of intercultural meetings and links between refugees and local people (Alencar, 2017).

Expression of self has not been identified in studies that I am aware of. Although studies (AbuJarour & Krasnova 2017; Andrade & Doolin, 2016) have identified

‗maintaining/expressing cultural identity‘ as a capability that digital technology offers refugees, this has focussed more on maintaining religious or cultural beliefs and attachments using technology than on self expression.