Skip to main content

The immigration of Romanian Roma to Western Europe: Causes, effects, and future engagement strategies

Final Report Summary - MIGROM (The immigration of Romanian Roma to Western Europe: Causes, effects, and future engagement strategies.)

Executive Summary:
The project investigated the experiences, motivations, and ambitions of Roma migrants from Romania who had recently moved to Italy, France, Spain, and the UK, and the effect of migration on their own lives and on the lives of relations left behind in the home communities in Romania. It also investigated popular, media, and official reactions to Roma immigration. The study added a crucial dimension to the understanding not only of so-called objective push and pull factors that prompt and attract Roma to migrate, but also of the internal social and economic organisation of the migrating community itself and the development of transnational networks that support it. At the same time it examined and analysed social and political reactions to the settlement of Roma migrants at the level of the local community and local residents, local and national media, public services such as schools, police, and social workers, and local and national policy-makers. The study was accompanied by a pilot engagement scheme run in close collaboration with a local authority – Manchester City Council – which was a full partner in the consortium, and by cooperation schemes with a number of other local authorities in the various countries of the partner organisations. The schemes introduced measures for capacity-building within the Roma migrants’ community, provisions for advice and support services and the creation of a consultation forum that has allowed Roma migrants to take part in decision-making processes affecting their community.

All academic partners engaged Roma as research assistants. They participated in project meetings and contributed to the research design, facilitated and supported interviews and provided their insights and interpretation into the data evaluation process.

The migration of Roma from Romania is part of a more general process of migration of the Romanian population. This process is an outcome of the transformations that Romania has undergone since 1989, such as the dissolution of collective farms and the decline of state industry, privatisation of land, and the opening of borders. Roma who emigrate generally have some resources to invest in the migratory process. The search for better economic opportunities represents one of the main motivations for their international mobility.

Remittances are contributing to the improvement of the economic conditions of both Roma and non-Roma in the communities of origin. Roma migrants invest a sizeable portion of their income in the construction or improvement of houses in Romania, often leading to residential desegregation.

Stable residence is a key to social inclusion. Where Roma migrants have no other choice but to reside in makeshift camps or in squats constant fear of evictions, employment is limited to the informal sector and school attendance is hindered. By contrast, where Roma migrants have access to stable accommodation in the private sector, they are able to make use of employment opportunities and school attendance is regular. In these cases, however, the acquisition of human capital by the second generation through education is often hindered by low expectations of teaching staff and even segregation measures in schools.

‘Crisis’ responses to the arrival and often to the continuing presence of Roma migrants were noted in all of the research sites. Where local policies toward Roma migrants are influenced by visions of security and crisis management this has negative effects on the inclusion and achievement levels of Roma in particular in the education system. Where general inclusion policies that do not target Roma specifically are implemented this usually results in a much smoother integration that is beneficial to individuals’ well-being and chances to strengthen both social and human capital.
Project Context and Objectives:
The project investigated the experiences, motivations, and ambitions of Roma migrants from Romania who had recently moved to Italy, France, Spain, and the UK, and the effect of migration on their own lives and on the lives of relations left behind in the home communities in Romania. It also investigated popular, media, and official reactions to Roma immigration. The study added a crucial dimension to the understanding not only of so-called objective push and pull factors that prompt and attract Roma to migrate, but also of the internal social and economic organisation of the migrating community itself and the development of transnational networks that support it. At the same time it examined and analysed social and political reactions to the settlement of Roma migrants at the level of the local community and local residents, local and national media, public services such as schools, police, and social workers, and local and national policy-makers. The study was accompanied by a pilot engagement scheme run in close collaboration with a local authority – Manchester City Council – which was a full partner in the consortium, and by cooperation schemes with a number of other local authorities in the various countries of the partner organisations. The schemes introduced measures for capacity-building within the Roma migrants’ community, provisions for advice and support services and the creation of a consultation forum that has allowed Roma migrants to take part in decision-making processes affecting their community. The research assessed the degree of success of these measures in offering both Roma and local services an opportunity to support community cohesion.
The project pursued the following objectives:
1) It carried out a three stage, long-term ethnography among recent Romanian Roma migrants in urban communities in Spain, Italy, France and the UK, and in their origin communities in Romania. The ethnography was complemented by recorded oral interviews in the Romani language, carried out by a team of researchers who have close familiarity with Roma culture, customs, language, and social organisation forms, and assisted by a number of Roma research assistants and interpreters. The research intended to offer a picture of the reasons and motivations for migration, the role of family and social networks and the socio-economic organisation of life in the migrant communities, the social and economic effects of migration on the home communities including the role of women in productive and reproductive activities, the aspirations of various generations in each community, attitudes to neighbours and institutions, values and cultural activities, the reaction to local authority interventions, and reciprocal relations with Roma migrant communities of the same origin in other locations (‘diasporic networks’). The three consecutive stages of the research – a pilot survey, an extended survey, and a follow-up survey – were designed to capture developments and changes of attitudes and activities in the community during the investigation period.
2) The project also investigated reactions to Roma migrations, by observing institutions’ engagement strategies with Roma and the decision making process that underlies them, as well as media reports and policy measures taken by local authorities.
3) The project also assessed policy measures targeting migrant Roma communities and, thanks to the participation of local authorities in the project, drafted, tested, implemented, and assessed the impact of a variety of measures of advice and support, capacity building and consultation offered to the Roma migrant community in order to contribute to evidence-based policy drafting and to transparency and accountability of local authority engagement with Roma.
4) Special attention was devoted to the position of young Roma women in migrant communities, and to the potential of tension between the values and demands of the traditional community and its gender and family roles, and the opportunities and expectations of their new social environment.
5) In the absence of an established Roma scientific community in the fields of social sciences (with the exception of few individuals), the project piloted the inclusion of Roma in an active role in the research by recruiting, training and engaging individuals from within the Roma migrant communities, thus making a direct contribution to capacity-building.
6) The project disseminated its analyses in the form of reports, European policy briefs, academic papers, and media and educational packages through conferences, public events, meetings with policy makers, websites and publications. Participants also used their connections, experience, and role as expert consultants to distribute the project's recommendations among policy makers. In this way, the project intended to make a lasting contribution toward the shaping of a realistic policy at local, national and EU levels that will be sensitive to the needs and dignity of Roma migrants and their host communities.
Project Results:
The project connected to a paradigm shift in migration studies which places a focus on the investigation of mobility networks and reciprocal relations between them, and the value of human and social capital in inclusion processes, thus reaching beyond the previous focus on push and pull factors. This paradigm shift instigates new approaches to the study of east-west migrations of Roma. Attention is given to the individual capital that facilitates migration; to processes of identity re-configuration in migrant Roma communities, including reliance on non-Roma networks and on local NGOs; and to the particular changes to gender roles brought about by migration.

We use the term ‘Roma’ specifically to refer to those populations that employ that label as their community-based self-ascription, irrespective of lifestyle, social status or occupational patterns, or who otherwise self-identify explicitly as belonging to communities whose members self-ascribe as Roma. In practice, this definition is strongly aligned with the use of the Romani language either synchronically or historically, that is, either as the active language of the home or the wider kinship group and affiliated families, or else as a language that is the subject of collective memory having been the vehicle of communication of recent generations (parents or grandparents). The MigRom research targeted families who were Romani speakers as well as families who interacted with Romani speakers and were referred by them, and referred to themselves, as ‘Romanianised Gypsies’ (ţigani românizați), entertaining a collective memory of having lost the Romani language and having shifted to the majority language, Romanian, yet having retained an awareness of a distinct ethnic identity and a sense of affiliation with Romani speakers.

The absence of territorial concentration, varying cultural practices, lack of a political entity or legal categorisation, and indeed different degrees to which the Romani language is actively maintained, create potential ambiguity in identifying the boundaries of Roma ‘communities’. We followed a practical definition of a Roma ‘community’. This may follow family networks, patterns of intermarriage and shared institutional practices such as conflict resolution, shared faith and religious practices and alignment with contiguous non-Romani populations; shared place of settlement in migration and the development of networks of mutual dependency; and the punctual coming together within shared households and support networks of family groups that speak Romani and others who do not speak the language but descend from Romani speakers.

With a team comprising altogether thirty-five full- and part-time researchers and research assistants, MigRom was in all likelihood the largest international research project in Romani/Gypsy studies thus far and the first to adopt a multi-sited, cross-disciplinary and co-production agenda on such a scale. The co-ordination of a diverse team that included sociologists, social anthropologists, historians, social psychologists and linguists, based in institutions in five different countries, was achieved through a regimented schedule of research cycles. Three consecutive stages of research -- a Pilot Survey, an Extended Survey and a Follow-up Survey -- were designed to capture developments and changes of attitudes and activities in the communities. Annual project meetings were used to coordinate methodologies and to share and evaluate data and analyses as they emerged from the fieldwork.

All academic partners engaged Roma as research assistants. In most cases these were members of the communities in which the research took place. They participated in project meetings and contributed to the research design, received training in fieldwork methodology and data protection protocols. They facilitated and supported interviews and the archiving of interview materials in the Romani language, and provided their insights and interpretation into the data evaluation process.

The research teams relied on participant observation, life history interviews, quantitative data on demographic and economic indicators, archive material, and media analysis and online questionnaires about attitudes. These were used to obtain a picture of the history of the communities prior to migration, the motivations for migration, migrants’ support networks, and the effect that migration has had on the origin (sending) communities. The teams investigated indicators of social inclusion in the target (receiving) communities including residence, employment, access to education, leadership and representation, and changes to family structure, and analysed local policy interventions, media discourses and public attitudes toward Romani migrants. The consortium adopted a comparative perspective, investigating the circumstances and participation patterns of Romani migrants who originate from a number of locations in Romania, in a number of different target communities in Western Europe. The research sites in the UK, Spain, France and Italy were selected to represent those countries that had become the principal target for Romanian Roma migration, and which in turn displayed a variety of public discourses and policies toward Roma migrants. The research also extended to the migrants’ origin communities in Romania, where both the motivations to migrate and the effects of migration on the sending communities were investigated.

The migration of Roma from Romania is part of a more general process of migration of the Romanian population. This process is an outcome of the transformations that Romania has undergone since 1989, such as the dissolution of collective farms and the decline of state industry, privatisation of land, and the opening of borders. The profile of Roma communities prior to this moment was shaped by historical events that include the aftermath of Romani serfdom in Romania in the late nineteenth century, ethnic tensions triggered by the agrarian conflicts and the inter-war reforms in the early twentieth century, deportations to Transnistria during the Second World War, restrictions on itinerant economies and integration into the state agricultural and industrial sectors under communism, and negative images that include, in the case of one of the communities in particular (Ţăndărei in Ialomiţa County), perpetual accusations of kidnapping and child trafficking. Under communism, however, many Roma families had achieved a state of economic stability through a combination of traditional peripatetic activities and work on collective farms and in state-owned mines and factories. A difference emerged between Roma communities that experienced residential segregation and those that were instead better integrated.

During the transition to the market economy, the latter communities were able to secure employment through their social ties with ethnic Romanians and in some cases even received formerly state-owned land. These Roma did not start to migrate until the economic crisis that hit Romania in the late 1990s. Generally, individuals from these communities follow the same circular mobility pattern in which ethnic Romanians from the same towns and villages are engaging. They periodically travel abroad for seasonal employment and then return to their community of origin. Re-location of entire families from these communities is a rather late development that started, depending on the communities, in 2007, following Romania accession to the EU, or in 2014, after the ending of the transition period imposed on Romania before full accession.

Most Roma from segregated communities, on the other hand, lost their state jobs after the fall of communism, and did not receive land from the redistribution committees. Growing financial hardship, coupled with an increase in overt expression of anti-Gypsyism and racially motivated violence, further entrenched exclusion and led to a cycle of downward social mobility. Members of these communities were the first to migrate already in the early 1990s. Several features characterise these early Roma migrations: they derive from the key role of family structures, coupled with the historical experience of marginalisation. These offer Roma greater flexibility, on the one hand, and a resilience to endure risks on the other. Migration networks revolve around family and social structures, and draw on pockets of information on work and accommodation opportunities in the receiving countries. Roma are often willing to move from one country to another to make use of such opportunities. As a consequence, migration is not a linear trajectory that connects Romania as a country of origin with Western European destination countries. Instead, each country is both a point of origin and a destination of migratory flows, resulting in the formation of a multi-sited diaspora and in the maintenance of transnational networks. These networks appear to have particular features that distinguish them from other migrant groups (especially those from European countries). They have a clear family base; the married couple is generally the unit of migratory movement, although additional members of the household often migrate with the head couple, especially children and parents; a higher birth rate among Roma results in a higher number of household members; and the greater part of the household is often involved in international mobility. The household group does not migrate alone but tends to move with others who are related through kinship, and to generate networks of households in the host country. The social organisation of these Romanian Roma groups in the host countries is usually based on relatively large and dense locally situated family and household networks which, in turn, are connected by kin, marriage and regional networks-of-networks across Europe. These ‘social fields’ constitute moral and legal communities that share a sense of community (imagined but also operative) based on culture-language-origin. They are also largely intermarrying communities.

Whether originating from historically segregated communities or not, Roma who emigrate generally have some resources to invest in the migratory process, while those who suffer even greater deprivation either stay in Romania or contract debts or other forms of dependencies in order to emigrate.

In the migration countries, the presence of Roma is often incorporated into political narratives in public discussions and was found to play a key role in debates around the European elections, in France and in Italy, and in the early stages of the process that led to the EU Referendum, in the UK. Both public and private images of Roma migrants assign to them properties that are associated with indigenous Roma, ‘Gypsy’ or Travelling populations, rather than associate them with ethnic Romanian migrants, indicating a tendency toward homogenisation in perceptions of the Roma population. When such attitudes infiltrate policy interventions, they contribute to a particular ‘subjectification’ of Roma, assigning them a particular identity and role in the institutional context. We have found that such processes can have negative effects on the inclusion and achievement levels of Roma in particular in the education system, whereas a general inclusion policy that does not target Roma specifically and refrains from constructing a ‘Roma narrative’ usually allows a much smoother integration that is beneficial to individuals’ well-being and chances to strengthen both social and human capital.

The search for economic opportunities represents one of the main motivations for Romani international mobility. Saving to build a house back in Romania and returning to live there in the future is a common goal of the first generation in its different cohorts, but is increasingly complicated by the bonds created in the new countries.

Romanian Roma migrants are a very young and fast growing population, with a stronger reproductive orientation and a lower life expectancy than their neighbours in any European country. They quite possibly constitute the youngest European population: often, 45% are children under 16 years of age and 80% are younger than 35. However, a decline of fertility rates has been observed which could be leading towards demographic transition.

The first generation of migrants from historically segregated communities is hindered by very low human capital (literacy skills and professional skills) and is limited to low skilled self-employment. The second generation from the same communities, drawing on acquired social capital (links outside the Roma community), and the first from non-segregated communities, normally equipped with literacy and some professional skills, are instead able to obtain jobs with low remuneration but which pave the way to integration into the mainstream labour market. The removal of restrictions on employment in January 2014 has opened up new job opportunities and given a boost to the integration especially of young people.

Irrespectively of individual levels of social and human capital, stable residence is a key to social inclusion. Where Roma migrants have no other choice but to reside in makeshift camps (France, Italy) or in squats (some areas of Spain) in constant fear of evictions, employment is limited to the informal sector and school attendance is hindered, often obliging parents to leave children behind in Romania. By contrast, where Roma migrants have access to stable accommodation in the private sector, as in the UK and some cities in Spain and Italy, they are able to make use of employment opportunities and school attendance is regular. In these cases, however, the acquisition of human capital by the second generation through education is often hindered by low expectations of teaching staff and even segregation measures in schools.

Migration accelerates the process of demographic change. Earlier patterns of teenage marriage and uncontrolled fertility are being replaced by a pattern of early adult marriage followed by the birth of one or two children and the purposeful postponement of further pregnancies. Religious affiliation to Pentecostalism in some communities is counteracting this trend, as it discourages contraception. The need to care for the elderly, who generally stay behind in Romania, is a key factor motivating migrants to maintain contact with the origin communities. On the other hand, the absence of the elderly in the destination communities gives young people greater control over their lives and facilitates changes in social attitudes; there is a growing tendency among young couples to find separate accommodation, and for households to revolve around the nuclear rather than extended family.

The experience of living in different countries, attending desegregated schools, learning new languages and values and availability in principle of a variety of jobs contributes to this transformation, especially with regard to the lives of young Roma women. Innovations in cultural practices are generating a new process of cultural hybridity. Young Roma mothers are increasingly using family planning facilities that are available in the new countries of settlement to space the birth of their children, and to stop their reproductive careers earlier. They are doing this within the arrangements of their own marriage systems, which often include early, pronatalist, endogamic, and in some cases even consensual arranged marriages.

The Romani language is maintained as first language, and the diversity of contexts in which transnational networks of speakers are immersed reinforces the use of Romani as an internal common language. It is interesting to note that Romanian is also maintained even among the young generation of migrants, a sign of continuing links with the origin country, though command of the language of the respective host country is usually stronger.

Investments and increased consumption are important features of the links with the origin country and are contributing to the improvement of the economic conditions of both Roma and non-Roma. All families interviewed invest a sizeable portion of their income in the construction or improvement of houses in Romania. This is often accompanied by residential desegregation of those who can afford to move into more central, prestigious and ethnically mixed areas within the localities.

Migrants employ local (usually non-Romani) labourers for construction work, and housekeepers and carers for elderly relatives. Some invest in small businesses owned and operated by relatives, usually by purchasing stock or developing infrastructure. The local service and retail industries benefit from the increased spending power of Romani migrants who return to the origin communities during holidays. Young Roma who visit the communities of origin act as role models who help raise aspirations.

Financial and social remittances are thus shaping a process of gradual improvement of status. As a consequence, the visibility of the local Roma populations has increased in the origin communities. Even in cases where a large part of the Roma population is living abroad, their presence is indicated by the construction of homes and their involvement in local trade. As a result, traditional interethnic relations and attitudes towards Roma are undergoing gradual change and the local majority’s perception of the Roma is improving.

The project also assessed local policies and public attitudes to Romanian Roma migrants. ‘Crisis’ responses to the arrival and often to the continuing presence of Roma were noted in all of the research sites. Such responses emerged following expressions of hostility against Romani migrants, often in the form of protests and petitions and in some cases anti-Roma violence.

Local authority responses that aim to alleviate tensions and maintain community cohesion are often accompanied by measures to control and contain Romani migrants in order to appease the ‘host’ population (Manchester, Milan, Paris). In some cases, crisis management involves the drafting of strategy papers and the setting up of monitoring bodies (Manchester, Milan). Implementation usually relies on multi-agency cooperation and involvement of third sector agencies, church organisations, schools, as well as individuals from within the Romani communities.

Some local authorities (e.g. Manchester, some cities in Spain) aim to normalise the situation of Roma in regard to housing, employment, education and health care by offering training and advice while also tackling issues of negative public perception. In some cases, especially in France and Italy, local policies toward Roma migrants are continually influenced by visions of security and crisis management. Cities like Paris and Milan engage in systematic attempts to remove migrant Roma from their jurisdictions. Alternatively, housing policies are developed that confine Roma to informal makeshift settlements and temporary shelters where they are subjected to frequent evictions. In between these two extremes we find measures that risk having a segregating effect: turning makeshift settlements into permanent ‘nomad camps’ (e.g. Bari), or proposals to set up separate education pathways and school admission protocols and special tracking and information sharing procedures (e.g. those put forward by voluntary sector partners, but not implemented, in Manchester).
Potential Impact:
The consortium has adopted a literal reading of the project’s sub-title “Causes, effects, and future engagement strategies”, placing an emphasis on developing a policy vision for future engagement together with relevant stakeholder.

Migrant Romani communities are perceived as tight-knit networks of young, large families who are prepared to take risks such as temporary residence in overcrowded conditions or low-income and informal work including, in extreme cases, stigmatised activities such as begging. This profile is usually interpreted by public opinion against the background of pre-existing ideological dispositions and stereotypes. This results in pressure on policy bodies to introduce measures to control and contain Roma, or even to remove them. The challenge facing European society is to disentangle approaches to Romani migrants from such dispositions. It is of crucial importance to abandon the notion that Romani culture is a hindrance to participation. Instead it is essential to accept that social inclusion does not require changing ‘Roma behaviour’ but rather the dismantling of exclusionary practices and narratives.

Residential stability and protection from evictions is the most important key to social participation. It is vital to prioritise normalising the legal status of those who live in informal, makeshift or temporary residences through administrative tools that will allow them full access to all public services and entitlements and prevent partial exclusion. It is essential to increase the housing options that are available to Roma migrants and to prevent segregation in enclosed ‘camps’, ‘reception centres’, or secluded residences. It is then important to ensure that Roma have full access to mainstream, not segregated, education and that they have full employment rights.

Capacity building can help ensure that Roma become active participants in planning strategies that affect their own communities. We must promote self-reliance, not ‘mediation’ so that Roma can lead their own community outreach work. Roma must be included in mainstream policies, not separated in targeted measures. At times, however, targeted measures might be deemed necessary as transitional measures. Where they are to be beneficial, they should address vocational training, housing and work. Roma should play a key role in shaping these interventions, and general advice and support services can and should be led by members of the Roma migrant communities, who should, to that end, receive necessary training and resources. Such an approach can reduce dependency and increase self-confidence, as well as allowing the emergence of role models for younger members of the community, of spokespersons who can lead targeted resistance against anti-gypsyism in public debates, and of community representatives who can serve as an important channel for local authorities and public services to engage with the community. Interventions that are outsourced to third sector agencies must be subjected to close scrutiny, accountability, and quality assurance, in order to ensure that they too adhere to these principles.

Policy at European level should acknowledge the contribution that migrants are making to support the upward social mobility of Roma in the origin communities. This contribution has, potentially, far greater positive impact than structured EU development funds in promoting equality across member states. The contribution of migrants helps Roma gain social and economic status and opportunities in the origin countries, and in that way it reduces inequalities across European regions, which give rise to migration in the first place.

In order to protect the benefits of migration in the origin communities, it is necessary to encourage and protect investments in improving housing in the localities of origin. Local authorities should ensure that the invested remittances contribute effectively to local development and that such development is sustainable (for example by extending the infrastructure and facilitating legalisation on new construction). Encouraging productive investments of remittances can help create new jobs. It is also important to make use of the existing provisions of school mediators and Second Chance programmes to reintegrate the children of returnees in local schools and to simplify the process of registering newly born babies who have been brought back by returnee families.

It is important to actively counteract prejudice especially on Roma family structure and values, because this is where the perception of institutions, policy makers and practitioners often leads them to distrust Roma, and consequently to treat them unequally.

Care should be given to the portrayal of Roma migrants and their cultural practices in official reports, in order to avoid the risk of generalisations that may lower expectations of the community among service providers and the wider public. Such reports must be evidence-based and the information contained in them must be substantiated, where possible through the involvement of competent experts and members of the Roma community.

In order to disseminate the policy vision outlined above, project staff have engaged regularly with social media to disseminate project findings as well as contributions to policy related debates. They have been regular contributors to local and national policy events. Furthermore, each academic partner has organised workshops and training activities for local authorities and service providers (i.e.: school and hospital staff, police forces, children services) engaging with Roma migrants. Various researchers also lead or contributed to three workshops in Manchester, London, and Barcelona, organised under the call “Bridging the Gap between Academia and Policy Makers” of the European Academic Network on Romani Studies (EARNS). Throughout the life of the project, the consortium has drawn on the consultative role of the European Roma and Travellers Forum with the Council of Europe and on the position of senior researchers as members of the EARNS Scientific Committee to disseminate research findings and policy recommendations to European institutions, culminating with the presentation of a final policy brief at the Council of Europe Consultation on ‘Dialogue with Roma and Travellers Organisations’ held in Strasbourg on June 2nd 2016.

In Manchester, the project also delivered a three-year community outreach programme, providing Roma-led advice and support in partnership with the City Council. Manchester City Council has acknowledged the partnership as extremely valuable in supporting the organisation’s strategic aims for advancing equality in Manchester and in building the Council’s awareness and understanding of the Roma community. Through regular reports from the Roma outreach workers and drawing on research findings, the Council has been made aware of a lack of factual accuracy in what had previously been reported concerning the Roma community. In response, the Council has acknowledged the need to reliably substantiate any information that the Council is presented with and to exclude any unsubstantiated information from official documents.

The project also supported the mobilisation of Roma migrants and facilitated the emergence of spokespersons from the Roma communities. Partners in Paris have been involved in the negotiations to find alternative housing for communities threatened with eviction, facilitating dialogue between Roma family heads and representatives of the local authorities and police. In Manchester, a group of young Roma together with the project outreach workers have been supported in the creation of a community association, Roma Voices of Manchester, recognised by Manchester City Council as a favoured channel of communication and engagement with the Roma community.

The Roma research assistants engaged by the academic partners, besides contributing to research design, implementation and data analysis, acted as co-authors of some of the reports and in some cases also of academic outputs. They also took an active part in the consortium’s public engagement activities. The project thereby facilitated both a new model for research co-production with Roma and a lasting contribution to capacity building and empowerment.
List of Websites:
Project website: http://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/migrom/
Coordinator: The University of Manchester
Project Coordinator: Professor Yaron Matras (yaron.matras@manchester.ac.uk);
Project Manager: Charlotte Jones (charlotte.jones@manchester.ac.uk);
Postdoctoral Researcher: Daniele Viktor Leggio (daniele.leggio@manchester.ac.uk)
Partners: Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme (Professor Henriette Asséo); University of Granada (Professor Juan Gamella); University of Verona (Professor Leonardo Piasere); Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities (Dr László Fosztó); Manchester City Council; European Roma and Traveller Forum
final1-migromlogo2.png