Quota-Based Approaches to Ethnic Minority Integration in Higher Education: The Case of Georgia^*

 Tamar KARAIA,

Lika KVINCHIA

Abstract: This article examines the integration of ethnic minorities in Georgia from the perspective of language education and civic identity formation. Since the restoration of state independence, linguistic diversity, the geographical concentra­tion of minorities, and limited access to Georgian-language education have cre­ated significant barriers to full participation in public life. In response, the state has gradually developed several educational initiatives to improve Georgian lan­guage proficiency and strengthen civic cohesion. The study focuses on a govern­ment initiative implemented in the higher education system, a quota-based prepar­atory program (known as the 1+4 model), which aims to support the study of the Georgian language and promote the academic and social integration of students from ethnic minorities.

The research methodology is based on a qualitative analysis that combines a re­view of policy documents and academic literature with semi-structured interviews with ethnic minority students enrolled in higher education through state quotas. This approach allows us to understand not only institutional structures, but also students’ personal experiences during linguistic and cultural transition.

The article argues that language learning for minority students is both an educa­tional process and an identity-formation process. Knowledge of the state language ensures access to higher education, employment, and civic engagement, and also influences students’ sense of belonging and national identity.

The study highlights that integration is most effective when language learning is accompanied by inclusive public representation and a positive symbolic message about the place of minorities in the country.

The study concludes that successful integration policies should focus on sustaina­ble language support, culturally appropriate teaching methods, and the promotion of a common civic identity without compromising cultural distinctiveness. Strengthening these elements helps build a more unified and inclusive society in Georgia.

Keywords: Inclusive education; Affirmative action; Ethnic minorities; 1+4 pro­gram; Georgia.

Introduction

Several years ago, a student en­rolled in the quota program at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, where he studied political science and the Georgian language. Several years ago, one of our students en­rolled in the quota program at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, where he studied political science and the Georgian language. We re­member him particularly because of one meaningful moment during his studies. After viewing a social video produced by the Ministry of Defence of Georgia in honor of Independence Day, he began to integrate with stu­dents from ethnic majorities. The video featured soldiers from an eth­nic minority speaking Georgian and congratulating the nation on Inde­pendence Day, with their surnames displayed as subtitles to highlight their ethnic backgrounds. After watching the video, the student proudly re­marked, “Look at how many of our people – ethnic minori­ties – defend our homeland.” This statement reflec­ted his progress, showing a develop­ment from a shy student into a young person who connected his identity to Georgia.

This case can be examined as an example of why integrating ethnic minorities is considered a funda­mental principle of modern state policies. Access to quality education is not only essential for individuals to realize their potential but also plays a significant role in promoting social mobility and civic engagement. Con­sequently, higher education systems are vital in helping ethnic minority groups become fully participating members of the integration process.

Georgia is a multiethnic country where ethnic minorities play a sig­nificant role in the overall population. According to the 2014 census, these minority groups make up 13.2% of the population, with Azerbaijanians constituting 6.3% N=233,000 and Armenians 4.5% N=168,100¹. The state-building process in Georgia has not been very collaborative, largely due to historical experiences, partic­ularly those stemming from the So­viet era. The Soviet Union’s policies aimed at developing its republics, especially in education, focused on creating “Soviet citizens” rather than fostering national cohesion². Addi­tionally, the practice of indicating nationality on ID cards and the use of Russian as a common language pre­sented challenges to the integration of these minority groups. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia faced significant political, social, and economic obstacles, in­cluding the disintegration of its po­litical system, civil war, and financial instability. As a new independent nation, Georgia struggled with the issues of minority integration and separatist movements. The concen­trated settlement of these minorities in border areas added further com­plications to the integration process³.

Over time, Georgia has implemen­ted a number of educational programs aimed at supporting the integration of ethnic minorities, with a major focus on language learning. Of particular importance were the reforms initiated after 2005, when civic integration became an official state priority. Guided by European norms, Georgia adopted policies that emphasized respect for ethnic identity and en­sured equal opportu­nities. These ini­tiatives led to the development of national strategies and action plans aimed at streng­thening social cohe­sion through education and civic par­ticipation.

Historical Context of the Quota Program

The inclusion of ethnic minorities in education has gone through many stages and includes a variety of pro­grams. Language teaching for mi­norities can be categorized into sev­eral types of programs, including school programs, university pro­grams, municipal (local) programs, online programs, and others. Each educational program plays a crucial role in supporting ethnic minorities in Georgia, strengthening intercultural dialogue and social integration through promoting language acquisi­tion⁴. But especially noteworthy are the processes that began in Georgia after the 2005 education reform. However, in parallel with this reform, legisla­tive frameworks were develop­ing that established integration poli­cies as part of the agenda. In 2005, an institutional approach to the civic integration of ethnic minorities was introduced in Georgia. In accordance with the Council of Europe’s Frame­work Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Georgia has developed a policy based on the prin­ciple of respect for the ethnic identi­ties of minorities and the idea of ​​creating appropriate conditions for the realization of their rights. In 2009, by decision of the government, a State Concept of Tolerance and Civic Integration was created, and an Action Plan for 2009-2014 was de­veloped, which defined the state’s approach to civic integration. In 2015, the ministries approved the State Strategy for Civic Equality and Integration and the Action Plan for 2015-2020⁵.

Phinney believes that higher edu­cation institutions are, by their nature, assimilative; they are based on inter­action, and here, in order to achieve psychological or civic well-being, there is a need to balance the markers of civic and ethnic identities. Here, we also place special emphasis on higher education⁶. The development of the Unified National Examinations model made it possible for students to enter higher education institutions on the basis of meritocra­tic princi­ples. Until 2005, the university itself administered the relevant exams for higher education institutions, which led to the decentralization of univer­sity admission standards and their implementation. There were frequent discussions about the existence of various forms of corruption.

In the entrance exams, passing the Georgian language, a foreign lan­guage, and general skills was made mandatory⁷. However, this reform could not ensure the meritocracy of applicants from ethnic minorities precisely because of the low rates of proficiency in the Geor­gian language. Moreover, the situation worsened: The first year of the reform had con­siderable negative effects on ethnic minorities. For example, in 2005, only two of the applicants to Akhalkalaki were admitted, only one was admitted from Ninotsminda, and only 17 were admitted from Marneuli. These statistics were sig­nificantly lower than the enrolments before the formal establishment of the United National Entrance Exam System⁸.

Therefore, the Ministry of Educa­tion has identified a number of measures to encourage ethnic minori­ty applicants to enter higher educa­tion. These measures can be grouped into several areas:

1. a) Initially, minorities were given the right to take both general skills and elective courses in Russian; lan­guage tests were also offered by the Ninotsminda and Akhalkalaki lan­guage centers, which were imple­mented with the assistance of the OSCE High Commissioner for Na­tional Minorities.
2. b) Financial assistance in the form of grants for students was also estab­lished. Within the social pro­gram’s framework, the Government has funded 15 students annually from Kvemo Kartli, 15 from Samtskhe-Javakheti, and 10 from Tbilisi⁹.

Also, non-Georgian language school graduates, including Russian-language school graduates, were giv­en the right to pass Russian as a for­eign language. The above-mentioned measure led to an increase in the number of ethnic minorities in uni­versities, and in 2006, 25 students were enrolled from Kvemo Kartli and 31 from Samtskhe-Javakheti¹⁰.

40. c) Later, representatives of ethnic minorities were allowed to take the general skills test in Armenian and Azerbaijani. In parallel, preparatory courses were developed to support competitors; For example, 113 appli­cants took the general skills test in Armenian, and 46 (40.7%) enrolled successfully. 250 applicants took the test in Azerbaijani, of whom only 29 (11.6%) enrolled successfully. Statis­tical data indicated that allowing ap­plicants to take the exams in their national language has increased the number of both registered and en­rolled national minority students, particularly Armenian applicants¹¹.

Experts believe that the esta­blishment of a college in Akhaltsikhe, which was focused on language teaching and was created on the basis of the Akhaltsikhe Faculty of Tbilisi State University, had a pos­itive impact on this process.

1. d) In November 2009, an amend­ment was made to the Law on Gen­eral Education of Georgia, which determined the establishment of quo­ta programs, which, on the one hand, instructed the National Examination Center to administer general skills exams in the Armenian and Abkhazian languages; on the other hand, higher education institutions were required to allocate quotas for students representing ethnic minori­ties. Their size was subsequently de­termined as five percent for Armeni­an and Azerbaijani students, and one percent for Abkhaz and Ossetian youth.

In addition, this quota program was determined to be a temporary measure that would operate until 2018-2019, and after 2019, it would not be needed. A funding module for minority students was also deter­mi­ned; namely, 100 Azerbaijani and 100 Sokhumi minority students would be funded by the state.

In 2019, this program was reac­credited, and twenty state universities were involved in the teaching pro­cess; also, since 2020, private higher education institutions have included the quota program in their curricu­la¹².

Accordingly, the essence of the Quota Program can be defined as follows: This is a one-year, sixty-credit program of Georgian language teaching, the completion of which is mandatory for ethnic minority stu­dents involved in this program. It is mandatory for those wishing to enroll in all undergraduate programs, as well as medical and veterinary un­dergraduate education programs. Af­ter successful completion of the course, students of the Quota Pro­gram will be awarded a certificate and will be given the opportunity to enroll in any first-level educational program of that university.

When evaluating the results of the program, we can talk about its suc­cess, but at the same time, many challenges are identified that affect both the successful implementation of the program on the one hand and the successful completion of under­graduate programs by students, inte­gration, and future professional reali­zation.

Literature Review

In modern nation-states, education appears not only as a mechanism for transferring knowledge but also as a tool that forms civic identity and common national unity. In his fa­mous work “What is a Nation?” Ernest Renan defines a nation as “a soul, a spiritual principle”. And he considers a common past and the desire to live together as fundamental conditions for the formation of a na­tion¹³. The creation and moderniza­tion of an industrial society have giv­en rise to a new need – to ensure cul­tural unity, a common language, and standardized education in the state, which have become necessary pre­requisites for the functioning of the state. Education, therefore, becomes the main channel through which the state develops a common and at the same time standardized narrative of national identity and civic conscious­ness¹⁴ – that will to live together, which, according to Renan, is a pre­requisite for the formation of a na­tion. Gellner somehow transformed Max Weber’s concept of “the state possesses legi­timate violence” into the form that the state can achieve a high level of literacy and enlighten­ment only by monopolizing the edu­cation system.

However, as Will Kymlicka¹⁵ and Charles Taylor¹⁶ have noted, formal equality alone is not enough in mo­dern democratic societies. If educa­tion does not take into account the specifics of cultural and linguistic diversity, it often leads to the mar­ginalization of minorities. That is why the theory of multiculturalism emphasizes the importance not only of equality, but also of “recognition of difference” – different cultures should have a space where they can maintain and develop their own iden­tities, and in the same institutional environment that promotes common civic engagement.

In this theoretical framework, ed­ucation becomes an arena for finding a balance: on the one hand, it wants to foster a common civic conscious­ness, and on the other, it must ensure respect for cultural diversity. It is this contradiction that creates the main challenge of integration policy – how to reconcile the principle of state civ­ic nationalism with the practice of mul­ticulturalism in a way that neither assimilation nor isolation occurs.

When it comes to the integration of ethnic minorities, the theoretical framework of social capital also be­comes important. Social capital is a network of connections between people and groups of people and the mutual trust associated with these networks. It facilitates communica­tion and cooperation between people and makes resources available that would otherwise be inaccessible. Ac­cordingly, social capital is important for social and economic develop­ment¹⁷. There are many definitions of social capital; however, most of them point to the structural and cognitive elements of this phenomenon. Struc­tural social capital refers to networks and connections, while cognitive so­cial capital refers to the feeling of trust associated with these connec­tions¹⁸. If we consider this through the prism of the inclusiveness of the education system, structural capital reflects the process of association with Georgians, while cognitive capi­tal represents trust in the process of implementing state governance, and especially its main component – the education system.

According to Robert Putnam¹⁹ (2000), effective participation in so­ciety depends on “social capital” – the trust, relationships, and social networks that shape the internal and external ties of a society. He distin­guishes between “bonding” capital (in-group ties) and “bridging” capital (inter-group relations). In terms of the integration of minority students, it is the balance of these two types that determines whether they will be able to develop as members of the univer­sity and the wider society while re­maining in harmony with their cul­tural identity.

In the case of Georgia, the 1+4 program represents an attempt by the state to create a model that strikes a balance between civic nationalism and multiculturalism. The program has been in operation since 2010 and aims to include representatives of ethnic minorities in the Georgian higher education system by offering them an additional one-year prepara­tory course in the Georgian language. The program aims to strengthen Georgian language skills and pro­mote students’ academic and social integration.

However, as existing research shows²⁰, the success of a program is not determined solely by high en­rollment rates. Real integration re­quires not only improved language competence but also the existence of a social and institutional environment that makes minority students feel part of a tolerant and accepted society.

Among the theories in national­ism studies, one part – primordialist approaches – contend that ethnic bonds are ‘natural’, fixed by the basic experiences that human beings un­dergo within their families and other primary groups²¹. In con­trast, so-called inclusive nationalism ques­tions this idea and perceives the na­tion as a product of modernity, which is more of a political community than an organic body²² (Benedict Anderson 1983²³; and Eric Hobsbawm 1990²⁴). Theoretically, the 1+4 program can be perceived as one form of “inclusive nationalism”²⁵ – an attempt to create a unified poli­tical nation in cond­itions of ethnic diversity. At the same time, the expe­rience of liberal states shows that such a policy clashes with the so-called “liberal paradox” – the state wants to respect cultural diver­sity, but at the same time must ensure the strengthening of a common national identity²⁶.

Thus, the literature analysis shows that the issue of education and inte­gration of ethnic minorities should be considered within three interconnect­ed dimensions: on the one hand, at the level of national discourse – how the state defines civic identity and what role it assigns to education in this process; on the other hand, at the institutional level – how the universi­ty manages to manage and support cultural diversity; and finally, at the indivi­dual level – how students per­ceive their own integration, opportu­nities and challenges.

Ultimately, both theoretical and empirical sources show that the ef­fectiveness of integration policies is not determined only by the existence of state initiatives, but also by how consistently the principles of civic nationalism, multiculturalism, and social capital are connected with the everyday practice of education.

Research Methodology

Despite the long-term operation of the program and the growing number of participants, the question remains relevant: to what extent does the 1+4 program manage to fulfill its goals, and how does it affect the real inte­gration of students?

In this context, the study aims to analyze to what extent the 1+4 pro­gram contributes to the integration of ethnic minority students into the Ge­orgian higher education system and what types of challenges exist in the process of its implementation.

According to the study’s assump­tion, despite the high interest and orientation of students towards the program, due to the limited resources and uneven institutional capabilities of universities, the pro­gram does not fully achieve its two main goals – (1) to provide students with an appropri­ate level of proficiency in the Geor­gian language and (2) to promote integration in the academic and social space.

The research participants include three primary groups:

1. Current students enrolled in the 1+4 program;
2. Graduates of the program who have completed their higher edu­cation;
3. Implementers and administra­tors responsible for managing or coordinating the 1+4 program within universities or relevant governmental structures.

To ensure the validity and depth of findings, semi-structured in-depth interviews were also conducted with experts and researchers who have studied ethnic minority education and integration issues in Georgia. This triangulation of perspectives – stu­dents, institutional actors, and experts – enables a multidimensional under­standing of the program’s effective­ness, its social outcomes, and the structural barriers that persist.

The methodological framework is based on interpretivist and construc­tivist paradigms that focus on how individuals construct social meanings and interact with institutional envi­ronments. This approach is con­sistent with research in the fields of educa­tion and political sociology that ex­amines how inclusive policies are implemented in practice and how they are perceived by participants²⁷.

Semi-structured in-depth inter­views were used as the main data collection tool, covering both pre-defined topics and spontaneously raised issues. This method made it possible to identify and interpret the experiences and subjective percep­tions of the respondents. Each inter­view lasted an average of 60-90 minutes and was conducted both in person and online, taking into ac­count the availability of the res­pondent.

Several strategies were used to in­crease the reliability of the data: namely, triangulation – combining dif­ferent sources and perspectives (students, alumni, administration, experts); docu­mentary analysis – comparing themes identified through interviews with official reports and policy documents; and a multi-step coding process – iterative analysis and catego-rization to ensure that in-terpretations are based on empirical evidence rather than preconceived notions.

The data obtained were analyzed through thematic analysis, following the framework of Braun and Clarke²⁸. The analysis was conducted induct­ively – that is, the themes emerged directly from the partici­pants’ nar­ratives, but were also dis­cussed in parallel within the frame­work of theoretical frameworks that relate to integration, multicultu­ralism, and the formation of social capital.

Among the limitations of the study, it is worth mentioning, on the one hand, the fact that the study does not include municipal language teaching and integration programs (e.g., the “State Language Teaching and Integration Program” of the Zurab Zhvania School of Administra­tion), or other state programs and their results, but is deliberately fo­cused on the “1+4” program. In addi­tion, the study analyzes only the rep­resentatives of the Armenian and Azerbaijani-speaking ethnic minori­ties and does not include the topic of the Ossetian and Abkhazian ethnic minorities²⁹. In addition, the study does not aim to achieve statistical generalizations, but is oriented to offer conceptual and theoretical in­terpretations that describe how inte­gration policy functions in practice. Nevertheless, the results provide im­portant insights into inclusive educa­tion and ethnic minority integration policies in the post-Soviet context, which may be useful for both aca­demic research and policymakers.

Results achieved by the quota program

Increasing access to higher edu­cation

The most important result of the “1+4” program is the expansion of opportunities for ethnic minorities to receive higher education. This is why the program is evaluated as a “very radical program” (Interview with the head of the 1+4 program at the State University, 23.04.2024). Before the program was implemented, the man­datory requirement for Georgian-language exams almost automatically excluded a large part of non-Geor­gian-speaking applicants. The pro­gram removed this barrier.

Table 1.

As a result, thousands of young people who previously had limited access to higher education were able to become students at a state univer­sity for the first time. This process has become an essential aspect for both individuals and ethnic minority groups as a whole, as education is considered one of the main paths to social mobility. Accordingly, the program has not only statistically increased the enrollment rate of mi­nority representatives but also cre­ated the prerequisites for improving their economic and social situation.

However, one issue is the in­crease in accessibility, but another is the number of graduates. Despite the increase in appeal, the number of graduates is not high. The admin­istration of the preparatory program emphasizes personal communica­tion, which the majority win, and their number is approximately 70% (interview with the head of the 1+4 program at the State University, 23.04.2024), although the number of graduates of the preparatory pro­gram itself is not high. For example, from 2010-2014. The number of enrolled students was 2877, of which 857 students were able to complete the program, which is 29.80%³¹.

Improving Georgian language skills and increasing academic readiness

The one-year language prepara­tion course included in the program structure provides students with basic and academic-level skills in the Georgian language, which are necessary for successful study in bachelor’s programs. The central role of the language component is related to the fact that the daily use of the Georgian language in minor­ity communities is limited, which is why applicants are either unable to or have difficulty mastering Geor­gian terminology and discourse. A noteworthy fact in the Georgian context is the fact that ethnic minor­ities live in monoethnic settlements in some municipalities. For exam­ple, in Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda, more than 94% of the population is Armenian, while the majority is Azerbaijani in the mu­nicipalities of Marneuli, Dmanisi, and Bolnisi. This determines the current situation of Georgian lan­guage proficiency³². However, eth­nic minorities are also found in non-compact settlements, and therefore, their level of Georgian language proficiency is much better. This dif­ference creates a difference in the language competencies of students. As a result, we see a situation where students with high language skills do not acquire the knowledge corre­sponding to their competencies, while for students with low language skills, the duration of study and the knowledge acquired are not enough to achieve the desired level.

Language knowledge is associ­ated with a sense of security for mi­nority representatives. This is con­firmed by the respondents we inter­viewed, for whom mastering the Georgian language meant: “a pre­requisite for employment”; “easier movement and work throughout Georgia”; “a good education” (in­terview with a graduate of the quota program, 11.04.2024).

“If I didn’t know Georgian, I would feel hopeless, like the repre­sentatives of my community, because I wouldn’t be able to talk to different people and receive com­plete infor­mation”³³.

Although the quality of language training programs varies across uni­versities, the general trend indicates that some students are more or less acquiring the necessary linguistic competencies. This allows them to more or less participate in the uni­versity process, understand Geor­gian academic material, work with research texts, and formulate their own academic positions. The lan­guage component also lays the foundation for their future profes­sional integration, as proficiency in the Georgian language is, in most cases, a necessary condition for em­ployment in the labor market.

Strengthening intra-group soli­darity (bonding capital)

The third important outcome of the program is related to the for­mation of strong internal ties among ethnic minority students. Due to their common linguistic, cultural, and social background, students tend to unite compactly and form net­works of mutual support. These pro­cesses create a form of social capital that Robert Putnam calls “bonding social capital” – group solidarity that provides emotional support, infor­mation sharing, and protection of common interests.

Bonding capital significantly fa­cilitates adaptation to a new educa­tional environment, reduces stress, and increases the sense of belong­ing. However, at the same time, it poses some challenges: students are less likely to establish connections with representatives of the Georgian ethnic majority and are less likely to be involved in the wider social and academic networks of the university. As a result, “bridging social capital” – the bonds that connect different groups – is poorly developed. This means that despite internal support, the degree of integration into the wider campus environment remains limited, which subsequently affects both academic and professional tra­jectories.

Identified problems

Lack of integration

The data collected within the framework of the study reveal that the process of student integration within the 1+4 program is generally weak and fragmented. During the preparatory year, the main focus is on the development of Georgian language and subject competencies; however, there is little organization of activities that would promote cultural and social inclusion in the daily life of the university. As a re­sult, program participants often mention a feeling of isolation in both academic and informal envi­ronments.

The national and individual plans of the universities involved in the 1+4 program indicate proactive steps taken towards creating an in­tercultural and tolerant environment. Civic education or integration courses are not to be missed among these plans³⁴. These programmatic approaches are of great importance for creating a “receptive context”³⁵ conducive to integration and devel­oping cross-cultural competence³⁶.

Following the example of TSU, students are grouped by ethnicity in the first semester of the preparatory year, which is partially justified at the beginning of the language learning process, but at the same time makes it difficult for them to use the main lan­guage of communi­cation – Georgian – in practice. Rep­resentatives of the Armenian minor­ity speak Armenian among them­selves, while represen­tatives of the Azerbaijani minority speak Azer­baijani.

Mixing groups from the second semester (when they attend lectures and seminars together) clearly im­proves language integration – stu­dents note that: “We have no other language in common; they don’t know Armenian, we don’t know Azerbaijani, we don’t know Russian either, and we’re left with only Georgian. It also comes with prac­tice” (Interview with a quota pro­gram student, 10.10.2025). How­ever, on the other hand, such a change can sometimes provoke ten­sion, especially noticeable in the conditions of political tension in their historical homeland.

Daily communication in Geor­gian significantly contributes to their language development and self-con­fidence.

Another important challenge in terms of integration is the lack of contact between the participants of the program and the wider student community of the university. As it turns out from the interviews, mi­nority students often communicate only with members of their own ethnic group and rarely participate in common university events and stu­dent clubs. The reasons for this are lan­guage barriers, cultural differ­ences, and sometimes self-restraint – the fear that they will not be under­stood or accepted in a Georgian-speaking en­vironment. Added to this is the lack of information about up­coming events or programs, which is also distributed in Georgian, and the lack of language skills also affects this.

It is also noteworthy that the re­searchers assessed the ability of eth­nic minority students to communi­cate with Georgian students based on data from 2016 and 2020. In both studies, participants emphasized the lack of communication with the eth­nic majority and other minorities, and the study also showed that a significant part of teachers did not see any problems in communication between Georgian-speaking and non-Georgian-speaking students³⁷.

As a result, programs that aim to promote integration are often limited in practice to academic integration, while social integration is less com­plete.

Difficulty of learning material

Program participants enter the education system with significantly different levels of initial preparation and academic experience. In some cases, students graduate from schools in regions where the quality of education and access to learning resources are low. Consequently, it is difficult for them to master both the language and the academic standards of the university immedi­ately.

The implementers of the quota program consider the curriculum and related issues to be one of the challenges. “During the so-called lockdown of the Covid pandemic, a 300-page textbook was developed, which alleviated the problems with the material, but the learning pro­cess is alive, and the textbook con­stantly requires revision, which un­fortunately is not possible” (Inter­view with the program implementer, 12.04.2024).

The topic of study materials be­comes especially relevant after they join the undergraduate programs in Georgia after the preparatory year. Students note that the study materi­als are difficult to understand, not only due to the language barrier, but also due to the terminological and content complexity. “When I started reading the material in my first year, I thought I was reading in a foreign language” (Interview with a Quota Program student, 8.10.2025).

Many thematic courses use vo­luminous academic texts and require students to conduct indepen­dent re­search, which poses an additional challenge for students who still struggle to master professional lan­guage. “When I was in the prepar­atory program, I knew that I didn’t know Georgian very well, but when I started studying for my bachelor’s degree, I realized how well I didn’t know it” (Interview with a quota program student, 8.10.2025).

Ethnic minority students also ex­perience stress due to the difficulty of assignments and exams, which often leads to decreased motivation and loss of self-confidence. Many students report being unable to keep up with their peers, which somewhat increases the risk of dropping out of the program.

The complexity of the learning material and language barriers often reinforce each other – even though students study Georgian intensively for a year, its use at the academic level is still a challenge. Accord­ingly, the effectiveness of the pro­gram significantly depends not only on language teaching, but also on the adaptation of the learning envi­ronment – it becomes necessary to introduce additional academic sup­port mechanisms (tutoring, addi­tional consultations, Georgian-lan­guage aca­de­mic writing courses, etc.).

In addition to the complexity of the material, it is worth considering the problems that accompany the recruitment of teachers for the pro­gram. Just as teaching Georgian as a foreign language, working with eth­nic minorities, and in a multicultural environment in general require high competence and constant retraining from teachers, which is very rarely possible. Neither the Ministry of Education and Science nor educa­tional institutions provides retraining for teachers. However, if some teachers were to retrain within their own resources, we would get a mixed picture. On the one hand, teachers who have completed spe­cial training programs are familiar with language teaching and integra­tion techniques and, as a rule, use them both inside and outside the classroom, which makes their les­sons interesting and attractive for students, while on the other hand, there are cases of teaching with a standard behavioral approach, which affects the learning process (Inter­view with the implementer of the Quota program, 3.10.2025). It is also worth noting the challenges related to the technical equipment of higher education institutions, which is directly related to the provision of audio-visual support for language teaching. Students and teachers of the program emphasize that the use of various means not only increases quality, but also motivation and in­terest.

Institutional and administrative barriers

The analysis of the research data shows that the implementation of the 1+4 program is significantly de­pendent on the administrative and institutional capacities of universi­ties, which differ significantly from each other. Although the program is a unified state policy, its practical implementation is mainly the indi­vidual responsibility of universities, which creates management and co­ordination difficulties. The research also shows that when the reaccredi­tation of the program took place in 2019, higher education institutions that implemented the program were represented by different organiza­tions, some had an integration-facil­itating course, some did not³⁸.

One of the most obvious prob­lems is related to the lack of re­sources – both in terms of material and human capital. Some universi­ties do not have specialized Geor­gian language teaching centers or relevant staff who are knowledgea­ble in both linguistic and cultural aspects. Often, the same teachers have to teach the language, as well as proofread and consult academic texts, which significantly increases their workload and affects the qual­ity of teaching.

In addition, the implementation of the program requires clear coor­dination and sharing of experience between universities, which is rarely done in practice. Different higher education institutions independently determine the content of courses, teaching methods, and forms of stu­dent assessment. As a result, the overall structure of the program be­comes uneven – at one university, the preparatory year focuses more on language development, while at another, on subject competencies. This inequality is especially re­flected in the level of preparation of students when they begin studying for bachelor’s programs³⁹.

Another important challenge is the lack of institutional coordination at the state level. The Ministry of Education and Science is responsi­ble for the general policy framework of the program; however, the needs and problems at the university level often do not reach the decision-making structures. In interviews, program administrators emphasize that there is no effective feedback system that would allow universities to regularly provide information on the progress and results of the pro­gram (Interview with the imple­menter of the Quota program, 3.10.2025).

Particular difficulties also arise in the direction of social and psycho­logical support for students. There is no unified policy within the program that would include mentoring or counseling mechanisms – for exam­ple, the support of a psychologist or academic advisor. Students from ethnic minorities often face culture shock, problems with living condi­tions, or decreased motivation, which is not accompanied by sys­tematic institutional support.

In addition, the study showed that in some universities there is still limited competence of support ad­ministrative staff, which is particu­larly noticeable in the documenta­tion and communication process. For example, in some cases, the ad­ministration fails to provide ade­quate linguistic or cultural media­tion, which makes students feel ex­cluded.

Finally, institutional and admin­istrative barriers create an environ­ment where the program’s goals – language development and social integration – are formally fulfilled, but their effectiveness at the real level is limited. The success of the program requires not only a student-centered approach but also systemic support that includes financial, hu­man, and managerial resources, standardized quality control, and regular monitoring.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said that the quota-based program (“1+4 Pro­gram”) introduced to promote the integration of ethnic minorities in the Georgian higher education sys­tem is an important state step that has significantly expanded the op­portunities of young people repre­senting minorities since its launch. The program has successfully en­sured, on the one hand, increased access to higher education, as well as increased participation rates, and facilitated the introduction of an in­stitutionalized process of learning the Georgian language. Ethnic mi­nority representatives have linked their future to Georgia and have seen the purpose of teaching the Georgian language. In this sense, the quota program can be perceived as a practical expression of inclusive na­tionalism, the goal of which is to strengthen civic equality and multi-ethnic social unity.

The analysis of the research data also shows that the “1+4” program largely reflects the dynamic nature of the perception of ethnic belonging described by Roger Brubaker. As for Brubaker, ethnicity is not a fixed category; it is created as a result of social and institutional architecture and is constantly being updated. The results of the program show that students gradually present them­selves in new ways – as members of an ethnic group and, at the same time, as citizens of the country. Nevertheless, the practice of pro­gram participants often continues to produce the practice of forming “groups”, since students are mostly united along ethnic lines, which lim­its the natural expansion of the inte­gration process. However, even lim­ited opportunities for communi­cation lay the seeds for the integra­tion process.

The study also shows that minor­ity students have strong “bonding social capital” – intra-group con­nections – which provide emotional and practical support. At the same time, bridging social capital – con­nections between different groups is poorly developed; this significantly limits the degree of integration and the expansion of professional or so­cial trajectories. Accordingly, the program in question, which is de­clared to be aimed at inclusion in a wider civic space, in practice some­what reinforces parallel social boundaries⁴⁰.

This allows us to conclude that there is a discrepancy between theo­retical goals and practical results in the process of program implementa­tion: formally, the program contrib­utes to the reduction of barriers; however, the actual processes still reflect the logic of Brubaker’s cate­gorization – students often remain within the “ethnicized space”. In addition, since the formation of bridging capital is insufficient, it is not possible to combine broader networks based on a solid founda­tion of common civic identity.

As a result, the study indicates that successful integration requires a configuration of the institutional environment that deliberately pro­motes horizontal, multiethnic rela­tions, which in turn is encouraged by language teaching as well as by lan­guage teaching itself. Without this model, the group perception criti­cally discussed by Brubaker is still reproduced, and Putnam’s “bridge-building” component – the main in­tegration mechanism – remains weak.

Notes

*  Acknowledgement: We would like to acknowledge the use of the Grammarly AI tool for refining grammar and language in this arti­cle. The tool enhanced clarity and accuracy while maintaining the orig­inal meaning and content.

• General Population Census of Georgia. https://www.geostat.ge/ka/modules/categories/568/mosakhleobis-2014-t-slis-saqoveltao-aghtsera.

• Karaia, „Memory Strategies in Contemporary Georgia”, Central European Political Studies. Vol.4., 2017, pp. 5-22. DOI 10.14746/ ssp.2017.4.1.
• Gachechiladze, Geographical and historical factors of state building in Transcaucasia. Caucasian Regional Studies, 1(1), 1996, pp. 24-36.
• Chkhaidze, & L. Surmanidze, „Culture and individual action: Re-building the broken dialog between anthropology and psychology”, Human Arenas, 3(3), 2020, Springer International Publishing, pp. 421-434.
• Amirejibi, & K. Gabunia, „Project “Georgia’s Future”: Georgia’s Minori­ties: Breaking Down Barriers to Integration”, 2021, https://carnegie-production assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Amirejibi_Gabunia_Georgia_Minorities_Georgian_Translation.pdf.
• Phinney, G. Horenczyk, K. Liebkind, P. Vedder, „Ethnic Identity, Immigration and Well-Being: An Interactional Perspective”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2001, pp. 493-510.
• Order N127 of the Minister of Education and Science, ‘Approval of the Regulation of Unified National Exams’ (March 28 of 2005).
• Tabatadze, N. Gorgadze, K. Gabunia, Study of the Higher Education Minority Quota System Policy in Georgia, Research report. Centre for Civil Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations (CCIIR), 2020.
• Order N175 n of the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sport of Georgia of August 21 (2019), On approval of the rules and conditions for providing program funding to higher educational institutions by the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Georgia for the 2019-2020 academic year.
• Tabatadze & N.Gorgadze, Evaluation of the effectiveness of the one-year Georgian language program, Centre for Civil Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2016.
• Tabatadze, N. Gorgadze, K. Gabunia, Study of the Higher Education Minority Quota System Policy in Georgia, op.cit.
• Ibidem.
• Renan, „What is a nation? (Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?, 1882)”, In M. Giglioli (Ed.), What Is a Nation? and Other Political Writings, New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2018, pp. 247-263, https://doi.org/10.7312/rena17430-0-13.
• Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Blackwell, London, 1983.
• Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995, pp. 95-101.
• Taylor, „The Politics of Recognition”, In D. T. Goldberg (Ed.), Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, Blackwell, Oxford, 1994, pp. 75-106.
• S. Cook, „Networks, Norms, and Trust: The Social Psychology of Social Capital 2004 Cooley Mead Award Address” Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 2005, pp. 4-14.
• Ibidem, pp. 4-14.
• Putnam, Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993.
• Gorgadze, S. Tabatadze, Research on the employment opportunities of 1+4 graduates based on the analysis of the ZPGAD context and specific examples, Centre for Civil Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2019.
• R. Llobera, Recent theories of nationalism (Working paper). Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials, 1999, https://www.icps.cat/archivos/WorkingPapers/WP_I_164.pdf?noga=1.
• Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, op.cit.
• Anderson, Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, Verso, London, 1983.
• Hobsbawm, Nations and nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
• Brubaker, „In the name of the nation: Reflections on nationalism and patriotism”, Citizenship Studies, 8(2), 2004, pp.115-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362102042000199982.
• Natter, „The il/liberal paradox: conceptualising immigration policy trade-offs across the democracy/ autocracy divide”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 50(3), 2023, pp. 680-701. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369183X.2023.2269784.
• W. Creswell, V. L. Poth, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, 2018.
• Braun, V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101, 2006.
• This is due to the small number of these minorities. For example, in 2010-2022, the share of Ossetian-speaking and Abkhazian-speaking students among students enrolled under the quota program was 0.3% – 23 students. Quota system in the context of education policy (Tabatadze Sh. Gorgadze N. Gabunia K., 2023).
• The table is prepared based on the data of Sh.Tabatadze, N. Gorgadze N. Gabunia, cit.
• Ibidem, p. 34.
• Office of the State Minister of Georgia for Reconciliation and Civil Equality https://smr.gov.ge/ge/page/33/demografiuli-statistika.
• Mghebrishvili, Civic and Political Activism Practices of Ethnic Azerbaijanis Living in Georgia: Experiences and the Role of Language in Activism [Policy Document], Economic Policy Research Center, 2024, https://eprc.ge/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/eprc-usaid-alex-mgebrishvili-1.pdf.
• Tkheshelashvili, Acculturation orientations of students representing ethnic minorities: Determinants and outcomes [Doctoral dissertation], Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2022.
• J. Schwartz, J. B. Unger, Byron L. Zamboanga and J. Szapocznik, Rethinking the Concept of Acculturation: Implications for Theory and Research, National Institutes of Health. Author Manuscript/Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 143 July 03. Published in final edited form as: Am Psychol, 2010; 65(4), pp. 237-251. doi:10.1037/a0019330.
• Safdar, C. Lay, & W. Struthers, „The process of acculturation and basic goals: Testing a multi­di­mensional individual difference accul­turation model with Iranian immigrants in Canada”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(4), 2003, pp. 555-579.
• Tabatadze and N. Gorgadze, Evaluation of the effectiveness of the one-year Georgian language program, Centre for Civil Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2016.
• Tabatadze, N. Gorgadze, K. Gabunia, op.cit.
• Ibidem.
• Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, cit.

Bibliography

Documents

Order N127 of the Minister of Education and Science (2005). ‘Approval of the Regulation of Unified National Exams’ (March 28 of 2005).

Order N175 n of the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sport of Georgia of August 21 (2019). On approval of the rules and conditions for providing program funding to higher educational institutions by the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Georgia for the 2019-2020 academic year.

Books

ANDERSON B., „Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism”, Verso, London, 1983.

CRESWELL J. W., POTH V. L., „Quali­tative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches”, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, 2018.

PUTNAM, R.D., Making Democracy Work. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA, 1993.

GORGADZE, N., TABATADZE, S., Research on the employment opportunities of 1+4 graduates based on the analysis of the ZPGAD context and specific examples, Centre for Civil Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2019.

HOBSBAWM E., „Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.

GELLNER, E., Nations and Nationalism, London: Blackwell, 1983.

KYMLICKA, W., Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 95-101.

TABATADZE, Sh. & GORGADZE, N., Evaluation of the effectiveness of the one-year Georgian language program, Centre for Civil Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2016.

TABATADZE, Sh., GORGADZE, N., GABUNIA, K., Study of the Higher Education Minority Quota System Policy in Georgia. Research report, Centre for Civil Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations (CCIIR), 2020.

TABATADZE, Sh., GORGADZE, N., GABUNIA, K.,The Quota System in the Context of Education Policy. Policy document. Centre for Civil Integration and Inter-Ethnic Relations, USAID, UNAG, 2023

TKHESHELASHVILI, T., Acculturation orientations of students representing ethnic minorities: Determinants and outcomes [Doctoral dissertation]. Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2022.

TAYLOR, C., „The Politics of Recognition”, In GOLDBERG, D. T. (Ed.), Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994, pp. 75-106.

Articles and studies

CHKHAIDZE, T., & Surmanidze, L., „Culture and individual action: Rebuilding the broken dialog between anthropology and psychology”, Human Arenas, 3(3), 2020, pp.421-434. Springer International Publishing.

COOK, K. S., „Networks, Norms, and Trust: The Social Psychology of Social Capital 2004 Cooley Mead Award Address”, Social Psychology Quarterly, 2005, 68(1), pp.4-14.

GACHECHILADZE, R., „Geographical and historical factors of state building in Transcaucasia”, Caucasian Regional Studies, 1(1), 1996, pp. 24-36.

IDEM, „Memory Strategies in Contemporary Georgia”, Central European Political Studies, Vol.4., 2017, pp. 5-22. DOI 10.14746/ssp. 2017.4.1.

KARAIA T., „Memory Strategies in Contemporary Georgia”, Central European Political Studies. Vol.4., 2017, pp. 5-22. DOI 10.14746/ssp.20-17.4.1.

IDEM, „The State of Civic Education in Georgia from formal to informal Practices”, Eastern Europe Regional Studies, Vol. 2., 2016, SSN: 2587-456X.

PHINNEY, J., HORENCZYK, G., LIEBKIND, K., VEDDER, P., „Ethnic Identity, Immigration and Well-Being: An Interactional Perspective”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2001, pp. 493-451.

SAFDAR, S., LAY, C., & STRUTHERS, W., „The process of acculturation and basic goals: Testing a multidimensional individual difference acculturation model with Iranian immigrants in Canada”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(4), 2003, pp. 555-579.

SCHWARTZ     , S. J., UNGER     , J. B., BYRON     , L. ZAMBOANGA,      &      SZAPOCZNIK     , J., „Rethinking the Concept of Acculturation: Implica­tions for Theory and Research”, National Institutes of Health. Author Manuscript/Am Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 143 July 03. Published in final edited form as: Am Psychol, nr. 65(4), 2010, pp. 237–251. doi:10.1037/a0019330.

Online resources

AMIREJIBI, R., & GABUNIA, K., „Project “Georgia’s Future”: Georgia’s Minorities: Breaking Down Barriers to Integration”, 2021, https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Amirejibi_Gabunia_Georgia_Minorities_Georgian_Translation.pdf.

BRUBAKER, R. (2004). In the name of the nation: Reflections on nationalism and patriotism. Citizenship Studies, 8(2), 2004, pp. 115-127. -https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1362102042000199982.

General Population Census of Georgia. https://www.geostat.ge/ka/modules/categories/568/mosakhleobis-2014-tslis-saqoveltao-aghtsera.

LLOBERA, J. R., Recent theories of nationalism (Working paper), Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials, 1999, https://www.icps.cat/archivos/WorkingPapers/WP_I_164.pdf?noga=1.

MGHEBRISHVILI, A., Civic and Political Activism Practices of Ethnic Azerbaijanis Living in Georgia: Experiences and the Role of Language in Activism [Policy Document], Economic Policy Research Center, 2024. https://eprc.ge/wp-content/uplo-ads/2024/08/eprc-usaid-alex-mgebris-hvili-1.pdf.

NATTER, K., „The il/liberal paradox: conceptualising immigration policy trade-offs across the democracy / autocracy divide”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 50(3), 2023, pp. 680-701. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369183X.2023.2269784.

Office of the State Minister of Georgia for Reconciliation and Civil Equality https://smr.gov.ge/ge/page/33/demografiuli-statistika.

RENAN, E., „What Is a Nation? (Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?, 1882)”, in GIGLIOLI, M. (Ed.), What Is a Nation? and Other Political Writings, New York; Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2018, pp. 247-263, https://doi.org/10.7312/ rena-17430-013.