Introduction

Migration policies in most western countries have been subject of significant policy reforms. For example, in 1973 Australia adopted a non-discriminatory and non-assimilationist migration policy that enabled anyone to migrate to Australia, regardless of race, colour, gender, ethnic origin, religion, or nationality. [1, 2] This ended the previous “White Australia” Policy, which from 1901 had shaped the composition of the Australian population through mass migration programs for British and European immigrants. This shift from assimilation towards an official policy of multiculturalism was in part a recognition that, despite migrants facing challenges when settling in Australia, they remained attached to their cultural identity[2]. The shift in migration policy has seen Australia’s population become more ethnically diverse, rising from 9.8% overseas-born in 1948, to 19.8% by 1970, and to 27.7% by 2013. [3]. Similar policy reforms and associated demographic transformation of the migrant-receiving populations have been documented in other western countries[4–6]

Migration is a complex phenomenon, which involves people coming to western countries through various migration streams, including skilled, family, and special eligibility categories, as well as refugee and humanitarian programs [5, 7, 8]. Western governments have emphasised that most migrants must have skills or the professional expertise to meet the needs of their labour force, so as to directly benefit their economy. Therefore, western countries use a “hybrid” model of skilled migration that selects migrants using both a supply-driven model (i.e. using points-tests to screen in favour of prospective skilled migrants with desirable characteristics who put themselves forward for consideration) and demand-driven model (i.e. employer-sponsored skilled migrants who are likely to contribute positively to the receiving economy)[9].

Whilst settlement and integration are challenges for most migrants, such challenges are likely to be more pronounced among the refugee and humanitarian migration stream due to their socio-economic disadvantage. Over the last four decades, many western governments strengthened their policies on multiculturalism and social cohesion in their efforts to address the impact of increased cultural diversity within communities[10]. The notion of living with difference that characterises multicultural societies can leave migrant youth in limbo. For example, the acculturation theory, which permits the examination of cultural and psychological changes that occur when two cultures come into contact with each other, [11, 12] acknowledges that migrants experience varying inequalities. These include: difficulties establishing social networks, finding accommodation or employment, learning English, and looking after their general health. However, the level of inequality differs according to the degree of cultural transition and generation.[13–18] For migrant youth, the bi-dimensional acculturation model recognises two cultural orientations—the home culture and the host culture—and identifies four cultural orientations: (1) Traditional or separation (keeps loyalty to traditional culture and does not recognise the host/dominant culture); (2) Assimilation (rejects traditional culture and fully embraces the host/dominant culture); (3) Integration or bicultural orientation (retains cultural identity at the same time moving to join the dominant society); and (4) Marginalisation (rejects traditional culture and fails to connect with the host/dominant culture by exclusion or withdrawal.[13, 19, 20] In this sense, regardless of their length of stay in their host country, migrant youth experience issues related to cultural identity, social belonging and cultural attachment due to the more rapid pace of their acculturation compared to their parents.

During adolescence children go through a phase in which they attempt to reconcile their own desires and needs with the wishes of their parents[21], including wanting privacy, negotiating parental monitoring and control (e.g., attention, tracking, and structuring contexts) and parent—child relationship (e.g., trust), and having agency and pushing back parental behavior management (e.g., negotiation, problem-solving, or limit-setting) and demand cognitions concerning parent-child interactions (e.g. parents’ beliefs that they should decide what the children want and need) [22–25]. However, there are some cultural differences in parenting behaviors and practices. In most western countries parenting behaviours and practices are conceptualized within the individualistic cultures[26]. The emphasis is on child’s autonomy, independence and self-reliance; individual achievements; individual responsibility; equality of individuals; liberty from inference of others; and conformity to firm individual boundaries[27]. Parents adopt a more authoritative approach, striking a balance between high parental demandingness and the recognition of children’s autonomy and rights[27]. Parents treat children with respect while instilling in them a strong inner discipline and encouraging open communication and children’s expression of their point of view [28–30]. Migrants from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia relocating to western countries come from collectivist cultures [26]. In collectivist cultures, the emphasis is on interdependence and conformity to collective responsibility within the family, indisputable obedience and respect for authority, especially respect for the family hierarchy and elders[27]. Parents adopt an authoritarian parenting style characterized by exerting control through power, coercion, and punishment. Children’s input into parent-child communications and decision making that might impact of their future plans is devalued. Parents expect children to adhere to family rules and regulations; and are the ultimate decision makers and expect children to conform to parental demands without dispute [28–30].

Migrants from collectivistic to individualistic countries find it difficult to negotiate the acculturation process [31]. The cultural distance between the pre-migration collectivist cultural orientation and the post-migration individualistic cultural values not only leads to acculturative stress but also to parenting stress. The acculturation stress in characterized by somatic, psychological, and social difficulties that accompany acculturation processes resulting in physical and mental maladaptation[32]. The acculturative stress affects negatively the ways in which parents interact with their children and parent-child interaction difficulties and family conflicts are further aggravated by time demands and work stress and work-family conflict. Children pick up the Australian cultural norms and understand the legal system quicker than their parents and use acquired knowledge to disarm authoritarian parenting practices and family rules. The unfamiliar power of state intervention to intervene in family matters for disciplinarian practices is an omnipresent threat, which appears to have far reaching effects on the family functioning [24, 25, 33]

Therefore, the intergenerational discrepancy theory, also known as acculturative family distancing, conceptualises the clash of values and expectations between migrant parents and their children due to the differing pace of acculturation, resulting in increased family conflicts, parent-child alienation and maladjustment of children.[34–36]. The intra-familial and interethnic dynamics that migrant youth are exposed to are characterised by a breakdown of communication (both verbal and nonverbal) and poor parent-child relations which together form their journey towards cultural identity formation.[36] In the Australian context, as migrant youth push hard to be part of, and to be accepted by, the wider community, they detach themselves from their culture of origin, [16, 18, 33] and in so doing, face resistance from their parents. The more they are made to feel they do not belong, the higher the likelihood they will disengage from Australian society. Studies by Mansouri and Johns, [37] as well as by Cassity, [38] have observed that migrant youth develop multiple expectations in their attempt to reconcile the difference between their aspirations and those of their parents, as well as their hopes for the future in Australia, with families and friends in their home country. They conclude that intergenerational differences become a lens through which to view issues of migrant youth identity and their social connectedness, belonging, and agency. Therefore, the aim of this study was twofold: (1) to explore how migrant youth cope with acculturative stress and intergenerational conflicts, and (2) to better understand the systemic and family-related factors that facilitate positive settlement experiences for migrant youth.

Methods

Results

A total of 14 FGDs, comprising a total of 164 people, were carried out. The demographic characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. Youth (18–24 years old) formed part of FGDs, however most participants were the adult parents of youth (13–17 years old). Two themes and four subthemes emerged from the analysis: Intergenerational acculturation gap (loss of family capital and intergenerational conflicts); and factors that successfully protected family values while still allowing young people to integrate (the legal system that disarm authoritarian parenting practices and family rules; and parental use of children’s increased knowledge of the new environment to navigate the new environment).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Demographics characteristics of focus group participants, listed in the order conducted.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170700.t001

Discussion

The study explored how migrant youth cope with acculturative stress and intergenerational conflicts. It sought to understand the systemic and family-related factors that facilitate positive settlement experiences for migrant youth. The study identified two key issues related to the intergenerational acculturation gap: loss of family capital and intergenerational conflicts. The loss of family capital was characterised by children not wanting to interact with family members and negotiating two cultural identities. Research has shown that migration-related transition requires a massive revaluation of migrant capital (e.g. networks, cultural identities, and coping strategies.[51, 52] Previous studies have shown that, while migrant children upgrade the status of their family through education and integration within the mainstream society, they equally experience the same problems as their parents, but they also tend to get more help, or be helped sooner, than their parents.[53]

Despite the help they receive, migrant children experience more pressures from both their own families and from mainstream society to do well, as well as complying with expected home and host social and cultural norms, which sometime can be incompatible. We found that when confronted with such a choice, migrant children will tend to favour the host culture’s social and cultural norms to fit in, which is consistent with the literature.[16–18]. This is because values and ideals emphasised by parents in socialising their children attract negative reactions and resistance from children, leading to the alienation of parents from their children, and isolation of children at the family level. Migrant children’s demand for greater freedom increases as traditional social control measures weaken, requiring some fundamental changes in important cultural values and ideals related to respect for age and parental authority.[54] It takes time for traditional social measures among migrants to weaken, meaning that in the early phase of settlement, intergenerational cultural misunderstandings disrupt the social solidarity, influence, and control at the family level, and differing sets of obligations and expectations are adopted, resulting in the loss of intergenerational knowledge transmission and information flow. Children’s quest to fit into the mainstream society is characterised by adaptation to the new school and culture, experiencing associated racism or anti-immigration sentiments, making new friendships, and dealing with cultural loss and loneliness.[51, 55, 56] For migrant youth, relationships with peers might be an important and significant social resource, but they also pose a major issue.[56] It is then hypothesised that the cultural capital that is valued within the host society may not be easily accessible to newly arrived migrant people in the short term, [55, 56] leading to acculturative stress and associated family conflicts.

The study has also found intergenerational conflicts were characterised by an increased sense of agency among children, which challenged parental authority. These findings are consistent with past research.[13–18] It is well documented that members of migrant families with limited English encounter difficulties interacting with the mainstream society, and that parents experience difficulties in supporting children’s social and cultural transition.[33, 57] Migrant children’s social and cultural transition translates into their ability to take advantage of available resources to ease their integration journey into the host society.[58] They incorporate cultural capital including the use of language, social competence, and knowledge about the functioning of social institutions.[56] In doing so, some features of the family functioning are negatively affected, leading to conflicts. Affected dimensions of the family's cultural capital include verbal interaction, affective parent-child relationships, extent of discipline and control, parents’ expectations of their children's achievements, and parents' cultural beliefs and attributions.[14–18, 33, 59] The inter-generational conflicts may be exacerbated by migrant parents’ limited English language skills and expectations of strong social and family ties, which to some extent prevent them from fully participating in the wider community.[60] Some authors have observed that strong family or community networks can lead to negative social capital, with strong social networks established among co-ethnics isolating many migrants and locking them into specific “ethnic” niches.[51, 60] This further exacerbates intergenerational conflicts as ethnic niches may tend to enforce the control of children’s activities through discipline and an ethos of hard work in schools, which may be against children’s aspirations.[56]

The study also found factors that successfully protect positive family values while still allowing young people to integrate. Children have increased power under the law, due to their superior language skills and greater understanding of the functioning of the social institutions. In our previous studies [16, 17] we have demonstrated that, in their new environment, migrant children quickly become familiar with state laws protecting the rights of a child. They are able to disarm authoritarian parenting practices by the threat that parental violation of state laws will lead to family separation. Parents’ fear of state authority to remove children manifests itself in the perceived conflict between the need to discipline their children and Australia’s “anti smacking” laws, which are backed by police powers of arrest.[17] Migrants’ children appear to exercise limited agency in using this belief to challenge control and authority within the family.[60, 61] The unfamiliar power of state intervention to separate a family for strict discipline practices is not only an omnipresent threat, it appears to have far reaching effects on family functioning and dynamics.[17]

We also found a greater parental use of children’s increased knowledge of the new environment to navigate the new environment. Children of migrant parents from non-English speaking backgrounds learn English quickly through schools, and by interacting with their peers. This rapid English acquisition allows them to become interpreters, translators, negotiators or advocates for their parents and close relatives. Fulfilling these functions makes migrant children language brokers.[56, 62, 63] They translate or interpret words or sentences for their parents and relatives, but they also interpret and explain elements from the mainstream culture to their parents.[64, 65] As cultural ambassadors for their family members, migrant children help their parents function in the new culture. This new found functionality does not equate to explicit acculturation, [62, 66] rather it makes migrant children active agents in the migration and settlement processes and the capital accumulation by the family.[67–69] However, the power of children as language brokers means that parents may feel disempowered and to some extent humiliated by the fact that their children have more information and knowledge than them.[70] These changes in power dynamics challenge traditional family roles, the consequence of which is the diminished value of parents’ cultural capital[51, 55] and subsequent negative impact on family dynamics.[56]

While not a finding of this study, it is worth noting that our other studies have identified that increased power of children is also due to financial independence (e.g. not having to rely on parents for pocket money or parental approval to make a purchase) [16–18]. Upon arriving in Australia, migrant children are entitled to a number of benefits and allowances[71] that can make them financially independent. Conflicts may arise when parents and children disagree over whether youth allowance and other benefits should be subsumed into the household income, and if not, whether children on allowances or working should contribute financially to family living expenses, including the obligation to send money to relatives overseas.[72] In addition, the new found financial independence may allow children to push boundaries, assert their own independence and freedom, and claim independent decision making power and rights, which may potentially lead to family disagreements and conflicts.

Limitations, policy recommendations and conclusion

There are few limitations of our findings worth acknowledging. Out study excluded youth aged 15–17 years and focused on youth aged 18–24 years. It is possible that youth aged 18–24 years are more resilience and have a greater sense of agency to resist parental pressures to conform to traditional values and practices and to negotiate their participation in decision making than their younger counterparts. Further studies among youth younger than 18 years are needed to validate our findings. Our data represent a description of parenting practices and behaviours among newly arrived migrant families and how they are negotiated by the migrant youth. The magnitude of these issues needed to be quantified in further quantitative studies. The fact that participants were recruited through established networks could constitute a limitation. Participants were recruited through established networks within the community meaning that only groups already formed were accessible. The extent to which these findings can be generalized is limited, given the exploratory nature of the study; further work may be required to ascertain the typicality of these findings in the wider migrant community of greater Western Sydney.

Notwithstanding this limitation, our findings suggest that migration affects youth cultural identity and the family provides an environment through which youth identity is contested. The study found that the contestation of youth identity among migrants shapes roles, relationships, values and norms inside and outside of the family. Family dynamics provide a cultural framework through which decisions and the roles of family members are determined, and a primary reference for support and negotiating post-migration experiences and challenges. Effective family interventions for migrants not only need to support parents in their role as caregivers, they should also help parents harness the increased cultural capital held by children to negotiate the threat to the family posed by children’s increased knowledge about government structures, systems and regulations. Another priority for service providers and policy makers is to put in place services that allow migrant parents to re-negotiate the parent—child relationship, notably the challenges brought about by children’s greater control over their lives and increased agency. Our findings suggest the need for an inter-generational approach to healthy family dynamics within migrant communities and in dealing with the level of complexity and sensitivity youth experience when negotiating their cultural identity. The study highlights the role of schools as sites where migrant children are socialised, and notes that parents find themselves situated outside of the school learning experience and broader school community. The centrality of schools in the process of young people negotiating their cultural identity points to a need to better link school communities to existing migrant settlement services, both to assist migrant parents build bridges into the wider community and to provide windows into their own children’s learning and acculturation experiences.

Acknowledgments

Professor Andre Renzaho is supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT110100345). The research team would like to acknowledge the Migrant Review Panel and all organisations that helped during data collection. We acknowledge and appreciate the study participants for being generous with their time.