Empowerment and integration of refugee women: a transdisciplinary approach

The paper addresses the unprecedented scale of global displacement and the complex barriers refugees face upon arrival in host countries, including health risks, limited access to essential services, educational disadvantage, and labor market restrictions. It highlights that female refugees often experience a triple disadvantage stemming from gender, immigrant status, and forced migration, leading to reduced autonomy, lower language proficiency, and slower labor market entry compared to men. While integration is commonly defined as equitable access, participation, and belonging, many refugees remain socially isolated due to language, cultural, legal, and discriminatory barriers. The study posits that education and entrepreneurship are key levers for refugee integration and social mobility but notes a scarcity of targeted, gender-focused interventions combining both. The research question asks whether a gender-focused educational intervention (BECRW) can improve refugee women’s subjective well-being and empowerment while fostering sustainable practices, social integration, and contributions to climate adaptation. The study’s purpose is to evaluate a transdisciplinary program (merging STEM and social sciences) designed to build entrepreneurial capacity and enhance well-being among refugee women in the U.S. Southwest, aligning with SDGs 5, 8, 10, and 13.

Prior literature documents extensive challenges faced by refugees across health, education, employment, and social inclusion, with added risks during migration and post-arrival (e.g., trauma, discrimination, legal complexity). Education is a critical integration dimension, and entrepreneurship offers pathways for mobility, innovation, and host-country economic benefits, yet research specifically linking entrepreneurship to refugee integration is limited and often not gender-aware. Studies emphasize the need for tailored incubators and mentorship for refugee entrepreneurs and indicate refugees can spur innovation, startups, and trade connections. Gender-focused work notes refugee women’s disproportionate barriers (limited autonomy, greater exposure to gender-based violence, lower host-language proficiency, and lower employment rates) but also their resilience and higher labor participation in some host contexts compared to countries of origin. Evidence suggests that customized support, higher qualifications, and mentorship improve outcomes, and combined education–economic support interventions benefit female refugees. However, there remains a scarcity of gender-specific, interdisciplinary (education plus entrepreneurship) intervention studies; most existing programs are small-scale, often in-person, with limited mixed-methods evaluations. The authors position BECRW to address these gaps through a transdisciplinary, gender-focused design aligned with UNSDGs.

Design: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design embedded within the intervention. Quantitative pre–post surveys were followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews to explain and deepen understanding of quantitative trends. Setting and program: The BECRW program was delivered within Purdue University’s 6-week online Summer Institute for Sustainability and Climate Change (SISCC). The Institute included daily lectures, workshops, mentoring, and opportunities for research posters and business pitches. A parallel conference connected participants with academia, government, and industry around climate and sustainability topics. Intervention framework: BECRW recruited 20 refugee women in El Paso, TX, and Phoenix, AZ, via convenience and snowball sampling through community centers and clinics. The 6-week curriculum integrated research, innovation, sustainability, entrepreneurship, professional skills, financial literacy, and content on gender bias and GBV. Delivery combined synchronous/asynchronous sessions, trauma-informed practices, flexible attendance, peer support, and one-to-one graduate mentorship. The program facilitated networking, provided device and financial support, and encouraged eco-friendly venture ideas. Evaluation included pre/post surveys and a 3-month post-program qualitative follow-up. Study population: 20 enrolled; 1 discontinued; 19 completed. Participants varied by country of origin, age (20–60+), education (secondary to postgraduate), employment status, years in the U.S., and legal pathways (asylum seekers vs. refugees, all with permanent residency during the program). Grand research question: Can a gender-focused educational intervention (BECRW) enhance refugee women’s subjective well-being and empowerment while fostering sustainable practices, integration, and climate resilience contributions? Quantitative methods: One-group pre–post design; online surveys administered to 19 participants before and after the program. Instruments: Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; 5 items, 1–7 Likert) and Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF; 14 items, 0–5 Likert) with hedonic (emotional), eudaimonic-social, and eudaimonic-psychological well-being subscales. Analysis: Paired-samples t-tests (alpha 0.05) using SPSS v28; descriptive means/SDs reported overall and across demographic categories; effect sizes and observed power calculated. Authors acknowledge pre-experimental nature (no randomization/control) and potential confounding by demographics. Qualitative methods: Semi-structured, open-ended interviews (n=19) conducted ~3 months post-program (virtual/in-person, ~60 minutes), supplemented by demographics and field notes. Interviews explored daily routines, program engagement, resources, personal/family impacts, community diffusion, and reflections. Data were audio-recorded via Zoom, transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed inductively through iterative coding and theme development, with credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability procedures (peer debriefing, audit trails, reflexivity, cross-checking codes).

Quantitative (n=19): Overall trends showed small, non-significant improvements post-intervention.

• SWLS (life satisfaction): 5.15 ± 1.50 to 5.17 ± 1.88; t(18) = -0.11; p = 0.91; Cohen’s d ≈ 0.13; low power (0.28).
• Hedonic (emotional) well-being: 4.98 ± 0.91 to 4.98 ± 1.02; t(18) = 0.00; p = 1.00; d ≈ 0.04; power 0.08.
• Eudaimonic-social well-being: 4.55 ± 1.23 to 4.77 ± 1.07; t(18) ≈ -1.62; p = 0.12; d ≈ 0.22; power 0.17.
• Eudaimonic-psychological well-being: 4.92 ± 1.06 to about 5.10–5.19; p ≈ 0.08–0.09; d ≈ 0.29; power 0.28. High standard deviations indicated substantial variability, likely reflecting heterogeneity and potential language effects in surveys. Qualitative (n=19): Four central themes emerged.
• Pre-program: Isolation and Detachment—feelings of loneliness, routine, limited time, uncertainty about goals, difficulty forming connections, and challenges accessing education/employment.
• Post-program: Personal Transformation—greater confidence, pride, clarity of purpose, expanded knowledge of business/sustainability, resilience, and communications/public-speaking growth.
• Post-program: Empowering Ecosystem—value of one-to-one mentorship, emotional/financial support, non-traditional, personalized, transdisciplinary curriculum, networking, and milestone events (conference, business pitches) fostering confidence and momentum.
• Post-program: Sense of Belonging—new networks within and beyond the program, increased social responsibility and community engagement, feelings of safety and stability, and motivation to contribute to environmental sustainability and empower others. Exploratory subgroup insight (qualitative): Participants aged ~28–50 with higher English proficiency, college education, 5+ years in the U.S., and employed/self-employed appeared to benefit most; not generalizable due to small, heterogeneous sample.

The mixed-methods results suggest that a gender-focused, transdisciplinary educational-entrepreneurial program can foster subjective improvements in well-being and empowerment, even when small-sample quantitative analyses do not reach statistical significance. While causality cannot be established due to design limitations, qualitative narratives consistently indicate reductions in isolation, gains in confidence, skills, and purpose, and heightened belonging and community engagement—key elements of integration frameworks. The program’s integration of STEM and social science content, trauma-informed practices, flexible delivery, and mentorship appears central to its perceived effectiveness. Aligning with UNSDGs 5, 8, 10, and 13, the intervention supports gender equality, economic participation, reduced inequalities, and climate action by cultivating sustainable entrepreneurship and climate awareness among refugee women. The study contributes by operationalizing an intersectional, contextually tailored intervention and documenting its effects using complementary quantitative and qualitative data. Recognizing heterogeneity, the authors note that certain profiles (e.g., higher English proficiency and education, established residence) may experience stronger benefits, underscoring the need for differentiated supports. Standardized integration indicators remain elusive; combining subjective belonging measures with objective markers (education, employment) offers a more complete picture. Future rigorous trials should incorporate controls, larger samples, and language-adapted instruments to test effectiveness more definitively.

The study introduces and evaluates BECRW, a gender-focused, transdisciplinary educational-entrepreneurial intervention designed to empower refugee women and facilitate integration. Quantitative measures showed small, non-significant improvements in life satisfaction and well-being, whereas qualitative findings highlighted reductions in isolation, personal growth, strengthened support networks, and enhanced sense of belonging and purpose. The program’s design—flexible, trauma-informed, mentored, and integrating STEM with social sciences—appears well-suited to address refugee women’s intersecting needs and aligns with UNSDGs related to gender equality, decent work, reduced inequalities, and climate action. Future research should: employ randomized or controlled designs; recruit larger, more diverse samples; adapt instruments to native languages; extend follow-up to assess sustained impacts; and address structural economic barriers (capital access, market linkages) to support post-program entrepreneurial success. Scaling and adapting the framework to other marginalized groups and regions could advance inclusive, sustainable development.

Methodological and programmatic limitations include: pre-experimental one-group pre–post design without randomization or control group; small sample (n=19 completers) with heterogeneous demographics; limited statistical power and potential confounding by age, employment, education, and years in the U.S.; surveys administered only in English, possibly affecting responses; short follow-up (3 months) limiting assessment of sustained effects; recruitment confined to El Paso, TX, and Phoenix, AZ, reducing generalizability; scheduling constraints across time zones and family/work responsibilities; pre-program leveling focused mainly on digital fluency, omitting broader entrepreneurial preparation; and structural economic barriers (e.g., access to capital and markets) that may constrain translation to sustained ventures. The authors recommend larger samples (on the order of 350–400 for robust analysis), randomization, control groups, and language-adapted instruments in future studies.