Communication Technology and Social Integration: Access and Use of Communication Technologies Among Floridian Resettled Refugees

  • Caitlin G. BletscherEmail author


Access to and use of communication technology are essential to U.S. refugee social integration. These technologies allow individuals to stay connected with their home country, decrease social isolation, and lower negative mental health consequences. Therefore, refugee familiarity with communication technology is essential in order to participate in today’s global digital information age. This research study sought to quantitatively and qualitatively determine the influence of communication technologies on social well-being and connectedness of refugees resettled in the U.S. State of Florida (n = 95). This study used a transformative, mix-methods approach with a convergent design, conducted in a series of workshops at three highly resettled metropolitan cities. Results concluded that participants perceived to use technology slightly well (M = 2.85), where their perceived ability to use technologies, such as the phone, Internet, and computer (M = 2.60), were slightly better than their ability to search for jobs and navigate online banking (M = 3.00). Despite both advantages and disadvantages of communication technology voiced by participants, refugees acknowledged the ongoing importance of the Internet as a key communication tool. Although several participants acknowledged that many refugees have limited access to communication technology at large, an ongoing theme of self-confidence and independence emerged for those that did have access to its benefits. The results of the study’s social network analysis proved inconclusive with regard to participant’s perceived communication technology ability and his or her degree centrality. Results present recommendations to resettlement practitioners and policymakers in order to address refugee access to and use of communication technology in the current U.S. integration process.


Communication technology Social well-being Connectedness Mixed methodology 



  1. Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: a conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. Scholar
  2. Alam, K., & Imran, S. (2015). The digital divide and social inclusion among refugee migrants: a case in regional Australia. Information Technology & People, 28(2), 344–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amisi, B. B. (2006). Social capital, social networks and refugee migration: an exploration of the livelihood strategies of Durban Congolese refugees. Retrieved from the University of KwaZulu Natal Durban website:
  4. Bearden, M. (2014). Refugees’ farm project in Tampa grows with faith. The Tampa Tribune. Retrieved from the Tampa Tribune website:
  5. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCInet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  6. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-1-4462-4740-2.Google Scholar
  7. Caidi, N., & Allard, D. (2005). Social inclusion of newcomers to Canada: an information problem? Library & Information Science Research, 27(3), 302–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheliotis, G. (2010). Social network analysis. Retrieved from the CNM Social Media Module website:
  9. Chonia, G. (2002). Bridging the digital divide in a digital society. Switzerland: University of Zurich, Centre for Computing.Google Scholar
  10. Chung, R. C., & Kagawa-Singer, M. (1993). Predictors of psychological distress among Southeast Asian refugees. Social Science & Medicine, 36(5), 631–639 doi 02777-9536/93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clinton-Davis, L., & Fassil, Y. (1992). Health and social problems of refugees. Social Science & Medicine, 35(4), 507–513 doi 02777-9536/92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connor, P. (2010). Explaining the refugee gap: economic outcomes of refugees versus other immigrants. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(3), 377–397. Scholar
  13. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-1412975179.Google Scholar
  14. Curran, S. (2002). Migration, social capital, and the environment: considering migrant selectivity and networks in relation to coastal ecosystems. Retrieved from the University of Washington’s Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology website:
  15. Department of Children & Family Services. (2014). Overview of refugees & the refugee services program. Retrieved from the Department of Children & family services website:
  16. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons ISBN 10: 1118456149.Google Scholar
  17. Griffiths, J. D. (2000). Fragmentation and consolidation: the contrasting cases of Somali and Kurdish refugees in London. Journal of Refugee Studies, 13(3), 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: insights from a connected world. Burlington: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. International Rescue Committee [IRC]. (2013). Flawed US refugee admissions program is failing Iraqi refugees; recession only makes matters worse. Retrieved from the IRC website:
  20. Israel, G. D., & Galindo-Gonzalez, S. (1992). Using focus group interviews for planning or evaluating extension programs. Retrieved from UF/IFAS EDIS website:
  21. Kabbar, E. F., & Crump, B. J. (2006). The factors that influence adoption of ICTs by recent refugee immigrants to New Zealand. Informing Science Journal, 9, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerwin, D. (2012). The faltering US refugee protection system: legal and policy responses to refuges, asylum-seekers, and others in need of protection. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 31(1), 1–33. Scholar
  23. Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? New York City NY: International Universities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lacroix, M., Baffoe, M., & Liguouri, M. (2015). Refugee community organizations in Canada: from the margins to the mainstream? A challenge and opportunity for social workers. International Journal of Social Welfare, 24, 62–72 ISSN 1369-6866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamba, N. K., & Krahn, H. (2003). Social capital and refugee resettlement: the social networks of refugees in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 4(3), 335–360 ISSN 1488-3473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: the social connectedness and the social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leung, L. (2010). Telecommunications across borders. Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 60(4), 58.1–58.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mamgain, V., & Collins, K. (2003). Off the boat, now off to work: refugees in the labour market in Portland, Maine. Journal of Refugee Studies, 16(2), 113–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, D. (2005). The U.S. refugee program in transition. Retrieved from the Migration Policy Institute website:
  30. Migliorino, P. (2010). FECCA and CALD communities in the digital age: digital technologies can unite, but they can also divide. Paper presented at the My Language Conference 2010. Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, M. (2002). Exploring the future of the digital divide through ethnographic futures research. First Monday, 7(11).Google Scholar
  32. O’Neil, J. (1986). Colonial stress in the Canadian Arctic: an ethnography and young adults changing. In C. Janes et al. (Eds.), Anthropology and epidemiology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  33. Oakley, A. (1992). Social support and motherhood. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Portes, A. (Ed.). (1995). The economic sociology of immigration. New York City: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  36. Ryan, L., Sales, R., Tilki, M., & Siara, B. (2008). Social networks, social support, and social capital: the experiences of recent Polish migrants in London. Sociology, 42(4), 672–690. Scholar
  37. Simich, L., Beiser, M., Stewart, M., & Mwakarimba, E. (Oct. 2005). Providing social support for immigrants and refugees in Canada: challenges and direction. Journal of Immigrant Health, 7(4), 259–268. Scholar
  38. Spoonley, P., Peace, R., Butcher, A., & O’Neil, D. (March 2005). Social cohesion: a policy and indicator framework for assessing immigrant and host outcomes. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24, 85–110.Google Scholar
  39. Stein, B. (1979). Occupational adjustment of refugees: the Vietnamese in the United States. International Migration Review, 13(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strang, A. B., & Quinn, N. (2014). Integration or isolation?: mapping social connections and well-being amongst refugees in Glasgow. MHPSN, final report. Retrieved from the Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Network website:
  41. Sweetman, D., Badiee, M., & Creswell, J. W. (2010). Use of the transformative framework in mixed methods studies. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 441–454. Scholar
  42. Tofel, K. C. (2010). Free Wi-Fi hotspots outnumber paid Wi-Fi in the U.S. says JiWire. Retrieved from the GIGAOM website:
  43. Tsai, J. H. (2006). Use of computer technology to enhance immigrant families’ adaptation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 38(1), 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., & Van Dijik, J.A.G.M. (2013). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media and Society.Google Scholar
  45. Yuval-Davis, N., Anthias, F., & Kofman, E. (2005). Secure borders and safe haven and the gendered politics of belonging: beyond social cohesion. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(3), 513–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations