Item

Abstract

National models of integration are widely used to understand the relationship between nationalism and integration-immigration policies. In this methodological article, we highlight two key concerns. First, national models of integration emerged out of inductive and normative case studies. The analytical value of models which are based on inductive and normative reasoning is not directly generalisable beyond very similar cases. Second, and despite their inductive limitations, the generalisation and application of national models beyond these analytical limits have produced tautological and essentialist outcomes – fitting empirical data into the models and overlooking other possible correlations between nationalism and integration policies. Amid recent scholarly attempts at amending the national models, the question remains whether national models are truly useful tools for the comparative studies of the relationships between nationalism and integration-immigration policies. We argue that comparative examinations require a more robust theoretical and methodological approach that can be used across periods and contexts without becoming tautological and essentialist.