Migration, Social Interaction, and Resilience: Everyday Practices of Mutual Adaptation

Migration, Social Interaction, and Resilience: Everyday Practices of Mutual Adaptation | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Migration, Social Interaction, and Resilience: Everyday Practices of Mutual Adaptation Doga Atalay This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9222388/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Migration reshapes the social worlds of both migrants and members of established societies, yet adaptation is still predominantly examined as a task borne by migrants alone. This article addresses this imbalance by examining resilience as a relational process through which adaptation is co-produced in everyday social interactions. Drawing on qualitative interviews with migrants and non-migrants in five European countries, the study explores how participation in shared activities, particularly volunteering, fosters belonging and adaptive capacities under conditions shaped by social and structural constraints. The findings show that resilience emerges not only through migrants’ efforts to establish social ties and navigate exclusionary contexts, but also through non-migrants’ gradual accommodation to diversity, involving shifts in how community boundaries and belonging are understood. While these adaptive processes are mutually constituted, they unfold unevenly due to differences in power, legal status, and linguistic access. By foregrounding everyday interaction as a site of relational adaptation, the article advances debates on integration and belonging by conceptualising resilience as a shared, dynamic, and conditional process rather than an individual attribute or one-sided outcome. Figures Figure 1 Introduction Migration is a transformative process that reshapes the lives of both migrants and members of established societies. For newcomers, it entails adjusting to unfamiliar cultural, linguistic, and institutional contexts. For members of the established society, it requires accommodating diversity and negotiating new forms of coexistence. These dynamics highlight that adaptation is not a one-sided burden placed solely on migrants but a relational process that involves all groups living together in intercultural settings. Yet, much of the migration literature continues to frame integration as a unilateral task for migrants, while overlooking the adaptive responsibilities of established populations (Wimmer & Schiller, 2002; Schinkel, 2013 ; Dahinden, 2016 ). This paper proposes resilience as an alternative framework for analysing adaptation in migration contexts. Resilience, broadly defined, refers to the capacity of individuals or groups to withstand, navigate, and adapt to life-changing circumstances (Ungar, 2011). While resilience has often been examined as an individual trait (e.g., coping skills, perseverance), scholarship increasingly emphasises its relational and community dimensions highlighting the role of social networks, institutions, and shared practices in fostering adaptive capacity (Norris et al., 2008; Motti-Stefanidi, 2018; Olcese et al., 2024 ). In this paper, resilience is conceptualized as relational resilience: a process that emerges through everyday social interactions, creating feelings of belonging and mutual adjustment between migrants and members of host societies. Adaptation, in this framing, refers to the adjustments individuals and groups make in response to intercultural encounters, which can be psychological (e.g., well-being), social (e.g., participation in networks), or cultural (e.g., negotiating identity) (Berry, 2006). Unlike conventional “integration” models that emphasise structural outcomes such as employment or language proficiency, this paper focuses on the micro-level interactions through which adaptation is co-produced. A central claim of this paper is that resilience and adaptation are not only about migrants “fitting into” host societies but about both groups engaging in mutual resilience. This term refers to the reciprocal development of adaptive capacities through shared activities and relationships, such as volunteering, where both migrants and non-migrants build connections, expand their sense of belonging, and reconfigure community boundaries. By framing resilience in this way, the paper contributes to the growing body of literature that seeks to move beyond one-way models of integration (Bourhis et al., 1997; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2018). This perspective also resonates with intergroup contact theory, which demonstrates that sustained, cooperative interactions between groups reduce prejudice and foster positive relations (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). However, this paper extends contact theory by linking it explicitly to resilience, showing how intercultural encounters not only reduce bias but also cultivate adaptive strengths for both migrants and members of established societies. Drawing on qualitative data collected in five European countries as part of the [anonymous] project, this study addresses two questions: How can resilience conceptually capture the reciprocal processes of adaptation between migrants and members of established societies? To what extent do everyday social interactions foster a sense of belonging and mutual resilience among migrants and non-migrants? By answering these questions, the paper advances migration research in three ways. First, it introduces the concept of mutual resilience as a means of reconceptualising adaptation in intercultural contexts. Second, it empirically demonstrates how everyday social interactions, particularly volunteering, function as sites of resilience-building. Third, it situates resilience as a more inclusive and dynamic alternative to integration, better capturing the two-way nature of migration processes. Resilience as a Resilient Concept Viewing migration as a process shaped by both opportunity and adversity allows us to explore resilience as a response to structural, relational, and emotional challenges experienced by migrants and members of established societies. While a variety of factors influence migrants’ adaptation, such as legal status, education, or skills, this paper focuses on the social dimensions that shape adaptation and belonging. In migration studies, resilience has often been understood as an individual’s capacity to cope with adversity, but resilience is increasingly recognised as a multi-level phenomenon encompassing individual, relational, and community processes (Ungar, 2011; Norris et al., 2008; Motti-Stefanidi, 2018). At the individual level, resilience refers to personal resources and coping strategies that enable migrants to manage stress and re-establish stability (Rutter, 1987 ). At the relational level, resilience is cultivated through social interactions that provide emotional support, recognition, and a sense of belonging (Ní Raghallaigh & Gilligan, 2010 ; Torres et al., 2016 ). At the community level, resilience refers to the collective capacity of groups to adapt and maintain functionality in the face of challenges. Norris et al. (2008) define community resilience in terms of social capital, information and communication, community competence, and economic development. These dimensions are directly relevant to migration, as they capture how both migrants and non-migrants co-develop adaptive strategies in diverse settings (Olcese et al., 2024 ). In this paper, I adopt a relational approach to resilience, emphasising how everyday interactions between migrants and non-migrants foster belonging and mutual adjustment. This does not dismiss the importance of individual traits or community resources, but highlights that resilience is co-produced in the spaces where people come together. A sense of belonging thus becomes central: for migrants, belonging means establishing new networks and connections; for host community members, it means extending their understanding of “community” to include newcomers. Resilience in Migration Studies Resilience in migration studies has often been equated with migrants’ ability to overcome adversity, such as insecure legal status, discrimination, or socioeconomic exclusion (Yıldırım et al., 2024 ; Berding-Barwick & McAreavey, 2024 ). Some scholars have even suggested that migration itself can be viewed as a resilient act as a strategy of survival and opportunity (Lindley, 2014 ). Research has explored migrant resilience across different groups, including women (Rashid & Gregory, 2014 ), children and youth (Sleijpen et al., 2016 ; Motti-Stefanidi, 2018), workers (van der Ham et al., 2014), and climate migrants (Renaud et al., 2011 ). Studies also document how remittances can be interpreted as resilience strategies extending beyond the migrant to their families and communities (Carling, 2014 ). However, Philippe Bourbeau ( 2015 ) has critiqued much of this literature for “importing” the concept of resilience without sufficiently theorising its meaning in migration contexts. Indeed, resilience has often been conflated with adaptation or integration, creating conceptual ambiguities. For example, Berry’s (2017) acculturation framework describes integration as a strategy that combines cultural maintenance with participation in the wider society. Bourhis et al. (1997), in their interactive acculturation model, further emphasised that integration outcomes depend not only on migrants’ preferences but also on host society members’ expectations. These models underline the relational character of adaptation, but resilience has rarely been used as an overarching framework to capture this mutual process. In addition, little attention has been paid to how intercultural encounters contribute to resilience. Yet intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) demonstrates that structured, cooperative contact between groups reduces prejudice and promotes mutual understanding. In the context of migration, everyday activities such as volunteering or community participation can therefore serve as mechanisms of resilience-building. What remains underexplored is how these encounters generate not only positive intergroup attitudes but also adaptive capacities for both migrants and host community members. Thus, while research has provided important insights into how migrants cope with adversity, there remains a gap in understanding resilience as a shared, relational process that develops through interaction and belonging. Gaps in the Literature Despite the rapid expansion of resilience research in migration studies, significant gaps remain that limit the conceptual and empirical advancement of the field. Three interconnected areas are particularly noteworthy: the one-sided focus on migrants’ adaptation, the under-theorisation of everyday intercultural interactions, and the conceptual overlap between resilience and related constructs such as integration, social capital, and social support. First, resilience has predominantly been studied as an individual trait of migrants, with insufficient attention to the adaptive processes of host community members. Importantly, resilience scholarship emphasises that adaptive capacity is always shaped by exposure to risk, adversity, and constraint, which may operate at individual, relational, and structural levels (Ungar, 2011; Masten, 2014). In migration contexts, these challenges include legal precarity, linguistic exclusion, discrimination, and institutional barriers. Much of the migration literature, particularly in how integration frameworks are operationalised in research and policy, continues to frame adaptation primarily as a task for migrants (Berry, 1997 ; Schinkel, 2013 ). When adaptation is examined primarily through migrant-focused indicators, there is a risk that responsibility for adjustment appears individualised, while the adaptive processes of established societies remain analytically underexamined. In reality, members of host communities also face challenges: they must renegotiate collective identities, expand notions of belonging, and adapt to intercultural realities (Dahinden, 2016 ). Yet few studies explicitly examine how non-migrants build resilience in these contexts. Bourhis et al.’s (1997) interactive acculturation model demonstrates that outcomes of integration depend on both migrants’ strategies and host community expectations. However, resilience has rarely been framed in these relational and reciprocal terms. This leaves a gap in our understanding of how both groups cultivate adaptive capacities in response to intercultural change. Second, the role of everyday social interactions in resilience-building remains under-theorised. Much of the resilience literature in migration studies has focused on structural indicators such as legal rights, socioeconomic status, or educational attainment (Lorant et al., 2003 ; Chou, 2012 ). While these factors are undeniably important, they provide only a partial picture of how adaptation unfolds in practice. Micro-level encounters, volunteering, sports, and cultural activities often serve as key sites where belonging is negotiated and resilience is fostered. This resonates strongly with intergroup contact theory, which demonstrates that cooperative contact under favourable conditions reduces prejudice and fosters trust (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). However, the connection between contact and resilience remains underexplored. Participation in joint activities not only promotes tolerance but also builds networks of support, reciprocity, and recognition that strengthen resilience for both migrants and non-migrants. By failing to theorise these processes, current literature overlooks one of the most tangible mechanisms through which resilience is enacted. Third, resilience is often conflated with related concepts such as integration, social capital, social support, or agency, leading to conceptual ambiguity. In integration studies, a migrant’s education, employment, and language proficiency are considered indicators of “successful” integration (Berry, 1997 ). These same factors also appear in resilience research, where they are interpreted as resources enabling adaptation (Anleu Hernandez & Garcia-Moreno, 2014). Similarly, resilience is sometimes equated with social capital (Putnam, 2000) or social support (Cohen, 2004 ), emphasising the networks and resources that buffer individuals against adversity. While these constructs are related, resilience encompasses more: it captures the dynamic process of adapting to change, not just the static availability of resources. As Bourbeau ( 2015 ) argues, migration studies often “import” resilience without theorising its distinct contribution. Without clearer differentiation, resilience risks becoming a catch-all term that duplicates existing concepts. To address these gaps, this paper reconceptualises resilience as a relational and dynamic process that is co-produced between migrants and host community members through everyday interactions. By situating belonging as a central component of resilience, the paper highlights that adaptation cannot be understood solely in terms of individual coping or structural resources. Instead, resilience emerges through mutual adaptation as a process in which both migrants and non-migrants recalibrate their sense of identity, community, and belonging. This approach acknowledges the reciprocal nature of adaptation while avoiding the pitfalls of unilateral integration models. Conceptual Framework of Mutual Resilience To guide this reconceptualisation, Fig. 1 presents a heuristic framework that sensitizes attention to how social interaction, belonging, and resilience are relationally connected in migration contexts. At its core, the model identifies everyday social interactions such as volunteering, participation in sports, or cultural activities as catalysts for resilience-building. These interactions generate a sense of belonging, which strengthens individuals’ capacity to adapt to new circumstances. For migrants, this means developing connections that allow them to feel at home and navigate host society institutions. For non-migrants, it means expanding community boundaries to include newcomers and adjusting to increased diversity. The arrows in the model indicate the reciprocal nature of this process: social interactions foster belonging, which enhances resilience, which in turn encourages further interaction and engagement. The framework is not intended as a causal or predictive model, but as an interpretive tool that captures patterns emerging from participants’ accounts and highlights relational processes rather than directional effects. Importantly, this process occurs at multiple levels. At the individual level , resilience manifests as psychological well-being and coping strategies. At the relational level , it is reflected in trust, recognition, and mutual support. At the community level , resilience is expressed in collective capacities such as social capital, communication, and inclusive norms (Norris et al., 2008). The framework also highlights that mutual resilience is distinct from integration or social capital. Unlike integration, which is often measured through structural indicators and assumes a one-way adaptation of migrants, mutual resilience emphasises reciprocal adaptation. Unlike social capital, which focuses on the existence of networks, mutual resilience highlights the capacity to adapt dynamically that emerges through those networks. By centring on belonging, the framework captures both the affective (feeling secure, feeling at home) and functional (having access to support and resources) aspects of adaptation. In sum, Fig. 1 provides a conceptual roadmap for understanding resilience as a shared, iterative process. It positions everyday social interactions as the foundation of mutual resilience, underscores the co-production of belonging between migrants and host communities, and situates this dynamic within broader debates on integration, acculturation, and community resilience. Taken together, these gaps point to the need for a relational understanding of resilience in migration studies. Such an approach recognises: That resilience is not only about how migrants cope but also about how host community members adapt to diversity. That resilience is cultivated in everyday encounters, not only through structural resources. That resilience, while related to integration, social capital, and support, is distinct in its emphasis on dynamic, adaptive capacities . By addressing these gaps, this paper positions mutual resilience as a conceptual innovation that captures the two-way, relational, and dynamic nature of adaptation in migration contexts. It provides a framework that is more inclusive than unilateral integration models, more dynamic than static measures of social capital, and more grounded in everyday lived realities than abstract policy indicators. Methodology This paper draws on qualitative data generated through the [anonymous] project (2018–2021), which explored how young people experience belonging and resilience across seven European countries. For the purposes of this article, I focus on five countries: the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, and Croatia, where sufficient interview material was available. A qualitative, interpretive approach was adopted in order to capture participants’ lived experiences of belonging and resilience. Specifically, I employed thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase model. This method was chosen because it allows the identification of patterned meanings across a relatively small dataset, while remaining flexible enough to accommodate cross-national variation. Participants and Recruitment The analysis is based on 15 semi-structured interviews with young people aged 18–27. Participants included both migrants (n = 7) and non-migrants (n = 8), and were selected to ensure diversity in terms of country of residence, length of stay, and background (see Table 1). Recruitment was conducted in collaboration with local [anonymous] project partners, including NGOs, volunteer associations, and youth organisations. Migrant participants were included if they had been living in the host country for at least six months, while non-migrant participants were included if they had spent the majority of their lives in the host society. Data Collection Interviews were conducted face-to-face by trained project researchers between 2019 and 2020. Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and followed a semi-structured guide covering participants’ life histories, experiences of volunteering, perceptions of belonging, and views on intercultural interaction. All interviews were audio-recorded (with consent), transcribed verbatim, and anonymised. To avoid gender assumptions, participants are referred to using they/them pronouns. The data were analysed through an iterative process of inductive coding and theme development . In the first stage, transcripts were read repeatedly to ensure familiarity. Open coding was applied to capture initial concepts, followed by axial coding to group related codes into broader categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In the final stage, codes were refined into thematic clusters that represented patterned meanings across the dataset. Following Braun and Clarke (2006), the six phases of thematic analysis — familiarisation, coding, theme generation, review, definition, and reporting — were explicitly followed. Themes were compared across national contexts to identify similarities and divergences in experiences. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) belonging through social interaction, (2) the role of language and legal status, and (3) shared experiences and social support as facilitators of resilience. To enhance clarity, I later organised these findings into a conceptual map (Fig. 1 ). Ensuring Analytic Rigour Several strategies were employed to enhance credibility and trustworthiness. First, triangulation was achieved by comparing findings across five different national contexts. Second, peer debriefing took place within the [anonymous] project consortium, where researchers from different countries reviewed coding decisions and interpretations. Third, an audit trail was maintained, including coding notes and memos that documented analytic decisions. Finally, thick description is provided in the findings section, with extensive use of direct quotations to ground interpretations in participants’ own words. Reflexivity and Limitations As the author, I acknowledge my own positionality as a migration researcher embedded within the [anonymous] project. My background and interest in intercultural relations inevitably shaped the questions asked and the interpretations made. To mitigate potential bias, I engaged in reflexive journaling during the analytic process and actively discussed interpretations with colleagues from different national and disciplinary backgrounds. This reflexive stance was important for ensuring that the analysis remained sensitive to participants’ diverse experiences rather than imposing predetermined categories. The small sample size (n = 15) and uneven country distribution limit the generalizability of findings. However, the aim of this qualitative study was not statistical representativeness but to capture in-depth experiences of belonging and resilience across diverse contexts. Future research could expand this work with larger, longitudinal samples that trace how resilience and belonging evolve over time. Table.1. Descriptions of participants of the research AT1 Sex Country of Origin Country of Residence M M Austria/Vienna AT2 F M Austria/Vienna AT3 M NM Austria/Vienna AT4 F NM Austria/Vienna AT5 M M Austria/Vienna ST1 F M Italy-South Tyrol ST2 M M Italy-South Tyrol ST3 F NM Italy-South Tyrol ST4 F NM Italy-South Tyrol ST5 F NM Italy-South Tyrol UK1 F M United Kingdom-Glasgow HR1 F NM Croatia-Zagreb HR2 F NM Croatia-Zagreb ROT1 F NM Netherlands/Rotterdam ROT2 F NM Netherlands/Rotterdam Table.2 Comparative Table of Emergent Themes Themes Subthemes Illustrative Quotes Interpretation/Discussion Link Belonging through Social Interaction Volunteering as family “I feel like a family again and we have a lot of fun and we do a lot of things together.” (AT2) Cooperative activities build intimacy; aligns with Allport’s contact theory and Berry’s integration model. Friendships and close relationships “And there are people when I am with them, I think to myself ‘yes,’ this is my home.” (AT1) Belonging tied more to relationships than place; supports Norris et al. on community resilience. Activities as identity anchors “When you're in a soccer club… you develop a sense of belonging to the club, which is then also carried to the outside world.” (AT3) Belonging shaped by recognition; relates to Bourhis et al.’s interactive acculturation model. Language and Legal Status Linguistic exclusion “I’ll never speak the language the way I speak my mother tongue, that’s why I’ll never be like an Austrian.” (AT2) Language barriers constrain belonging; supports Motti-Stefanidi on adaptation. Accent differences “When I was in class, I cried because I did not understand the teacher.” (UK1) Even proficiency cannot overcome cultural-linguistic barriers; affects resilience. Dialects as comfort “I hear them talking in the South Tyrolean dialect and I feel at home, even if I understand one word.” (ST1) Subjective interpretation fosters belonging despite barriers. Legal precarity “I wanted to volunteer more, but because of my papers, I couldn’t always register.” (AT5) Structural constraints limit resilience. Shared Experiences and Social Support Diversity as resource “I would say South Tyrol is just a place of meeting strangers from different countries… it’s just like I’m home.” (ST2) Diversity fosters belonging; resonates with Suárez-Orozco et al. Networks of trust and solidarity “If I need help, if I have a challenge, then I can call someone to help.” (AT1) Trust as infrastructure of resilience; aligns with Norris et al. Helping others as resilience (AT7, volunteered as translator) Helping fosters agency and strengthens resilience. Findings and Discussion How Non-Migrants Adapt Through Intercultural Interaction Belonging through Social Interaction While much of the resilience literature focuses on migrants’ adaptive experiences, the interviews also reveal that non-migrants undergo meaningful processes of adjustment through sustained interaction with migrants. For non-migrant participants, adaptation did not involve overcoming legal or linguistic barriers, but rather renegotiating assumptions about belonging, difference, and community. Participation in volunteering and everyday intercultural encounters prompted reflection, learning, and shifts in how diversity was understood and valued. These accounts suggest that resilience among non-migrants is expressed less through coping with adversity and more through the capacity to accommodate social change, expand symbolic boundaries of belonging, and engage constructively with difference. One of the most consistent findings across the interviews was the centrality of social interactions in creating belonging, which in turn fostered resilience. Resilience here was not an individual trait but a relational capacity (Ungar, 2011), one that grew through social intimacies and connections. Participants repeatedly described how meaningful interactions with peers, colleagues, and neighbours cultivated a sense of home and strengthened their ability to adapt. AT2 described how group activities, whether school-based or community-based, created a family-like atmosphere: “Yeah. I changed my subject this semester and from September I was in a whole new group and I was always afraid that I wouldn't get along with the people, I was always afraid, but now I find them even better than my previous group and the people I got to know from school are really nice people and I feel like a family again and we have a lot of fun and we do a lot of things together, not only learning, but it reminds me a little bit of my school in my home country [Iran] where I had a lot of funny friends [laughs], where we just had a lot of fun besides learning something. I also feel at home there.” (AT2) “I think because most of them (other volunteers) are in a similar age, so I think it's not just seen as soccer, but a friendly (amicable) group, because the same people who play soccer can also meet in the cooking group and we do that and that makes the relationships a little bit closer. Not that we are just a soccer group and that we meet and train every week, e.g., twice a week, but it is like a family.” (AT2) These examples show how repeated, cooperative interaction created both intimacy and continuity with pre-migration experiences. AT2 explicitly linked their new friendships to memories of school in Iran, showing how resilience can be strengthened by re-establishing familiar forms of belonging. This resonates with Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory, which holds that regular interaction reduces social barriers, and with Berry’s (2008) integration model, where participation in shared activities fosters adaptation while allowing migrants to maintain identity continuity. AT3 similarly highlighted how participation in multiple activities deepened their sense of belonging: “Some of them also go on Monday (dancing), so that gave me a feeling of belonging to a group during my school days, I would almost call it a group.” (AT3) This case illustrates that belonging is cultivated through repeated and overlapping contact. Soccer and dance created reinforcing social circles that went beyond superficial encounters. As Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) argue, contact is most effective when it spans multiple settings and supports personal relationships. AT3’s reflection also underlines that belonging is not automatic but gradually constructed through interaction — a process central to resilience theory (Ungar, 2011), where adaptation depends on sustained access to social resources. Several participants emphasized that belonging was tied less to the physical city than to the people they were connected to: “And there are people when I am with them, I think to myself ‘yes,’ this is my home.” (AT1) “Yeah, I mean, people, yeah. I think that's correct, so I...otherwise I don't feel like I belong anywhere, except when I really feel good with some people. And if I feel good in Vienna, it is because of the people.” (AT4) “I think that is the case with many people, that in Vienna, that the city itself is not really that important because the circle of friends or the circles of friends in which I move in, they are sometimes getting smaller and they are leaving.” (AT3) Here, relationships mattered more than geography. This supports Norris et al.’s (2008) model of community resilience, which emphasises that collective adaptive capacity rests on networks of trust rather than physical spaces alone. Belonging, and therefore resilience, emerged from the quality of social ties, not the location itself. ST4 reinforced this when describing the sense of belonging generated through volunteering in cultural activities: “Well, the band (where he volunteered) helps you to feel integrated, because there are many people from the village and everybody knows everybody and many of them are relatives and that helps and I also played at the Heimatbühne this autumn and that helps because then everybody comes to watch and then you get to know each other and so and otherwise it's not really true that I feel excluded.” (ST4) This account illustrates how interaction with migrants prompted non-migrant participants to adapt their understanding of community and belonging, highlighting resilience as a process of learning and accommodation rather than resistance. Here, integration was experienced not as a policy outcome but as the result of participating in familiar social practices. This echoes Bourhis et al.’s (1997) interactive acculturation model, which stresses that adaptation depends on reciprocity between migrants and host communities. Belonging was often described in affective terms, particularly as “feeling good.” AT5 explained how close friendships created emotional safety: “[…] with the best people and colleagues, I can be myself, but when I’m really myself, I might also be strange to people sometimes. That is why my best friends give me a good feeling.” (AT5) This demonstrates that resilience is not only social but also emotional, grounded in the ability to feel authentic and accepted. Ungar (2011) argues that emotional security is a central condition of resilience, and AT5’s account confirms that being able to “be oneself” is critical for adaptation. ST3 expressed a similar sentiment about being welcomed into a workplace community: “My colleagues made me feel like one of them. They treat me well like I am one of them. Some of them had already been working at the Coop for 10 years, but they welcomed me as if we had started together. Maybe that is why I like South Tyrol, because they made me feel just at home.” (ST3) ST3’s experience highlights how resilience is co-produced: belonging grew through recognition by non-migrant colleagues, and this recognition became the basis for adaptation. This supports the idea of mutual resilience, where both migrants and host society members actively shape inclusive networks. Belonging was sometimes tied not only to people but also to the activities and organisations themselves. AT3 explained how club membership shaped their identity: “When you're in a soccer club, only to return to the sports club, I think that you develop a sense of belonging to the club, which is then also carried to the outside world, because you say you play at the sports club...or at FC...and others see you that way and I think that counts more than the fact that you now identify with it yourself.” (AT3) Here, identity was constructed relationally: being seen as a member of a group shaped both self-perception and external recognition. This illustrates how resilience is tied to social recognition (Norris et al., 2008), not just private feelings. ROT1 provided another example, describing how volunteering at HHH anchored their sense of home even though they did not live in Rotterdam: “[...] I did not live in Rotterdam but still considered it home because I spent time at the HHH, where I volunteered almost every weekday.” (ROT1, reflection) ROT1’s case reinforces the importance of social spaces as sites of belonging. Even in the absence of residential ties, repeated interaction in a meaningful place created attachment and resilience. Across these accounts, belonging emerged through family-like volunteering groups, friendships, supportive colleagues, and organisational memberships. These interactions provided emotional security, validation, and recognition, which strengthened resilience. The findings both support and extend existing theory in important ways. They provide strong confirmation of intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), demonstrating how repeated and cooperative activities create the conditions for trust and intimacy to develop between migrants and non-migrants. At the same time, they contribute to debates on acculturation (Berry, 2008; Bourhis et al., 1997) by showing that adaptation is not a one-sided process imposed on migrants but rather a reciprocal practice in which both newcomers and members of the host society adjust to one another. Finally, the findings resonate with resilience frameworks (Ungar, 2011; Norris et al., 2008) by highlighting that resilience is not merely an individual capacity but is grounded in the quality of relationships and networks that individuals are able to build and sustain. Language and Legal Status While many participants highlighted how social interactions foster belonging and resilience, their narratives also revealed the constraints imposed by structural conditions such as language proficiency and legal status. These factors significantly shaped whether opportunities for belonging could be fully realized, underscoring that resilience is relational but also conditional. AT5’s reflections provide a clear example of this complexity. As a 27-year-old Afghan male born in Iran and living in Austria since 2016, he emphasized that his sense of belonging to Vienna was shaped not only by his friendships but also by his asylum status, which limited his ability to establish a stable livelihood. His case highlights how legal uncertainty weakens the foundation for building resilience. Although interpersonal connections offered him strength, structural insecurity prevented a more solid sense of inclusion. This echoes critiques in resilience literature (Bourbeau, 2015 ), which warn against framing resilience solely as an individual’s responsibility, without addressing institutional constraints. Language proficiency emerged as another decisive factor. AT2, whose friendships and volunteering groups gave them a sense of family, nonetheless described a disconnection from the city as a whole. Their narrative illustrates the tension between micro-level belonging and macro-level exclusion: “I don't feel quite at home, it's not my home. It used to be a bit better when I was new in Austria, it was a bit better, but not anymore, I don't know why, but sometimes I think to myself, first of all, the first thing is the language, which I don't speak very well and when I see that someone speaks German very well or that it is their mother tongue, then I don't dare to speak German, so that's the biggest thing that bothers me and leads me to the point where I think 'yes ok, I'll never speak the language the way I speak my mother tongue, that's why I'll never be like that,' you know what I mean 'I'll never be like an Austrian.'” (AT2) Here, resilience is undercut by self-perceived linguistic inadequacy. AT2’s reflection illustrates how language shapes the very boundaries of belonging: without fluency, they feared they could “never be like an Austrian.” In terms of Berry’s (2017) acculturation theory, this underscores that integration depends not only on willingness to participate but also on structural accessibility. Meanwhile, from a resilience perspective (Ungar, 2011), the absence of linguistic confidence closed down avenues for adaptive participation in the host society. UK1 from Glasgow highlighted a related, yet distinct, challenge. Despite being proficient in English, she felt excluded because of accent differences: “When I came to Glasgow, I felt left out. You know, I was just a regular African-English speaking girl. I had an English accent, but I did not have any idea about the Scottish accent. When I was in class, I cried because I did not understand the teacher.” (UK1) Her account shows how resilience is not only a question of technical language proficiency but also of cultural-linguistic nuances. The Scottish accent became a barrier that left her isolated despite her skills. This extends contact theory (Allport, 1954) by demonstrating that interaction must be not only frequent but also comprehensible if it is to foster belonging. In contrast, ST1 described how language, even when partially inaccessible, created comfort rather than exclusion. Although she admitted her German was “a bit sad,” she felt connected when she heard the South Tyrolean dialect: “So, linguistically, I feel like I belong. Just looking at the sphere of language. Although my German is a bit sad. But I know that […] If I visit another city […] go to Verona, I feel a bit out of it. I don’t know why, I feel a little bit […] Then I come back here, and I hear them talking on the bus in the South Tyrolean [German] dialect and I feel at home, even I maybe understand one word of what they say, but I feel at home […] I feel excluded if I leave South Tyrol, a little bit, I feel a bit foreign (…)” (ST1) Unlike AT2, who perceived limited language proficiency as exclusionary, ST1 interpreted the same challenge as an entry point to belonging. Even partial understanding of dialect created a sense of intimacy, reinforcing that resilience depends not only on structural access but also on subjective interpretation. This aligns with Motti-Stefanidi’s (2019) argument that adaptation is shaped by how individuals make meaning of their experiences, rather than by circumstances alone. Taken together, these cases show that language and legal status serve as powerful conditions shaping resilience. For some, like AT2 and UK1, linguistic insecurity or accent differences undermined inclusion, while for ST1, dialect familiarity fostered belonging despite linguistic limitations. For AT5, asylum status curtailed the stability needed to translate interpersonal connections into broader societal belonging. These examples reinforce that resilience is both relational and conditional: while social interactions provide the basis for belonging, their potential is constrained or enabled by structural contexts. As resilience frameworks emphasize (Norris et al., 2008; Ungar, 2011), adaptive capacity is never purely individual but depends on the alignment of personal, relational, and structural resources. Shared Experiences and Social Support Another recurring theme in the participants’ accounts was the role of shared experiences and social support in fostering belonging and resilience. While social interactions provided the initial space for connection, participants emphasized that diversity itself, networks of trust, and the ability to both give and receive support were key to strengthening their adaptive capacities. For some, the diversity of the city in which they lived created an immediate sense of comfort. AT5 expressed a deep affection for Vienna, attributing it to the city’s multicultural character, which made him feel at ease. AT2, despite her struggles with language and feelings of exclusion in some contexts, also acknowledged that Vienna’s diversity and multiculturalism positively influenced her sense of belonging. Similarly, participants in Rotterdam echoed these sentiments: ROT2 described feeling comfortable because of the city’s diversity, while ROT1 explained that spending nearly every day at the HHH where she volunteered gave her a strong sense of connection to the city, even though she did not reside there. These cases confirm Suárez-Orozco et al.’s (2018) integrative risk and resilience model, which emphasizes that exposure to diversity can function as a protective factor by fostering inclusion and reducing isolation. This dynamic was also present in Zagreb. HR2 explained that although she felt a sense of belonging to Bosnia and Herzegovina, her country of origin, she also felt strongly connected to Croatia, where she grew up. What strengthened this attachment was not only culture and mentality but also the fact of being surrounded by others with migrant backgrounds. Similarly, HR1 emphasized that her belonging to Croatia was grounded in her childhood there, but she also noted that being with “a lot of people with an immigrant background” enhanced her comfort. This account further illustrates how sustained interaction with migrants prompted non-migrant participants to recalibrate their understanding of community and belonging, reinforcing resilience as a process of learning and accommodation rather than resistance. These narratives demonstrate how migration itself becomes a shared experience that fosters solidarity among migrants, enabling them to cultivate resilience in contexts that might otherwise feel exclusionary. In South Tyrol, ST2 reflected positively on the diversity of Bolzano, which had become his home: “I would say South Tyrol is just a place of meeting strangers from different countries, all parts of the world. It's a nice place and...I think I am loving it, actually […] The first place they dropped me was here in Bolzano, so ever since then, I have been here in Bolzano...I never feel like...living here for almost let me say 3 years, it's just like I'm home.” (ST2) For ST2, belonging was cultivated less by similarity than by diversity. His experience illustrates the resilience-building potential of multicultural environments, where exposure to difference itself fosters inclusion. This directly resonates with intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), which shows that diverse encounters can enhance empathy and reduce social distance. Beyond diversity, participants emphasised the importance of networks of support as infrastructures of resilience. AT1, for example, described how volunteering expanded his social contacts, which provided both emotional reassurance and practical assistance: “[…] my social contacts are much greater than they were back. And it can be used to help others, but it can also help myself, if I need help, if I have a challenge in my own life, then I can call someone to help. And that is the most important thing, when you call someone for help, that you first know someone, someone you can.” (AT1) This account illustrates how resilience is anchored in trust. AT1’s ability to “call someone for help” is not only about accessing resources but about the security that comes from knowing one belongs to a reliable network. Norris et al. (2008) similarly argue that community resilience depends on social capital and reciprocal exchange, which create the capacity to withstand adversity. ST5 echoed this connection between volunteering, belonging, and resilience: “I got here, and I was completely alone, but I immediately started volunteering at Villa delle Rose. And from that moment, I was fine because I had a place to go and people like me to be with.” (ST5) Volunteering here functioned as an entry point into community life, immediately alleviating loneliness and producing a sense of safety. ST5’s account illustrates the transformative effect of initial contact: resilience was strengthened not simply through individual coping but through the presence of a supportive environment. AT7’s narrative highlights a critical but sometimes overlooked dimension: resilience is not only fostered by receiving support but also by the act of giving support. In line with resilience literature, which links purpose and self-value to adaptive capacity (Masten, 2014), AT7’s case demonstrates that helping others reinforced his own resilience by strengthening his sense of agency and worth. Taken together, these accounts show that resilience thrives in networks of solidarity, where diversity is valued, support is reciprocal, and participation has meaning. Diversity provided a foundation of inclusion for AT5, AT2, ROT1, ROT2, HR1, HR2, and ST2, while networks of trust and volunteering supported AT1, ST5, and AT7. Across these cases, resilience was not an individual achievement but the outcome of shared experiences and reciprocal support, confirming that adaptation is both mutual and relational. Conclusion This paper has explored how resilience is constructed and experienced in intercultural contexts, with a particular focus on the role of everyday social interactions in shaping belonging. Drawing on qualitative data from the VOLPOWER project, the analysis has shown that resilience in migration contexts is not an individual property but a relational and mutual process. Migrants and non-migrants build adaptive capacities through their interactions, though these processes are shaped by different forms of challenge, responsibility, and power. The findings demonstrate three interlinked dynamics. First, belonging through social interaction provided participants with emotional security and continuity, often described as feeling like “family” or “home.” Volunteering, friendship networks, and organizational activities created opportunities for trust and intimacy, illustrating the importance of cooperative and repeated contact for building resilience (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Second, language proficiency and legal status shaped whether these interactions could translate into a wider sense of belonging. While some participants perceived language barriers and accent differences as exclusionary, others found that dialect familiarity itself fostered connection. Similarly, legal precarity limited opportunities for participation, reminding us that resilience is conditional on structural contexts (Bourbeau, 2015 ; Motti-Stefanidi, 2018). Third, shared experiences and social support created infrastructures of resilience. Diversity itself was described as a source of comfort and inclusion, while networks of trust allowed individuals to give and receive help. For some, like AT7, resilience was fostered by supporting others, confirming that agency and reciprocity are essential elements of adaptation. Together, these dynamics point to the concept of mutual resilience. Unlike integration frameworks, which often place the burden of adaptation on migrants alone (Berry, 2006), mutual resilience emphasises reciprocal adjustment between migrants and members of the host society. Unlike social capital or support, which focus on resources and networks, mutual resilience highlights the dynamic and ongoing process of adaptation through relationships. And unlike contact theory, which focuses on prejudice reduction, mutual resilience draws attention to the adaptive capacities that intercultural contact generates for both sides. The contribution of this study is thus twofold. Conceptually, it advances resilience scholarship by reframing adaptation as mutual resilience, embedded in the everyday practices of belonging. Empirically, it demonstrates how volunteering and shared activities serve as sites where resilience is enacted, constrained, and transformed. While limited by its small and uneven sample, the study highlights micro-level processes that illuminate larger theoretical debates on migration, integration, and resilience. The implications are significant. For research, future studies should test the concept of mutual resilience across diverse contexts and groups, ideally through comparative and longitudinal designs. For policy, the findings suggest that integration initiatives should move beyond targeting migrants alone and instead foster opportunities for reciprocal interaction. Removing structural barriers, such as insecure legal status and linguistic exclusion, is essential if mutual resilience is to flourish. In conclusion, resilience in migration contexts is best understood not as a personal resource that individuals possess, but as a mutual, relational, and conditional process. It emerges in the intimacy of friendships, the comfort of familiar dialects, the solidarity of diverse communities, and the trust of social networks. By recognizing resilience as shared and co-produced, we can better capture the realities of adaptation in intercultural settings and design policies that genuinely support inclusive and sustainable communities. While the concept of mutual resilience emphasizes reciprocity, the findings also underscore that migrants and non-migrants experience and negotiate adaptation under markedly different structural conditions, reminding us that mutuality does not imply equality. Declarations Funding Funding Number: 821619 Ethics approval This study was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines and approved by the Glasgow Caledonian University Ethics Committee. Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. Consent for publication Participants were informed that anonymised data may be used in academic publications. Clinical Trial Number Not applicable. Author Contribution D.A. conceived and designed the study, conducted the analysis, and wrote the manuscript. D.A. also developed the conceptual framework and interpreted the empirical findings. The author reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. References Adger, W.N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography. 24 , 347–364. Al-Hamad, A., Metersky, K., Parada, H., Yasin, Y., Hingorani, M., & Gare, C. (2024). Blossoming through creativity: Unveiling sense of belonging among Ukrainian and Syrian refugee women in Ontario. Journal of International Migration and Integration , 25 (2), 887-910. Berding-Barwick, R., & McAreavey, R. (2024). Resilience and identities: the role of past, present and future in the lives of forced migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 50 (8), 1843-1861. Bertalanffy, L. (2009). General System Theory: Foundations, development, applications : Braziller. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology , 46, 5–34. Bourbeau, P. (2013). 'Resiliencism: Premises and promises in securitization research.' Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses 1(1): 3-17. Bourbeau, P . (2015). Migration, Resilience, and Security: Responses to new inflows of asylum seekers and migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 2015, 41(12): 1958-77. Block, J. & Turula, E. (1963). Identification, ego-control and adjustment. Child Development , 34, 945-953. Bhugra, D. (2004). Migration and mental health. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 109(4), 243- 258. doi: 10.1046/j.0001-690X.2003.00246.x Carling, J. (2014). Scripting Remittances: Making Sense of Money Transfers in Transnational Relationships. International Migration Review 48(S1): S218–62. Cohen, L., Ferguson, C., Harms, C., Pooley, J. A., & Tomlinson, S. (2011). Family systems and mental health issues: A resilience approach. Journal of Social Work Practice, 25 (1), 109-125. doi: 10.1080/02650533.2010.533754 Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist , 59, 676–684. Chou, K. L. (2012). Perceived discrimination and depression among new migrants to Hong Kong: The moderating role of social support and neighbourhood collective efficacy. Journal of Affective Disorders , 138, 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.029. Dahinden, J. (2016). A plea for the ‘de-migranticization’ of research on migration and integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies 39/13: 2207–2225. Davoudi, S., 2012. Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? Planning theory & practice , 13 (2), 299–333. Eckstein, S. (2010). Immigration, Remittances, and Transnational Social Capital Formation: A Cuban Case Study. Ethnic and Racial Studies 33(9): 1648–67. Garmezy, N. (1974). The study of competence in children at risk for severe psychopathology. The child in his family: Children at psychiatric risk: III . E. J. Anthony and C. Koupernik. New York, Wiley. Göler, D., & Krišjāne, Z. (2024). Migration as a tool for social resilience: lessons from two case studies. Comparative Population Studies , 49 . Gibbs, L. and Block, K. (2017). Promoting social inclusion through sport for refugee-background youth in Australia: Analysing different participation models. Social Inclusion , 5/2: 91–100. Gilgun, J. (2005). The Four Cornerstones of Evidence-Based Practice. Research on Social Work Practice , 15(1), 52-61. Gilligan, R. (2000). Adversity, resilience and young people: The protective value of positive school and spare time experiences. Children and Society, 14 (1), 37–47. Ghazinour, M. (2003). Trauma and resiliency: Department of Clinical Science, Umea University Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23. Humphries, N., Ruairí, B., and McGee, H. (2009). Sending Money Home: A Mixed-methods Study of Remittances by Migrant Nurses in Ireland. Human Resources for Health 7(66). doi:10.1186/1478-4491-7-66. Karner, C. and D. Parker. (2011). Conviviality and Conflict: Pluralism, Resilience and Hope in Inner-City Birmingham. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 37(3): 355-372. Lerner, Y., Kertes, J., & Zilber, N. (2005). Immigrants from the former Soviet Union, 5 years post-immigration to Israel: Adaptation and risk factors for psychological distress. Psychological Medicine , 35, 1805–1814. Lorant, V. D., Eaton, D., Robert, W., Philippot, A.P., & Ansseau, M. (2003). Socioeconomic inequalities in depression: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology , 157, 98–112. doi:10.1093/aje/kwf182. Lindley, A. (2014). “Exploring Crisis and Migration: Concepts and Issues.” In Crisis and Migration. Critical Perspectives, edited by A. Lindley, 1–23. London: Routledge. Lin, K. K., Sandler, I. N., Ayers, T. S., Wolchik, S. A., & Luecken, L. J. (2004). Resilience in parentally bereaved children and adolescents seeking preventive services. Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology, 33(4), 673-683. Nakamura, N., Kassan, A. & Suehn, M. (2017). Resilience and migration: Experiences of same-sex binational couples in Canada, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services , 29:2, 201-219, DOI: 10.1080/10538720.2017.1298489 Ní Raghallaigh, M. and Gilligan, R. (2010) ‘Active survival in the lives of unaccompanied minors: Coping strategies, resilience, and the relevance of religion’, Child and Family Social Work, 15, 226–237. Renaud, F. G. , et al. (2011). A decision framework for environmentally induced migration. International Migration 49(s1): e5-e29. Wimmer, A. and N. Glick Schiller. (2002). Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences. Global Networks 2 (4): 301–334. Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for safety . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers Paul, R. & Roos, C. (2019). Towards a new ontology of crisis? Resilience in EU migration governance, European Security , 28:4, 393-412, DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2019.1637340 Rashid, R. and D. Gregory (2014). ''Not Giving Up on Life': A Holistic Exploration of Resilience among a Sample of Immigrant Canadian Women.' Canadian Ethnic Studies 46(1): 197-214. Rutter, M. D. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 57 (3), 316–31, doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x. Rutter, M. (2006). Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1094, pp. 1 – 12. Rybakovsky, L., & Rayzantsev, S. (2005). International migration in the Russian Federation. United nations expert group meeting on international migration and development. Seeman, T. E. (1996). Social ties and health: The benefits of social integration. Annals of Epidemiology , 6, 442–451. doi:10.1016/S1047- 2797(96)00095-6. Sleijpen, M., Boeije, H.R., Kleber, R.J. and Mooren, T. (2016). Between power and powerlessness: A meta-ethnography of sources of resilience in young refugees. Ethnicity and Health, 21 (2), 158–180. Thoits, Peggy A. (2011). Mechanisms Linking Social Ties and Support to Physical and Mental Health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 52(2):145–61. Thränhardt, D. eds (2010) “National Paradigms of Migration Research” in Immigration and Social Systems , edited by Bommes, Michael, 201-232. Göttingen, Germany: V&R Unipress. Torres, M.J., Alcantara, C., Rudolph, K.E. and Viruell-Fuentes, E.A. (2016). Journal of Health and Social Behavior , Vol. 57(4) 436–452 2016 DOI: 10.1177/0022146516667534 Schinkel, W. (2013). The imagination of ‘society’ in measurements of immigrant integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies 36/7: 1142–1161. Schinkel, W. (2018). Against ‘immigrant integration’: for an end to neocolonial knowledge production. Comperative Migration Studies 6/3: 1-17. Oppedal, B. and Idsoe, T. (2015). The role of social support in the acculturation and mental health of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 203–211. Olcese, M., Cardinali, P., Madera, F., Camilleri, A. P., & Migliorini, L. (2024). Migration and community resilience: A scoping review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 98 , 101924. Umberson, D., Crosnoe, R., & Reczek, C. (2010). Social relationships and health behaviour across life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 139–157. Ungar, M. (2004). Surviving as a postmodern social worker: Two Ps and three Rs of direct practice. Social Work, 49 (3), 488-496. Ungar, M. (2007). The beginnings of resilience: a view across cultures. Education Canada, 47 (3), 28-34. Yıldırım, M., Aziz, I. A., Vostanis, P., & Hassan, M. N. (2024). Associations among resilience, hope, social support, feeling belongingness, satisfaction with life, and flourishing among Syrian minority refugees. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse , 23 (1), 166-181. Zembylas, T. (2014). Artistic practices: social interactions and cultural dynamics . London and New York: Routledge. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9222388","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":617204332,"identity":"56170b6b-1d9b-4ba7-bb07-7dda3c63c1b7","order_by":0,"name":"Doga Atalay","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Doga","middleName":"","lastName":"Atalay","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-25 11:25:53","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9222388/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9222388/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106213683,"identity":"7b9b4571-55cd-4777-942e-d7115b8cee1c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-06 07:59:27","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":931004,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual Framework: Mutual Resilience through Social Interaction and Belonging\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9222388/v1/4f25bfbee3858187b1ac582e.png"},{"id":107935864,"identity":"fe2641dd-1536-432f-a63a-9a5c45f86002","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 17:55:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1049045,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9222388/v1/b2db1067-16e1-4cb3-989d-85c02fe54350.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Migration, Social Interaction, and Resilience: Everyday Practices of Mutual Adaptation","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMigration is a transformative process that reshapes the lives of both migrants and members of established societies. For newcomers, it entails adjusting to unfamiliar cultural, linguistic, and institutional contexts. For members of the established society, it requires accommodating diversity and negotiating new forms of coexistence. These dynamics highlight that adaptation is not a one-sided burden placed solely on migrants but a relational process that involves all groups living together in intercultural settings. Yet, much of the migration literature continues to frame integration as a unilateral task for migrants, while overlooking the adaptive responsibilities of established populations (Wimmer \u0026amp; Schiller, 2002; Schinkel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Dahinden, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper proposes resilience as an alternative framework for analysing adaptation in migration contexts. Resilience, broadly defined, refers to the capacity of individuals or groups to withstand, navigate, and adapt to life-changing circumstances (Ungar, 2011). While resilience has often been examined as an \u003cem\u003eindividual trait\u003c/em\u003e (e.g., coping skills, perseverance), scholarship increasingly emphasises its \u003cem\u003erelational\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ecommunity\u003c/em\u003e dimensions highlighting the role of social networks, institutions, and shared practices in fostering adaptive capacity (Norris et al., 2008; Motti-Stefanidi, 2018; Olcese et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In this paper, resilience is conceptualized as relational resilience: a process that emerges through everyday social interactions, creating feelings of belonging and mutual adjustment between migrants and members of host societies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdaptation, in this framing, refers to the adjustments individuals and groups make in response to intercultural encounters, which can be psychological (e.g., well-being), social (e.g., participation in networks), or cultural (e.g., negotiating identity) (Berry, 2006). Unlike conventional “integration” models that emphasise structural outcomes such as employment or language proficiency, this paper focuses on the \u003cem\u003emicro-level interactions\u003c/em\u003e through which adaptation is co-produced. A central claim of this paper is that resilience and adaptation are not only about migrants “fitting into” host societies but about both groups engaging in mutual resilience. This term refers to the reciprocal development of adaptive capacities through shared activities and relationships, such as volunteering, where both migrants and non-migrants build connections, expand their sense of belonging, and reconfigure community boundaries. By framing resilience in this way, the paper contributes to the growing body of literature that seeks to move beyond one-way models of integration (Bourhis et al., 1997; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis perspective also resonates with intergroup contact theory, which demonstrates that sustained, cooperative interactions between groups reduce prejudice and foster positive relations (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew \u0026amp; Tropp, 2006). However, this paper extends contact theory by linking it explicitly to resilience, showing how intercultural encounters not only reduce bias but also cultivate adaptive strengths for both migrants and members of established societies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrawing on qualitative data collected in five European countries as part of the [anonymous] project, this study addresses two questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow can resilience conceptually capture the reciprocal processes of adaptation between migrants and members of established societies?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo what extent do everyday social interactions foster a sense of belonging and mutual resilience among migrants and non-migrants?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy answering these questions, the paper advances migration research in three ways. First, it introduces the concept of mutual resilience as a means of reconceptualising adaptation in intercultural contexts. Second, it empirically demonstrates how everyday social interactions, particularly volunteering, function as sites of resilience-building. Third, it situates resilience as a more inclusive and dynamic alternative to integration, better capturing the two-way nature of migration processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResilience as a Resilient Concept\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eViewing migration as a process shaped by both opportunity and adversity allows us to explore resilience as a response to structural, relational, and emotional challenges experienced by migrants and members of established societies. While a variety of factors influence migrants’ adaptation, such as legal status, education, or skills, this paper focuses on the social dimensions that shape adaptation and belonging. In migration studies, resilience has often been understood as an individual’s capacity to cope with adversity, but resilience is increasingly recognised as a multi-level phenomenon encompassing individual, relational, and community processes (Ungar, 2011; Norris et al., 2008; Motti-Stefanidi, 2018). At the individual level, resilience refers to personal resources and coping strategies that enable migrants to manage stress and re-establish stability (Rutter, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e). At the relational level, resilience is cultivated through social interactions that provide emotional support, recognition, and a sense of belonging (Ní Raghallaigh \u0026amp; Gilligan, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Torres et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). At the community level, resilience refers to the collective capacity of groups to adapt and maintain functionality in the face of challenges. Norris et al. (2008) define community resilience in terms of social capital, information and communication, community competence, and economic development. These dimensions are directly relevant to migration, as they capture how both migrants and non-migrants co-develop adaptive strategies in diverse settings (Olcese et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this paper, I adopt a relational approach to resilience, emphasising how everyday interactions between migrants and non-migrants foster belonging and mutual adjustment. This does not dismiss the importance of individual traits or community resources, but highlights that resilience is co-produced in the spaces where people come together. A sense of belonging thus becomes central: for migrants, belonging means establishing new networks and connections; for host community members, it means extending their understanding of “community” to include newcomers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResilience in Migration Studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResilience in migration studies has often been equated with migrants’ ability to overcome adversity, such as insecure legal status, discrimination, or socioeconomic exclusion (Yıldırım et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Berding-Barwick \u0026amp; McAreavey, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Some scholars have even suggested that migration itself can be viewed as a resilient act as a strategy of survival and opportunity (Lindley, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Research has explored migrant resilience across different groups, including women (Rashid \u0026amp; Gregory, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), children and youth (Sleijpen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Motti-Stefanidi, 2018), workers (van der Ham et al., 2014), and climate migrants (Renaud et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Studies also document how remittances can be interpreted as resilience strategies extending beyond the migrant to their families and communities (Carling, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, Philippe Bourbeau (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) has critiqued much of this literature for “importing” the concept of resilience without sufficiently theorising its meaning in migration contexts. Indeed, resilience has often been conflated with adaptation or integration, creating conceptual ambiguities. For example, Berry’s (2017) acculturation framework describes integration as a strategy that combines cultural maintenance with participation in the wider society. Bourhis et al. (1997), in their interactive acculturation model, further emphasised that integration outcomes depend not only on migrants’ preferences but also on host society members’ expectations. These models underline the relational character of adaptation, but resilience has rarely been used as an overarching framework to capture this mutual process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, little attention has been paid to how intercultural encounters contribute to resilience. Yet intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew \u0026amp; Tropp, 2006) demonstrates that structured, cooperative contact between groups reduces prejudice and promotes mutual understanding. In the context of migration, everyday activities such as volunteering or community participation can therefore serve as mechanisms of resilience-building. What remains underexplored is how these encounters generate not only positive intergroup attitudes but also adaptive capacities for both migrants and host community members. Thus, while research has provided important insights into how migrants cope with adversity, there remains a gap in understanding resilience as a shared, relational process that develops through interaction and belonging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGaps in the Literature\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the rapid expansion of resilience research in migration studies, significant gaps remain that limit the conceptual and empirical advancement of the field. Three interconnected areas are particularly noteworthy: the one-sided focus on migrants’ adaptation, the under-theorisation of everyday intercultural interactions, and the conceptual overlap between resilience and related constructs such as integration, social capital, and social support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, resilience has predominantly been studied as an individual trait of migrants, with insufficient attention to the adaptive processes of host community members. Importantly, resilience scholarship emphasises that adaptive capacity is always shaped by exposure to risk, adversity, and constraint, which may operate at individual, relational, and structural levels (Ungar, 2011; Masten, 2014). In migration contexts, these challenges include legal precarity, linguistic exclusion, discrimination, and institutional barriers. Much of the migration literature, particularly in how integration frameworks are operationalised in research and policy, continues to frame adaptation primarily as a task for migrants (Berry, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Schinkel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). When adaptation is examined primarily through migrant-focused indicators, there is a risk that responsibility for adjustment appears individualised, while the adaptive processes of established societies remain analytically underexamined. In reality, members of host communities also face challenges: they must renegotiate collective identities, expand notions of belonging, and adapt to intercultural realities (Dahinden, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Yet few studies explicitly examine how non-migrants build resilience in these contexts. Bourhis et al.’s (1997) interactive acculturation model demonstrates that outcomes of integration depend on both migrants’ strategies and host community expectations. However, resilience has rarely been framed in these relational and reciprocal terms. This leaves a gap in our understanding of how both groups cultivate adaptive capacities in response to intercultural change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the role of everyday social interactions in resilience-building remains under-theorised. Much of the resilience literature in migration studies has focused on structural indicators such as legal rights, socioeconomic status, or educational attainment (Lorant et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Chou, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). While these factors are undeniably important, they provide only a partial picture of how adaptation unfolds in practice. Micro-level encounters, volunteering, sports, and cultural activities often serve as key sites where belonging is negotiated and resilience is fostered. This resonates strongly with intergroup contact theory, which demonstrates that cooperative contact under favourable conditions reduces prejudice and fosters trust (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew \u0026amp; Tropp, 2006). However, the connection between contact and resilience remains underexplored. Participation in joint activities not only promotes tolerance but also builds networks of support, reciprocity, and recognition that strengthen resilience for both migrants and non-migrants. By failing to theorise these processes, current literature overlooks one of the most tangible mechanisms through which resilience is enacted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, resilience is often conflated with related concepts such as integration, social capital, social support, or agency, leading to conceptual ambiguity. In integration studies, a migrant’s education, employment, and language proficiency are considered indicators of “successful” integration (Berry, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). These same factors also appear in resilience research, where they are interpreted as resources enabling adaptation (Anleu Hernandez \u0026amp; Garcia-Moreno, 2014). Similarly, resilience is sometimes equated with social capital (Putnam, 2000) or social support (Cohen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), emphasising the networks and resources that buffer individuals against adversity. While these constructs are related, resilience encompasses more: it captures the \u003cem\u003edynamic process\u003c/em\u003e of adapting to change, not just the static availability of resources. As Bourbeau (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) argues, migration studies often “import” resilience without theorising its distinct contribution. Without clearer differentiation, resilience risks becoming a catch-all term that duplicates existing concepts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these gaps, this paper reconceptualises resilience as a relational and dynamic process that is co-produced between migrants and host community members through everyday interactions. By situating belonging as a central component of resilience, the paper highlights that adaptation cannot be understood solely in terms of individual coping or structural resources. Instead, resilience emerges through \u003cem\u003emutual adaptation\u003c/em\u003e as a process in which both migrants and non-migrants recalibrate their sense of identity, community, and belonging. This approach acknowledges the reciprocal nature of adaptation while avoiding the pitfalls of unilateral integration models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptual Framework of Mutual Resilience\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo guide this reconceptualisation, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents a heuristic framework that sensitizes attention to how social interaction, belonging, and resilience are relationally connected in migration contexts. At its core, the model identifies everyday social interactions such as volunteering, participation in sports, or cultural activities as catalysts for resilience-building. These interactions generate a sense of belonging, which strengthens individuals’ capacity to adapt to new circumstances. For migrants, this means developing connections that allow them to feel at home and navigate host society institutions. For non-migrants, it means expanding community boundaries to include newcomers and adjusting to increased diversity. The arrows in the model indicate the reciprocal nature of this process: social interactions foster belonging, which enhances resilience, which in turn encourages further interaction and engagement. The framework is not intended as a causal or predictive model, but as an interpretive tool that captures patterns emerging from participants’ accounts and highlights relational processes rather than directional effects. Importantly, this process occurs at multiple levels. At the \u003cem\u003eindividual level\u003c/em\u003e, resilience manifests as psychological well-being and coping strategies. At the \u003cem\u003erelational level\u003c/em\u003e, it is reflected in trust, recognition, and mutual support. At the \u003cem\u003ecommunity level\u003c/em\u003e, resilience is expressed in collective capacities such as social capital, communication, and inclusive norms (Norris et al., 2008).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe framework also highlights that mutual resilience is distinct from integration or social capital. Unlike integration, which is often measured through structural indicators and assumes a one-way adaptation of migrants, mutual resilience emphasises reciprocal adaptation. Unlike social capital, which focuses on the existence of networks, mutual resilience highlights the \u003cem\u003ecapacity to adapt dynamically\u003c/em\u003e that emerges through those networks. By centring on belonging, the framework captures both the affective (feeling secure, feeling at home) and functional (having access to support and resources) aspects of adaptation. In sum, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides a conceptual roadmap for understanding resilience as a shared, iterative process. It positions everyday social interactions as the foundation of mutual resilience, underscores the co-production of belonging between migrants and host communities, and situates this dynamic within broader debates on integration, acculturation, and community resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, these gaps point to the need for a relational understanding of resilience in migration studies. Such an approach recognises:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThat resilience is not only about how migrants cope but also about how host community members adapt to diversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThat resilience is cultivated in everyday encounters, not only through structural resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThat resilience, while related to integration, social capital, and support, is distinct in its emphasis on \u003cem\u003edynamic, adaptive capacities\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy addressing these gaps, this paper positions mutual resilience as a conceptual innovation that captures the two-way, relational, and dynamic nature of adaptation in migration contexts. It provides a framework that is more inclusive than unilateral integration models, more dynamic than static measures of social capital, and more grounded in everyday lived realities than abstract policy indicators.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper draws on qualitative data generated through the [anonymous] project (2018–2021), which explored how young people experience belonging and resilience across seven European countries. For the purposes of this article, I focus on five countries: the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, and Croatia, where sufficient interview material was available. A qualitative, interpretive approach was adopted in order to capture participants’ lived experiences of belonging and resilience. Specifically, I employed \u003cb\u003ethematic analysis\u003c/b\u003e following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase model. This method was chosen because it allows the identification of patterned meanings across a relatively small dataset, while remaining flexible enough to accommodate cross-national variation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants and Recruitment\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis is based on 15 semi-structured interviews with young people aged 18–27. Participants included both migrants (n = 7) and non-migrants (n = 8), and were selected to ensure diversity in terms of country of residence, length of stay, and background (see Table\u0026nbsp;1). Recruitment was conducted in collaboration with local [anonymous] project partners, including NGOs, volunteer associations, and youth organisations. Migrant participants were included if they had been living in the host country for at least six months, while non-migrant participants were included if they had spent the majority of their lives in the host society.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData Collection\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterviews were conducted face-to-face by trained project researchers between 2019 and 2020. Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and followed a semi-structured guide covering participants’ life histories, experiences of volunteering, perceptions of belonging, and views on intercultural interaction. All interviews were audio-recorded (with consent), transcribed verbatim, and anonymised. To avoid gender assumptions, participants are referred to using they/them pronouns. The data were analysed through an iterative process of \u003cb\u003einductive coding\u003c/b\u003e and \u003cb\u003etheme development\u003c/b\u003e. In the first stage, transcripts were read repeatedly to ensure familiarity. \u003cb\u003eOpen coding\u003c/b\u003e was applied to capture initial concepts, followed by \u003cb\u003eaxial coding\u003c/b\u003e to group related codes into broader categories (Strauss \u0026amp; Corbin, 1990). In the final stage, codes were refined into thematic clusters that represented patterned meanings across the dataset. Following Braun and Clarke (2006), the six phases of thematic analysis — familiarisation, coding, theme generation, review, definition, and reporting — were explicitly followed. Themes were compared across national contexts to identify similarities and divergences in experiences. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) belonging through social interaction, (2) the role of language and legal status, and (3) shared experiences and social support as facilitators of resilience. To enhance clarity, I later organised these findings into a \u003cb\u003econceptual map\u003c/b\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnsuring Analytic Rigour\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral strategies were employed to enhance credibility and trustworthiness. First, \u003cb\u003etriangulation\u003c/b\u003e was achieved by comparing findings across five different national contexts. Second, \u003cb\u003epeer debriefing\u003c/b\u003e took place within the [anonymous] project consortium, where researchers from different countries reviewed coding decisions and interpretations. Third, an \u003cb\u003eaudit trail\u003c/b\u003e was maintained, including coding notes and memos that documented analytic decisions. Finally, \u003cb\u003ethick description\u003c/b\u003e is provided in the findings section, with extensive use of direct quotations to ground interpretations in participants’ own words.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflexivity and Limitations\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs the author, I acknowledge my own positionality as a migration researcher embedded within the [anonymous] project. My background and interest in intercultural relations inevitably shaped the questions asked and the interpretations made. To mitigate potential bias, I engaged in reflexive journaling during the analytic process and actively discussed interpretations with colleagues from different national and disciplinary backgrounds. This reflexive stance was important for ensuring that the analysis remained sensitive to participants’ diverse experiences rather than imposing predetermined categories. The small sample size (n = 15) and uneven country distribution limit the generalizability of findings. However, the aim of this qualitative study was not statistical representativeness but to capture in-depth experiences of belonging and resilience across diverse contexts. Future research could expand this work with larger, longitudinal samples that trace how resilience and belonging evolve over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable.1. Descriptions of participants of the research\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAT1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry of Origin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry of Residence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustria/Vienna\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAT2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustria/Vienna\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAT3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustria/Vienna\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAT4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustria/Vienna\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAT5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustria/Vienna\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eST1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItaly-South Tyrol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eST2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItaly-South Tyrol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eST3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItaly-South Tyrol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eST4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItaly-South Tyrol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eST5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItaly-South Tyrol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUK1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited Kingdom-Glasgow\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCroatia-Zagreb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCroatia-Zagreb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eROT1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNetherlands/Rotterdam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eROT2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNetherlands/Rotterdam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable.2 Comparative Table of Emergent Themes\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThemes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubthemes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIllustrative Quotes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation/Discussion Link\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBelonging through Social Interaction\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVolunteering as family\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e“I feel like a family again and we have a lot of fun and we do a lot of things together.” (AT2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCooperative activities build intimacy; aligns with Allport’s contact theory and Berry’s integration model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFriendships and close relationships\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e“And there are people when I am with them, I think to myself ‘yes,’ this is my home.” (AT1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelonging tied more to relationships than place; supports Norris et al. on community resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eActivities as identity anchors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e“When you're in a soccer club… you develop a sense of belonging to the club, which is then also carried to the outside world.” (AT3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelonging shaped by recognition; relates to Bourhis et al.’s interactive acculturation model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLanguage and Legal Status\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinguistic exclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e“I’ll never speak the language the way I speak my mother tongue, that’s why I’ll never be like an Austrian.” (AT2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage barriers constrain belonging; supports Motti-Stefanidi on adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccent differences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e“When I was in class, I cried because I did not understand the teacher.” (UK1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEven proficiency cannot overcome cultural-linguistic barriers; affects resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDialects as comfort\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e“I hear them talking in the South Tyrolean dialect and I feel at home, even if I understand one word.” (ST1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubjective interpretation fosters belonging despite barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal precarity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e“I wanted to volunteer more, but because of my papers, I couldn’t always register.” (AT5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural constraints limit resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eShared Experiences and Social Support\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiversity as resource\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e“I would say South Tyrol is just a place of meeting strangers from different countries… it’s just like I’m home.” (ST2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiversity fosters belonging; resonates with Suárez-Orozco et al.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNetworks of trust and solidarity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e“If I need help, if I have a challenge, then I can call someone to help.” (AT1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust as infrastructure of resilience; aligns with Norris et al.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHelping others as resilience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(AT7, volunteered as translator)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHelping fosters agency and strengthens resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Findings and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eHow Non-Migrants Adapt Through Intercultural Interaction\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelonging through Social Interaction\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile much of the resilience literature focuses on migrants’ adaptive experiences, the interviews also reveal that non-migrants undergo meaningful processes of adjustment through sustained interaction with migrants. For non-migrant participants, adaptation did not involve overcoming legal or linguistic barriers, but rather renegotiating assumptions about belonging, difference, and community. Participation in volunteering and everyday intercultural encounters prompted reflection, learning, and shifts in how diversity was understood and valued. These accounts suggest that resilience among non-migrants is expressed less through coping with adversity and more through the capacity to accommodate social change, expand symbolic boundaries of belonging, and engage constructively with difference.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the most consistent findings across the interviews was the centrality of social interactions in creating belonging, which in turn fostered resilience. Resilience here was not an individual trait but a relational capacity (Ungar, 2011), one that grew through social intimacies and connections. Participants repeatedly described how meaningful interactions with peers, colleagues, and neighbours cultivated a sense of home and strengthened their ability to adapt. AT2 described how group activities, whether school-based or community-based, created a family-like atmosphere:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“Yeah. I changed my subject this semester and from September I was in a whole new group and I was always afraid that I wouldn't get along with the people, I was always afraid, but now I find them even better than my previous group and the people I got to know from school are really nice people and I feel like a family again and we have a lot of fun and we do a lot of things together, not only learning, but it reminds me a little bit of my school in my home country [Iran] where I had a lot of funny friends [laughs], where we just had a lot of fun besides learning something. I also feel at home there.” (AT2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“I think because most of them (other volunteers) are in a similar age, so I think it's not just seen as soccer, but a friendly (amicable) group, because the same people who play soccer can also meet in the cooking group and we do that and that makes the relationships a little bit closer. Not that we are just a soccer group and that we meet and train every week, e.g., twice a week, but it is like a family.” (AT2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese examples show how repeated, cooperative interaction created both intimacy and continuity with pre-migration experiences. AT2 explicitly linked their new friendships to memories of school in Iran, showing how resilience can be strengthened by re-establishing familiar forms of belonging. This resonates with Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory, which holds that regular interaction reduces social barriers, and with Berry’s (2008) integration model, where participation in shared activities fosters adaptation while allowing migrants to maintain identity continuity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAT3 similarly highlighted how participation in multiple activities deepened their sense of belonging:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“Some of them also go on Monday (dancing), so that gave me a feeling of belonging to a group during my school days, I would almost call it a group.” (AT3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis case illustrates that belonging is cultivated through repeated and overlapping contact. Soccer and dance created reinforcing social circles that went beyond superficial encounters. As Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) argue, contact is most effective when it spans multiple settings and supports personal relationships. AT3’s reflection also underlines that belonging is not automatic but gradually constructed through interaction — a process central to resilience theory (Ungar, 2011), where adaptation depends on sustained access to social resources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral participants emphasized that belonging was tied less to the physical city than to the people they were connected to:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“And there are people when I am with them, I think to myself ‘yes,’ this is my home.” (AT1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“Yeah, I mean, people, yeah. I think that's correct, so I...otherwise I don't feel like I belong anywhere, except when I really feel good with some people. And if I feel good in Vienna, it is because of the people.” (AT4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“I think that is the case with many people, that in Vienna, that the city itself is not really that important because the circle of friends or the circles of friends in which I move in, they are sometimes getting smaller and they are leaving.” (AT3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere, relationships mattered more than geography. This supports Norris et al.’s (2008) model of community resilience, which emphasises that collective adaptive capacity rests on networks of trust rather than physical spaces alone. Belonging, and therefore resilience, emerged from the quality of social ties, not the location itself. ST4 reinforced this when describing the sense of belonging generated through volunteering in cultural activities:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“Well, the band (where he volunteered) helps you to feel integrated, because there are many people from the village and everybody knows everybody and many of them are relatives and that helps and I also played at the Heimatbühne this autumn and that helps because then everybody comes to watch and then you get to know each other and so and otherwise it's not really true that I feel excluded.” (ST4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis account illustrates how interaction with migrants prompted non-migrant participants to adapt their understanding of community and belonging, highlighting resilience as a process of learning and accommodation rather than resistance. Here, integration was experienced not as a policy outcome but as the result of participating in familiar social practices. This echoes Bourhis et al.’s (1997) interactive acculturation model, which stresses that adaptation depends on reciprocity between migrants and host communities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelonging was often described in affective terms, particularly as “feeling good.” AT5 explained how close friendships created emotional safety:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“[…] with the best people and colleagues, I can be myself, but when I’m really myself, I might also be strange to people sometimes. That is why my best friends give me a good feeling.” (AT5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis demonstrates that resilience is not only social but also emotional, grounded in the ability to feel authentic and accepted. Ungar (2011) argues that emotional security is a central condition of resilience, and AT5’s account confirms that being able to “be oneself” is critical for adaptation. ST3 expressed a similar sentiment about being welcomed into a workplace community:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“My colleagues made me feel like one of them. They treat me well like I am one of them. Some of them had already been working at the Coop for 10 years, but they welcomed me as if we had started together. Maybe that is why I like South Tyrol, because they made me feel just at home.” (ST3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eST3’s experience highlights how resilience is co-produced: belonging grew through recognition by non-migrant colleagues, and this recognition became the basis for adaptation. This supports the idea of mutual resilience, where both migrants and host society members actively shape inclusive networks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelonging was sometimes tied not only to people but also to the activities and organisations themselves. AT3 explained how club membership shaped their identity:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“When you're in a soccer club, only to return to the sports club, I think that you develop a sense of belonging to the club, which is then also carried to the outside world, because you say you play at the sports club...or at FC...and others see you that way and I think that counts more than the fact that you now identify with it yourself.” (AT3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere, identity was constructed relationally: being seen as a member of a group shaped both self-perception and external recognition. This illustrates how resilience is tied to social recognition (Norris et al., 2008), not just private feelings. ROT1 provided another example, describing how volunteering at HHH anchored their sense of home even though they did not live in Rotterdam:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“[...] I did not live in Rotterdam but still considered it home because I spent time at the HHH, where I volunteered almost every weekday.” (ROT1, reflection)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eROT1’s case reinforces the importance of social spaces as sites of belonging. Even in the absence of residential ties, repeated interaction in a meaningful place created attachment and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross these accounts, belonging emerged through family-like volunteering groups, friendships, supportive colleagues, and organisational memberships. These interactions provided emotional security, validation, and recognition, which strengthened resilience. The findings both support and extend existing theory in important ways. They provide strong confirmation of intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew \u0026amp; Tropp, 2006), demonstrating how repeated and cooperative activities create the conditions for trust and intimacy to develop between migrants and non-migrants. At the same time, they contribute to debates on acculturation (Berry, 2008; Bourhis et al., 1997) by showing that adaptation is not a one-sided process imposed on migrants but rather a reciprocal practice in which both newcomers and members of the host society adjust to one another. Finally, the findings resonate with resilience frameworks (Ungar, 2011; Norris et al., 2008) by highlighting that resilience is not merely an individual capacity but is grounded in the quality of relationships and networks that individuals are able to build and sustain.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLanguage and Legal Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile many participants highlighted how social interactions foster belonging and resilience, their narratives also revealed the constraints imposed by structural conditions such as language proficiency and legal status. These factors significantly shaped whether opportunities for belonging could be fully realized, underscoring that resilience is relational but also conditional.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAT5’s reflections provide a clear example of this complexity. As a 27-year-old Afghan male born in Iran and living in Austria since 2016, he emphasized that his sense of belonging to Vienna was shaped not only by his friendships but also by his asylum status, which limited his ability to establish a stable livelihood. His case highlights how legal uncertainty weakens the foundation for building resilience. Although interpersonal connections offered him strength, structural insecurity prevented a more solid sense of inclusion. This echoes critiques in resilience literature (Bourbeau, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), which warn against framing resilience solely as an individual’s responsibility, without addressing institutional constraints. Language proficiency emerged as another decisive factor. AT2, whose friendships and volunteering groups gave them a sense of family, nonetheless described a disconnection from the city as a whole. Their narrative illustrates the tension between micro-level belonging and macro-level exclusion:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“I don't feel quite at home, it's not my home. It used to be a bit better when I was new in Austria, it was a bit better, but not anymore, I don't know why, but sometimes I think to myself, first of all, the first thing is the language, which I don't speak very well and when I see that someone speaks German very well or that it is their mother tongue, then I don't dare to speak German, so that's the biggest thing that bothers me and leads me to the point where I think 'yes ok, I'll never speak the language the way I speak my mother tongue, that's why I'll never be like that,' you know what I mean 'I'll never be like an Austrian.'” (AT2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere, resilience is undercut by self-perceived linguistic inadequacy. AT2’s reflection illustrates how language shapes the very boundaries of belonging: without fluency, they feared they could “never be like an Austrian.” In terms of Berry’s (2017) acculturation theory, this underscores that integration depends not only on willingness to participate but also on structural accessibility. Meanwhile, from a resilience perspective (Ungar, 2011), the absence of linguistic confidence closed down avenues for adaptive participation in the host society. UK1 from Glasgow highlighted a related, yet distinct, challenge. Despite being proficient in English, she felt excluded because of accent differences:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“When I came to Glasgow, I felt left out. You know, I was just a regular African-English speaking girl. I had an English accent, but I did not have any idea about the Scottish accent. When I was in class, I cried because I did not understand the teacher.” (UK1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHer account shows how resilience is not only a question of technical language proficiency but also of cultural-linguistic nuances. The Scottish accent became a barrier that left her isolated despite her skills. This extends contact theory (Allport, 1954) by demonstrating that interaction must be not only frequent but also comprehensible if it is to foster belonging. In contrast, ST1 described how language, even when partially inaccessible, created comfort rather than exclusion. Although she admitted her German was “a bit sad,” she felt connected when she heard the South Tyrolean dialect:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“So, linguistically, I feel like I belong. Just looking at the sphere of language. Although my German is a bit sad. But I know that […] If I visit another city […] go to Verona, I feel a bit out of it. I don’t know why, I feel a little bit […] Then I come back here, and I hear them talking on the bus in the South Tyrolean [German] dialect and I feel at home, even I maybe understand one word of what they say, but I feel at home […] I feel excluded if I leave South Tyrol, a little bit, I feel a bit foreign (…)” (ST1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnlike AT2, who perceived limited language proficiency as exclusionary, ST1 interpreted the same challenge as an entry point to belonging. Even partial understanding of dialect created a sense of intimacy, reinforcing that resilience depends not only on structural access but also on subjective interpretation. This aligns with Motti-Stefanidi’s (2019) argument that adaptation is shaped by how individuals make meaning of their experiences, rather than by circumstances alone. Taken together, these cases show that language and legal status serve as powerful conditions shaping resilience. For some, like AT2 and UK1, linguistic insecurity or accent differences undermined inclusion, while for ST1, dialect familiarity fostered belonging despite linguistic limitations. For AT5, asylum status curtailed the stability needed to translate interpersonal connections into broader societal belonging. These examples reinforce that resilience is both relational and conditional: while social interactions provide the basis for belonging, their potential is constrained or enabled by structural contexts. As resilience frameworks emphasize (Norris et al., 2008; Ungar, 2011), adaptive capacity is never purely individual but depends on the alignment of personal, relational, and structural resources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShared Experiences and Social Support\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother recurring theme in the participants’ accounts was the role of shared experiences and social support in fostering belonging and resilience. While social interactions provided the initial space for connection, participants emphasized that diversity itself, networks of trust, and the ability to both give and receive support were key to strengthening their adaptive capacities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor some, the diversity of the city in which they lived created an immediate sense of comfort. AT5 expressed a deep affection for Vienna, attributing it to the city’s multicultural character, which made him feel at ease. AT2, despite her struggles with language and feelings of exclusion in some contexts, also acknowledged that Vienna’s diversity and multiculturalism positively influenced her sense of belonging. Similarly, participants in Rotterdam echoed these sentiments: ROT2 described feeling comfortable because of the city’s diversity, while ROT1 explained that spending nearly every day at the HHH where she volunteered gave her a strong sense of connection to the city, even though she did not reside there. These cases confirm Suárez-Orozco et al.’s (2018) integrative risk and resilience model, which emphasizes that exposure to diversity can function as a protective factor by fostering inclusion and reducing isolation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis dynamic was also present in Zagreb. HR2 explained that although she felt a sense of belonging to Bosnia and Herzegovina, her country of origin, she also felt strongly connected to Croatia, where she grew up. What strengthened this attachment was not only culture and mentality but also the fact of being surrounded by others with migrant backgrounds. Similarly, HR1 emphasized that her belonging to Croatia was grounded in her childhood there, but she also noted that being with “a lot of people with an immigrant background” enhanced her comfort. This account further illustrates how sustained interaction with migrants prompted non-migrant participants to recalibrate their understanding of community and belonging, reinforcing resilience as a process of learning and accommodation rather than resistance. These narratives demonstrate how migration itself becomes a shared experience that fosters solidarity among migrants, enabling them to cultivate resilience in contexts that might otherwise feel exclusionary.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn South Tyrol, ST2 reflected positively on the diversity of Bolzano, which had become his home:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“I would say South Tyrol is just a place of meeting strangers from different countries, all parts of the world. It's a nice place and...I think I am loving it, actually […] The first place they dropped me was here in Bolzano, so ever since then, I have been here in Bolzano...I never feel like...living here for almost let me say 3 years, it's just like I'm home.” (ST2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor ST2, belonging was cultivated less by similarity than by diversity. His experience illustrates the resilience-building potential of multicultural environments, where exposure to difference itself fosters inclusion. This directly resonates with intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew \u0026amp; Tropp, 2006), which shows that diverse encounters can enhance empathy and reduce social distance. Beyond diversity, participants emphasised the importance of networks of support as infrastructures of resilience. AT1, for example, described how volunteering expanded his social contacts, which provided both emotional reassurance and practical assistance:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“[…] my social contacts are much greater than they were back. And it can be used to help others, but it can also help myself, if I need help, if I have a challenge in my own life, then I can call someone to help. And that is the most important thing, when you call someone for help, that you first know someone, someone you can.” (AT1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis account illustrates how resilience is anchored in trust. AT1’s ability to “call someone for help” is not only about accessing resources but about the security that comes from knowing one belongs to a reliable network. Norris et al. (2008) similarly argue that community resilience depends on social capital and reciprocal exchange, which create the capacity to withstand adversity. ST5 echoed this connection between volunteering, belonging, and resilience:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e“I got here, and I was completely alone, but I immediately started volunteering at Villa delle Rose. And from that moment, I was fine because I had a place to go and people like me to be with.” (ST5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVolunteering here functioned as an entry point into community life, immediately alleviating loneliness and producing a sense of safety. ST5’s account illustrates the transformative effect of initial contact: resilience was strengthened not simply through individual coping but through the presence of a supportive environment. AT7’s narrative highlights a critical but sometimes overlooked dimension: resilience is not only fostered by receiving support but also by the act of giving support. In line with resilience literature, which links purpose and self-value to adaptive capacity (Masten, 2014), AT7’s case demonstrates that helping others reinforced his own resilience by strengthening his sense of agency and worth.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these accounts show that resilience thrives in networks of solidarity, where diversity is valued, support is reciprocal, and participation has meaning. Diversity provided a foundation of inclusion for AT5, AT2, ROT1, ROT2, HR1, HR2, and ST2, while networks of trust and volunteering supported AT1, ST5, and AT7. Across these cases, resilience was not an individual achievement but the outcome of shared experiences and reciprocal support, confirming that adaptation is both mutual and relational.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper has explored how resilience is constructed and experienced in intercultural contexts, with a particular focus on the role of everyday social interactions in shaping belonging. Drawing on qualitative data from the VOLPOWER project, the analysis has shown that resilience in migration contexts is not an individual property but a relational and mutual process. Migrants and non-migrants build adaptive capacities through their interactions, though these processes are shaped by different forms of challenge, responsibility, and power.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings demonstrate three interlinked dynamics. First, belonging through social interaction provided participants with emotional security and continuity, often described as feeling like \u0026ldquo;family\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;home.\u0026rdquo; Volunteering, friendship networks, and organizational activities created opportunities for trust and intimacy, illustrating the importance of cooperative and repeated contact for building resilience (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew \u0026amp; Tropp, 2006). Second, language proficiency and legal status shaped whether these interactions could translate into a wider sense of belonging. While some participants perceived language barriers and accent differences as exclusionary, others found that dialect familiarity itself fostered connection. Similarly, legal precarity limited opportunities for participation, reminding us that resilience is conditional on structural contexts (Bourbeau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Motti-Stefanidi, 2018). Third, shared experiences and social support created infrastructures of resilience. Diversity itself was described as a source of comfort and inclusion, while networks of trust allowed individuals to give and receive help. For some, like AT7, resilience was fostered by supporting others, confirming that agency and reciprocity are essential elements of adaptation. Together, these dynamics point to the concept of mutual resilience. Unlike integration frameworks, which often place the burden of adaptation on migrants alone (Berry, 2006), mutual resilience emphasises reciprocal adjustment between migrants and members of the host society. Unlike social capital or support, which focus on resources and networks, mutual resilience highlights the dynamic and ongoing process of adaptation through relationships. And unlike contact theory, which focuses on prejudice reduction, mutual resilience draws attention to the adaptive capacities that intercultural contact generates for both sides.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe contribution of this study is thus twofold. Conceptually, it advances resilience scholarship by reframing adaptation as mutual resilience, embedded in the everyday practices of belonging. Empirically, it demonstrates how volunteering and shared activities serve as sites where resilience is enacted, constrained, and transformed. While limited by its small and uneven sample, the study highlights micro-level processes that illuminate larger theoretical debates on migration, integration, and resilience. The implications are significant. For research, future studies should test the concept of mutual resilience across diverse contexts and groups, ideally through comparative and longitudinal designs. For policy, the findings suggest that integration initiatives should move beyond targeting migrants alone and instead foster opportunities for reciprocal interaction. Removing structural barriers, such as insecure legal status and linguistic exclusion, is essential if mutual resilience is to flourish.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, resilience in migration contexts is best understood not as a personal resource that individuals possess, but as a mutual, relational, and conditional process. It emerges in the intimacy of friendships, the comfort of familiar dialects, the solidarity of diverse communities, and the trust of social networks. By recognizing resilience as shared and co-produced, we can better capture the realities of adaptation in intercultural settings and design policies that genuinely support inclusive and sustainable communities. While the concept of mutual resilience emphasizes reciprocity, the findings also underscore that migrants and non-migrants experience and negotiate adaptation under markedly different structural conditions, reminding us that mutuality does not imply equality.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding Number: 821619\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics approval \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines and approved by the Glasgow Caledonian University Ethics Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to participate \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were informed that anonymised data may be used in academic publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical Trial Number\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eD.A. conceived and designed the study, conducted the analysis, and wrote the manuscript. D.A. also developed the conceptual framework and interpreted the empirical findings. The author reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdger, W.N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? \u003cem\u003eProgress in Human Geography. 24\u003c/em\u003e, 347\u0026ndash;364. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl-Hamad, A., Metersky, K., Parada, H., Yasin, Y., Hingorani, M., \u0026amp; Gare, C. (2024). Blossoming through creativity: Unveiling sense of belonging among Ukrainian and Syrian refugee women in Ontario. \u003cem\u003eJournal of International Migration and Integration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 887-910.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerding-Barwick, R., \u0026amp; McAreavey, R. (2024). Resilience and identities: the role of past, present and future in the lives of forced migrants. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnic and Migration Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1843-1861.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBertalanffy, L. (2009). \u003cem\u003eGeneral System Theory: Foundations, development, applications\u003c/em\u003e: Braziller. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. \u003cem\u003eApplied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 46, 5\u0026ndash;34. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBourbeau, P. (2013). \u0026apos;Resiliencism: Premises and promises in securitization research.\u0026apos; \u003cem\u003eResilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses \u003c/em\u003e1(1): 3-17. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBourbeau, P\u003cstrong\u003e. \u003c/strong\u003e(2015). Migration, Resilience, and Security: Responses to new inflows of asylum seekers and migrants. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnic and Migration Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 2015, 41(12): 1958-77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlock, J. \u0026amp; Turula, E. (1963). Identification, ego-control and adjustment. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, 34, 945-953.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBhugra, D. (2004). Migration and mental health. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 109(4), 243- 258. doi: 10.1046/j.0001-690X.2003.00246.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarling, J. (2014). Scripting Remittances: Making Sense of Money Transfers in Transnational Relationships. \u003cem\u003eInternational Migration Review \u003c/em\u003e48(S1): S218\u0026ndash;62. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, L., Ferguson, C., Harms, C., Pooley, J. A., \u0026amp; Tomlinson, S. (2011). Family systems and mental health issues: A resilience approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Work Practice, 25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 109-125. doi: 10.1080/02650533.2010.533754 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, 59, 676\u0026ndash;684. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChou, K. L. (2012). Perceived discrimination and depression among new migrants to Hong Kong: The moderating role of social support and neighbourhood collective efficacy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Affective Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, 138, 63\u0026ndash;70. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.029. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDahinden, J. (2016). A plea for the \u0026lsquo;de-migranticization\u0026rsquo; of research on migration and integration. \u003cem\u003eEthnic and Racial Studies\u003c/em\u003e 39/13: 2207\u0026ndash;2225.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavoudi, S., 2012. Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? \u003cem\u003ePlanning theory \u0026amp; practice\u003c/em\u003e, 13 (2), 299\u0026ndash;333.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEckstein, S. (2010). Immigration, Remittances, and Transnational Social Capital Formation: A Cuban Case Study. \u003cem\u003eEthnic and Racial Studies \u003c/em\u003e33(9): 1648\u0026ndash;67. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarmezy, N. (1974). The study of competence in children at risk for severe psychopathology. \u003cem\u003eThe child in his family: Children at psychiatric risk: III\u003c/em\u003e. E. J. Anthony and C. Koupernik. New York, Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026ouml;ler, D., \u0026amp; Kri\u0026scaron;jāne, Z. (2024). Migration as a tool for social resilience: lessons from two case studies. \u003cem\u003eComparative Population Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibbs, L. and Block, K. (2017). Promoting social inclusion through sport for refugee-background youth in Australia: Analysing different participation models. \u003cem\u003eSocial Inclusion\u003c/em\u003e, 5/2: 91\u0026ndash;100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGilgun, J. (2005). The Four Cornerstones of Evidence-Based Practice. \u003cem\u003eResearch on Social Work Practice\u003c/em\u003e, 15(1), 52-61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGilligan, R. (2000). Adversity, resilience and young people: The protective value of positive school and spare time experiences. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Society, \u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e14 \u003c/strong\u003e(1), 37\u0026ndash;47. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGhazinour, M. (2003). Trauma and resiliency: Department of Clinical Science, Umea University\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Ecology and Systematics\u003c/em\u003e 4: 1\u0026ndash;23. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHumphries, N., Ruairí, B., and McGee, H. (2009). Sending Money Home: A Mixed-methods Study of Remittances by Migrant Nurses in Ireland. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resources for Health \u003c/em\u003e7(66). doi:10.1186/1478-4491-7-66. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarner, C. and D. Parker. (2011). Conviviality and Conflict: Pluralism, Resilience and Hope in Inner-City Birmingham. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnic and Migration Studies \u003c/em\u003e37(3): 355-372. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLerner, Y., Kertes, J., \u0026amp; Zilber, N. (2005). Immigrants from the former Soviet Union, 5 years post-immigration to Israel: Adaptation and risk factors for psychological distress. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, 35, 1805\u0026ndash;1814. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLorant, V. D., Eaton, D., Robert, W., Philippot, A.P., \u0026amp; Ansseau, M. (2003). Socioeconomic inequalities in depression: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e, 157, 98\u0026ndash;112. doi:10.1093/aje/kwf182. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLindley, A. (2014). \u0026ldquo;Exploring Crisis and Migration: Concepts and Issues.\u0026rdquo; In Crisis and Migration. Critical Perspectives, edited by A. Lindley, 1\u0026ndash;23. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, K. K., Sandler, I. N., Ayers, T. S., Wolchik, S. A., \u0026amp; Luecken, L. J. (2004). Resilience in parentally bereaved children and adolescents seeking preventive services. Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology, 33(4), 673-683.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNakamura, N., Kassan, A. \u0026amp; Suehn, M. (2017). Resilience and migration: Experiences of same-sex binational couples in Canada, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Gay \u0026amp; Lesbian Social Services\u003c/em\u003e, 29:2, 201-219, DOI: 10.1080/10538720.2017.1298489\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNí Raghallaigh, M. and Gilligan, R. (2010) \u0026lsquo;Active survival in the lives of unaccompanied minors: Coping strategies, resilience, and the relevance of religion\u0026rsquo;, Child and Family Social Work, 15, 226\u0026ndash;237.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRenaud, F. G.\u003cem\u003e, et al. \u003c/em\u003e(2011). A decision framework for environmentally induced migration. \u003cem\u003eInternational Migration \u003c/em\u003e49(s1): e5-e29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWimmer, A. and N. Glick Schiller. (2002). Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Networks \u003c/em\u003e2 (4): 301\u0026ndash;334.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWildavsky, A. (1988). \u003cem\u003eSearching for safety\u003c/em\u003e. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaul, R. \u0026amp; Roos, C. (2019). Towards a new ontology of crisis? Resilience in EU migration governance, \u003cem\u003eEuropean Security\u003c/em\u003e, 28:4, 393-412, DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2019.1637340 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRashid, R. and D. Gregory (2014). \u0026apos;\u0026apos;Not Giving Up on Life\u0026apos;: A Holistic Exploration of Resilience among a Sample of Immigrant Canadian Women.\u0026apos; \u003cem\u003eCanadian Ethnic Studies \u003c/em\u003e46(1): 197-214. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRutter, M. D. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 57 (3), 316\u0026ndash;31, doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRutter, M. (2006). Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 1094, pp. 1 \u0026ndash; 12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRybakovsky, L., \u0026amp; Rayzantsev, S. (2005). International migration in the Russian Federation. United nations expert group meeting on international migration and development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeeman, T. E. (1996). Social ties and health: The benefits of social integration. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e, 6, 442\u0026ndash;451. doi:10.1016/S1047- 2797(96)00095-6. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSleijpen, M., Boeije, H.R., Kleber, R.J. and Mooren, T. (2016). Between power and powerlessness: A meta-ethnography of sources of resilience in young refugees. Ethnicity and Health, 21 (2), 158\u0026ndash;180.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThoits, Peggy A. (2011). Mechanisms Linking Social Ties and Support to Physical and Mental Health. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Health and Social Behavior \u003c/em\u003e52(2):145\u0026ndash;61. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThr\u0026auml;nhardt, D. eds (2010) \u0026ldquo;National Paradigms of Migration Research\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eImmigration and Social Systems\u003c/em\u003e, edited by Bommes, Michael, 201-232. G\u0026ouml;ttingen, Germany: V\u0026amp;R Unipress.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTorres, M.J., Alcantara, C., Rudolph, K.E. and Viruell-Fuentes, E.A. (2016). Journal of \u003cem\u003eHealth and Social Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 57(4) 436\u0026ndash;452 2016 DOI: 10.1177/0022146516667534 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchinkel, W. (2013). The imagination of \u0026lsquo;society\u0026rsquo; in measurements of immigrant integration. \u003cem\u003eEthnic and Racial Studies\u003c/em\u003e 36/7: 1142\u0026ndash;1161.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchinkel, W. (2018). Against \u0026lsquo;immigrant integration\u0026rsquo;: for an end to neocolonial knowledge production. \u003cem\u003eComperative Migration Studies\u003c/em\u003e 6/3: 1-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOppedal, B. and Idsoe, T. (2015). The role of social support in the acculturation and mental health of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 203\u0026ndash;211.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlcese, M., Cardinali, P., Madera, F., Camilleri, A. P., \u0026amp; Migliorini, L. (2024). Migration and community resilience: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Intercultural Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e98\u003c/em\u003e, 101924.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUmberson, D., Crosnoe, R., \u0026amp; Reczek, C. (2010). Social relationships and health behaviour across life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 139\u0026ndash;157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUngar, M. (2004). Surviving as a postmodern social worker: Two Ps and three Rs of direct practice. \u003cem\u003eSocial Work, 49\u003c/em\u003e(3), 488-496.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUngar, M. (2007). The beginnings of resilience: a view across cultures. \u003cem\u003eEducation Canada, 47\u003c/em\u003e(3), 28-34. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYıldırım, M., Aziz, I. A., Vostanis, P., \u0026amp; Hassan, M. N. (2024). Associations among resilience, hope, social support, feeling belongingness, satisfaction with life, and flourishing among Syrian minority refugees. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 166-181.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZembylas, T. (2014). \u003cem\u003eArtistic practices: social interactions and cultural dynamics\u003c/em\u003e. London and New York: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9222388/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9222388/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eMigration reshapes the social worlds of both migrants and members of established societies, yet adaptation is still predominantly examined as a task borne by migrants alone. This article addresses this imbalance by examining resilience as a relational process through which adaptation is co-produced in everyday social interactions. Drawing on qualitative interviews with migrants and non-migrants in five European countries, the study explores how participation in shared activities, particularly volunteering, fosters belonging and adaptive capacities under conditions shaped by social and structural constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings show that resilience emerges not only through migrants\u0026rsquo; efforts to establish social ties and navigate exclusionary contexts, but also through non-migrants\u0026rsquo; gradual accommodation to diversity, involving shifts in how community boundaries and belonging are understood. While these adaptive processes are mutually constituted, they unfold unevenly due to differences in power, legal status, and linguistic access. By foregrounding everyday interaction as a site of relational adaptation, the article advances debates on integration and belonging by conceptualising resilience as a shared, dynamic, and conditional process rather than an individual attribute or one-sided outcome.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Migration, Social Interaction, and Resilience: Everyday Practices of Mutual Adaptation","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-06 07:59:23","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9222388/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"272242e1-6303-4c6f-beda-fbb179b6491a","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 6th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-27T17:54:29+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-06 07:59:23","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9222388","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9222388","identity":"rs-9222388","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}