Research Handbook on the Sociology of Migration (Research Handbooks in Sociology series) 1839105453, 9781839105456

Table of contents :
Front Matter
Copyright
Contents
Tables
Contributors
Introduction. The sociology of migration: where has it been and where is it going?
Part I KEY CONCEPTS
1. Mobility, immobility, and migration
2. Borders and boundaries
3. igration categories and the politics of labeling
4. Gender
5. Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process
6. Sequences and transitions in migration
7. Migration systems
8. Migration policies and politics
9. Migration and border regimes
10. Contexts of reception
11. Theorizing modes of incorporation
12. Diversity and super-diversity
13. Inclusion and exclusion
14. Remittances in a world of uncertainty and insecurity
15. Transnationalism and the making of diasporas
16. Children of immigrants and the second generation
Part II METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
17. Secondary analysis of government and official data on international migration
18. Ethnography in migration studies: an everlasting love?
19. Quantitative surveys on migration
20. Connecting with connected migrants: exploring the field of digital migration studies
21. Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique for the empirical analysis of migration
22. Network analysis
23. Visual methods in migration research
Part III SITES, PLACES, AND SPHERES
24. Sending communities, social spheres, and households: what can be learned about migration
25. Borders, embassies, and visas: the lessons of sociological lenses
26. Workplaces and labor markets
27. Migration in families and households
28. Housing and home
29. Sociabilities: kin, friends, and acquaintances in international migration
30. Migrant associations and communities
31. Migration and the welfare state
32. The religious migrant
33. Sport and migration
34. Migration, museums, (and archives)
Index

Citation preview

RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON THE SOCIOLOGY OF MIGRATION

RESEARCH HANDBOOKS IN SOCIOLOGY Series Editors: Hans-Peter Blossfeld, Professor of Sociology, University of Bamberg, Germany The Research Handbooks in Sociology series provides an up-to-date overview on the frontier developments in current sociological research fields. The series takes a theoretical, methodological and comparative perspective to the study of social phenomena. This includes different analytical approaches, competing theoretical views and methodological innovations leading to new insights in relevant sociological research areas. Each Research Handbook in this series provides timely, influential works of lasting significance. These volumes will be edited by one or more outstanding academics with a high international reputation in the respective research field, under the overall guidance of series editor Hans-Peter Blossfeld, Professor of Sociology at the University of Bamberg. The Research Handbooks feature a wide range of original contributions by well-known authors, carefully selected to ensure a thorough coverage of current research. The Research Handbooks will serve as vital reference guides for undergraduate students, doctoral students, postdoctorate students and research practitioners in sociology, aiming to expand current debates, and to discern the likely research agendas of the future. For a full list of Edward Elgar published titles, including the titles in this series, visit our website at www​.e​-elgar​.com​.

Research Handbook on the Sociology of Migration Edited by

Giuseppe Sciortino Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Italy

Martina Cvajner Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Italy

Peter J. Kivisto Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Augustana College, USA

RESEARCH HANDBOOKS IN SOCIOLOGY

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Giuseppe Sciortino, Martina Cvajner and Peter J. Kivisto 2024

Cover image: Soviet Artefacts on Unsplash All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2023948402 This book is available electronically in the Sociology, Social Policy and Education subject collection http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781839105463

ISBN 978 1 83910 545 6 (cased) ISBN 978 1 83910 546 3 (eBook)

EEP BoX

Contents

List of tablesviii List of contributorsix Introduction. The sociology of migration: where has it been and where is it going? Martina Cvajner, Peter J. Kivisto, and Giuseppe Sciortino PART I

1

KEY CONCEPTS

1

Mobility, immobility, and migration Nicholas DeMaria Harney

12

2

Borders and boundaries Giuseppe Sciortino

23

3

Migration categories and the politics of labeling Leila Hadj Abdou and Federica Zardo

34

4 Gender Johanna Leinonen

46

5

Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process Remus Gabriel Anghel

6

Sequences and transitions in migration Russell King and Ronald Skeldon

74

7

Migration systems Oliver Bakewell

86

8

Migration policies and politics Joaquín Arango

96

9

Migration and border regimes Bernd Kasparek

109

10

Contexts of reception Ayumi Takenaka

122

11

Theorizing modes of incorporation Peter J. Kivisto

133

v

60

vi  Research handbook on the sociology of migration 12

Diversity and super-diversity Ivano Bison and Daniel Joseph Belback

143

13

Inclusion and exclusion Gabriel Echeverría and Claudia Finotelli

156

14

Remittances in a world of uncertainty and insecurity Ibrahim Sirkeci

167

15

Transnationalism and the making of diasporas Thomas Lacroix

181

16

Children of immigrants and the second generation Davide Azzolini and Philipp Schnell

192

PART II

METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

17

Secondary analysis of government and official data on international migration206 Corrado Bonifazi

18

Ethnography in migration studies: an everlasting love? Martina Cvajner

215

19

Quantitative surveys on migration Erik Vickstrom and Cris Beauchemin

227

20

Connecting with connected migrants: exploring the field of digital migration studies Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky

243

21

Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique for the empirical analysis of migration Elizabeth Aranda, Girsea Martinez Rosas, and Rebecca Blackwell

258

22

Network analysis Başak Bilecen

272

23

Visual methods in migration research Susan Ball

285

PART III SITES, PLACES, AND SPHERES 24

Sending communities, social spheres, and households: what can be learned about migration Jeffrey H. Cohen

25

Borders, embassies, and visas: the lessons of sociological lenses Federica Infantino

300 307

Contents  vii 26

Workplaces and labor markets Mattia Vitiello

319

27

Migration in families and households Heather M. Wurtz and Heide Castañeda

328

28

Housing and home Enrico Fravega and Paolo Boccagni

340

29

Sociabilities: kin, friends, and acquaintances in international migration Rocco Molinari

351

30

Migrant associations and communities Margit Fauser

363

31

Migration and the welfare state Grete Brochmann

375

32

The religious migrant Tuomas Martikainen

387

33

Sport and migration Max Mauro

400

34

Migration, museums, (and archives) Aleksandra Kubica

411

Index423

Tables

14.1

Top remittance receiving countries, 1980–2020 (US$ million)

174

14.2

Top remittance sending countries, 1980–2020 (US$ million)

175

15.1

Overview of diaspora and transnationalism

185

16.1

Overview of (categorical) definitions: first, second, and third generations

196

32.1

Adherents of religions worldwide, 1910–2050 (percentage)

389

32.2

Religious affiliation of international migrants in 2010

389

viii

Contributors

Remus Gabriel Anghel is Professor of Sociology at the National University and Public Administration and Researcher at the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities, Romania. He has conducted research and published on issues such as irregular migration, the labor migration of Eastern Europeans, migrant transnationalism, return migration, migration, ethnicity, and social change. He is now engaged in researching processes of return migration in multiethnic areas and the role of returnees in essential domains such as IT and agriculture. Elizabeth Aranda is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Im/migrant Well-Being Research Center at the University of South Florida in Tampa (USA). She has published two books: one on Puerto Rican migration and return migration, and the other on recent immigrants to Miami and their transnational modes of living. Her articles have examined the inequalities produced by racial and legal statuses, migration and home-making, and the role of emotions in understanding im/migrant adaptation to new places. Joaquín Arango is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain). He is co-editor of the Spanish Immigration Yearbook and sits on the editorial boards of several scientific journals and advisory committees in the field of international migration. Trained as a demographer and economic historian at the University of California, Berkeley, and as a sociologist at the Complutense University, his areas of interest include migration theories, migration and citizenship regimes, immigration policies and politics, and irregular migration. Davide Azzolini is a Research Fellow at the Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public Policies of the Bruno Kessler Foundation (Italy) and an affiliated scholar at the Urban Institute (USA). His main research interests include student achievement, migrant education, public policy analysis, and program evaluation. His research has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, and Demographic Research. Oliver Bakewell is Reader in Migration Studies at the Global Development Institute (GDI), University of Manchester (UK). His work focuses on the intersections between migration and mobility and processes of development and change, with a focus on Africa. Before joining GDI, he was based at the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford, after working for many years as a researcher and practitioner with a range of development and humanitarian NGOs. Susan Ball is Senior Lecturer and member of the research group TransCrit at the University Paris 8 (France) since 1999. She has published in international journals on migration and divided societies, and visual sources, with an emphasis on mixed methodologies deployed in collaborative research by practitioners, researchers, and migrants.

ix

x  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Cris Beauchemin is Senior Researcher at INED (French Institute for Demographic Studies). He spent several years at the University of Montreal (Demography Department). Covering both domestic and international migration, especially in the African context, his work relates in particular to trends in migration, migrant investments, return migration, transnational families, integration, and migrant legal status. He has conducted large-scale surveys, including the Migration between Africa and Europe project (MAFE) and the Trajectories and Origin surveys in France (TeO). Daniel Joseph Belback is Graduate Assistant at the University of Chicago and a study leader at Osher, Dartmouth (USA). He studied diversity as a Research Fellow in Trento. He published a thesis on the democratic interactions of a newcomer libertarian utopia project and wrote another on civil sphere discourses and the Muslim Ban policy. He has an MA in social science from the University of Chicago and a joint MA in cultural sociology from the University of Trento and Masaryk University. Başak Bilecen is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Groningen (Netherlands). Since 2023, she is the chair of Dutch Association for Migration Research. In 2022, Dr Bilecen was awarded the Karl Arnold Prize by the North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences and Arts for her lifetime achievements in migration scholarship. She is the author of International Student Mobility and Transnational Friendships (2014). Her work focuses on international migration, transnationality, social protection, social networks, and social inequalities. Ivano Bison is Full Professor of Sociology at the University of Trento (Italy). He has conducted advanced research on a wide variety of topics, including life careers, social stratification, occupational mobility, academic performance, educational inequalities, and social diversity. He is currently a member of the Horizon 2020 FET Proactive project ‘WeNet – The Internet of us,’ in which he chairs the diversity unit, with the aim of developing new computational models on social diversity. Rebecca Blackwell is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Im/migrant Well-Being Research Center at the University of South Florida (USA). Her research is focused on emotions, health and illness, migration, and public policy. Her previous research has addressed issues of human rights and post-conflict restorative justice processes in Latin America. Her work has appeared in journals such as Annals of Anthropological Practice, Latino Studies, and Women, Gender, and Families of Color. Paolo Boccagni is Professor in Sociology at the University of Trento (Italy). He has published in migration, home, diversity, and social welfare studies. He is currently doing comparative research on the lived experience of home, with a particular focus on place-making and the production of (ir)relevance in asylum reception facilities. His emerging research interests involve the practice of homing, the social working of metaphor, the ways of coping with absence and distance, and the significance of future-related imaginaries and practices. Corrado Bonifazi is Associate Researcher at CNR-IRPPS (Italy), since 2022. He was Director of Research at the CNR and Director of the CNR-IRPPS from 2014 to 2018. He chaired the Working Group of the EAPS on ‘International migration in Europe’ from 2002 to 2009. He has been a project leader in various research projects on population trends, as well as international and internal migration. He has numerous publications in the population and migration fields.

Contributors  xi Grete Brochmann is Professor of Sociology at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo (Norway). She has published work on international migration, sending/receiving country perspectives, EU policies, welfare state dilemmas, and historical studies on immigration. She has served as a visiting scholar in Brussels, Berkeley, and Boston, and held the Willy Brandt visiting professorship in Malmo, Sweden in 2002. She has headed two governmental commissions in Norway on the long-term consequences of immigration for the welfare model. Heide Castañeda is Professor of Anthropology at the University of South Florida (USA). Her research areas include critical border studies, political and legal anthropology, medical anthropology, and migrant health, focusing on the United States, Mexico, Germany, and Morocco. She is the author of Migration and Health: Critical Perspectives (2023), Borders of Belonging: Struggle and Solidarity in Mixed-Status Immigrant Families (2019), and co-editor of Unequal Coverage: The Experience of Health Care Reform in the United States (2018). Jeffrey H. Cohen is Professor of Anthropology at Ohio State University, Columbus (USA). His books include Eating Soup without a Spoon: Anthropological Theory and Method in the Real World (2015), The Cultures of Migration: The Global Nature of Contemporary Mobility (2011, a CHOICE outstanding Academic Title), The Culture of Migration in Southern Mexico (2004), and Cooperation and Community: Economy and Society in Oaxaca (1999). He leads the Ohio State University Transnational Research Lab and directs community-based research with refugees in Ohio. Martina Cvajner is Associate Professor in the Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Department at the University of Trento (Italy). Her research has tackled intimacy, friendship, and sociability, related to female migration flows from Eastern Europe. She teaches courses in qualitative research and design for social inclusion. She is currently involved in two research projects: one on the daily practices of refugees and asylum seekers and the other on sustainability and migration. Gabriel Echeverría is María Zambrano Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain). He has worked as Researcher at the Centro de Estudios Políticos y Consitucionales in Madrid and at the University of Trento. He was Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Johns Hopkins University—Bologna Centre. His main publications have inquired into the phenomenon of irregular migration in Europe, migration theory, and citizenship. Margit Fauser is Professor of Sociology. Her research areas are migration and border studies, citizenship studies, transnationalization, work, and social inequalities. She has (co)authored and (co)edited several books, including the introductory monograph Transnational Migration (2013) and Mobile Citizenship (2020). Her articles have appeared in numerous prestigious international peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Population, Space and Place, and Journal of Borderlands Studies. Claudia Finotelli holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Münster (Germany) and is currently Associate Professor at the Department of Applied Sociology of the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain). Her research interests cover the areas of migration control, integration policies, and citizenship in comparative perspective, with a special focus on Southern Europe.

xii  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Enrico Fravega is Post-Doctoral Research Fellow and Adjunct Lecturer in the Sociology of Culture and Communication at the University of Genova (Italy). His recent research works have focused on the nexuses among home, housing conditions, time, and migration. His current research interests include dwelling on the move in different spaces of transit and on the imaginaries and the social and cultural construction of borders at sea. Leila Hadj Abdou is Part-Time Assistant Professor at Migration Policy Centre (MPC), Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute (Italy). Previous to this appointment she had already worked for several years at the MPC as a Research Fellow with a focus on migration governance from a global and regional perspective. She currently also holds a position as a policy officer at the City of Vienna in the Department for Integration & Diversity. Nicholas DeMaria Harney is Professor of Anthropology and Dean of Social Science at Western University, London, Ontario (Canada), since August 2021. He was previously Chair of Anthropology and Sociology, and later, Associate Dean International at the University of Western Australia and Chair of Department at University of Windsor. He has conducted research in and taught on four continents for over twenty-five years, focused on migration, urban space, and global processes. Federica Infantino holds a Junior Chair in Migration at the URMIS, University Côte d’Azur and IRD (French Institute for Research on Sustainable Development). Previous to that appointment, she was a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellow at the Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute. Using ethnographic methodologies and comparative perspectives, her research has analyzed the implementation of policy instruments for migration and border control, EU visa policy and immigration detention, with a focus on the role of practitioners in shaping and diffusing practices, and on the involvement of private companies. Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky is Associate Professor of Sociology at Masaryk University in Czechia and Faculty Fellow at Yale University’s Center for Cultural Sociology. Her most recent book is A Critical Cultural Sociological Exploration of Attitudes toward Migration (with Radka Klvaňová, Alica Synek Rétiová, Ivana Rapoš Božič, and Jan Krotký, 2023). Her current research focuses on in-depth cultural sociological analysis and reconstruction of public issues such as perceptions of migration and migrant narratives, and the reverse sociology of migration. Bernd Kasparek is Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Institute for European Ethnology, as well as the Berlin Institute for Empirical Migration Research, both at Humboldt University Berlin (Germany). He has published on the genealogy of Europe’s borders, the Europeanization of migration and border policies, border and migration regime analysis, and the European border agency Frontex. His monograph, Europa als Grenze. Eine Ethnographie der Grenzschutz-Agentur Frontex (Europe as Border: An Ethnography of the European Border Agency Frontex) was published in 2021. Russell King is Professor of Geography at the University of Sussex (UK) and Visiting Professor in Migration Studies at Malmö University (Sweden). He has wide-ranging interests in the study of migration and has published on labor migration, student and youth migration, retirement migration, and return migration, among other topics. His regional research interests

Contributors  xiii lie mainly in Europe, especially Southern Europe and the Western Balkans. From 2001 to 2013, he was the Editor of Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Peter J. Kivisto is the Richard A. Swanson Professor of Social Thought Emeritus at Augustana College, Illinois (USA). His research focuses on immigration, social integration, and civil society. Recent books include The Cambridge Handbook of Social Theory (2021), Populism in the Civil Sphere (2021), The Trump Phenomenon: How the Politics of Populism Won in 2016 (2017), and National Identity in an Age of Migration (2017). He is the Series Editor of Anthem Press’s Studies in the Political Sociology of Democracy. Aleksandra Kubica is an independent researcher and educator. She holds a PhD from King’s College London and has worked with Migration Museum UK in London, POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw, and the International Youth Meeting Centre in Oświęcim/Auschwitz. Her research interests cover education, museums, including migration museums, as well as difficult memory. Thomas Lacroix is CNRS Research Director at CERI, Sciences Po Paris (France) since 2021. He was Research Fellow at the Maison Française of Oxford, Migrinter at the University of Poitiers and the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford. His main publications have covered immigrant transnationalism and its relations with homeland development and hostland integration, the transnational state, and city activism in the domain of migration. Johanna Leinonen is Academy Research Fellow in the Research Unit for History, Culture and Communications at the University of Oulu (Finland). She completed her PhD in History in 2011 at the University of Minnesota in the United States. She is also Associate Professor in research on multiculturalism at the University of Turku. Her research interests include migration history, forced migration and family separation, family and marriage migration, memory and migration, transnationalism, gender and migration, and critical race studies. Tuomas Martikainen is Rector of the Swedish School of Social Science at the University of Helsinki (Finland). Martikainen obtained his PhD in Comparative Religion in the Åbo Akademi University, Finland, in 2004, and has since worked as a Researcher and Professor in ethnic relations at University of Helsinki, the Director of the Migration Institute of Finland, and a Lecturer in Cultural Anthropology, University of Eastern Finland. His areas of expertise include immigrant religions and migrant integration. Girsea Martinez Rosas is an indigenous Mexican woman from the Hñähñu Otomi tribe and an immigration scholar. Her dynamic work—intersecting policy, scholarship, and community—develops solutions to social justice issues rooted in data, innovation, and felt experience. Her research, published in various peer-reviewed journals, focuses on race/racism, state surveillance, and emotional well-being. She is a doctoral candidate at the University of South Florida (USA). She received her BA from Texas A&M and an MA from Texas Tech University. Max Mauro is Lecturer in Sports Journalism at the Faculty of Media and Communication, Bournemouth University (UK). Besides many journal papers and book chapters, he has published The Balotelli Generation: Issues of Inclusion and Belonging in Italian Football and Society (2016) and Youth Sport, Migration and Culture: Two Football Teams and the

xiv  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Changing Face of Ireland (2019). His research interests encompass sport and processes of racialization, mass media and national identity, youth cultures, journalism, and ethnographic writing. Rocco Molinari holds a PhD in Economic Sociology and Labor Studies from the University of Milan and is currently Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the University of Bologna (Italy). His research interests cover international migrations, with a special focus on labor market integration, irregular status, and processes of family formation. Philipp Schnell is Researcher at the Austrian Chamber of Labor (Austria), Department of Education Policy, and Lecturer at the University of Vienna, Department of Sociology. His main research interests include student achievement, (ethnic) educational inequalities, and immigrant integration, as well as educational policies in comparative perspective. His research has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Migration Studies, and Population, Space and Place. Giuseppe Sciortino is Professor of Sociology at Università di Trento (Italy). He is a member of the International Migration Laboratory (https://​imigralab​.org/​) at the same university. He has recently edited The Cultural Trauma of Decolonization: Returnees in the National Imagination (with Ron Eyerman, 2020) and Populism in the Civil Sphere (with Jeffrey C. Alexander and Peter Kivisto, 2021). Ibrahim Sirkeci is the Director at the International Business School in Manchester, UK. Recently, he was Head of Enterprise Subject Group at the University of Salford, UK. Previously, he was Professor of Transnational Studies and Marketing at Regent’s University London from 2005 to 2021. His research focuses on human mobility, encompassing topics like insecurities, conflicts, remittances, immigrant integration, and the conflict model of migration. He is renowned for establishing influential migration journals, including Migration Letters, Remittances Review, and Migration and Diversity. Additionally, he has been chairing the Migration Conferences since 2011, advancing debates on migration and population studies. Ronald Skeldon is Emeritus Professor in Geography at the University of Sussex (UK), and Emeritus Professor at Maastricht University (Netherlands). Trained at the Universities of Glasgow and Toronto, he has carried out research in Peru, Papua New Guinea, and Hong Kong, worked for the United Nations throughout Asia and the Pacific, and acted as a consultant for many international organizations. His work has focused primarily on migration, both internal and international, and on issues concerning population and development. Ayumi Takenaka is Professor of Sociology at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo (Japan). After completing her PhD in Sociology at Columbia University, she taught in the United States and the United Kingdom, and is now in Japan. She has done extensive research on Peruvian migrants and is currently working on the migration–food nexus, focusing on the emergence and evolution of ‘Nikkei’ food around the globe. Erik Vickstrom is Principal Demographer at the Center for Economic Studies at the US Census Bureau. He received his PhD from Princeton University and spent several years with the International Migration Division of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). His research has focused on migration between Africa and Europe, the

Contributors  xv integration of children of immigrants in Europe, the migration of medical professionals, and improving the quality and coverage of migration data. Mattia Vitiello (PhD), sociologist, works as Researcher at the National Council of Research— Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies (CNR-IRPPS) in Rome (Italy). He deals with emigration and immigration. His main research interests include the integration processes of immigrant populations, with particular reference to the labor market. In recent years, his interests have focused on the historical aspects of migration policies. Heather M. Wurtz is Post-Doctoral Research Associate for the Pandemic Journaling Project, a collaborative research study based at the University of Connecticut and Brown University (USA). Her research areas include medical anthropology, migration studies, reproductive health, gender and sexuality studies, and global health, with a focus on the United States and Mexico. She has authored a range of articles and book chapters, including pieces in Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Social Science and Medicine – Mental Health, Mobilities, and the Journal of Human Rights. Federica Zardo is Senior Research Fellow at the Danube University Krems in the Department of Migration and Globalization and Lecturer at the University of Vienna (Austria). She is a political scientist working at the intersection between International Relations and Public Policy, with an empirical focus on EU migration policy and EU external action. She is currently the Principal Investigator for the MigFund project, which studies change in EU funding tools for migration and asylum.

Introduction. The sociology of migration: where has it been and where is it going? Martina Cvajner, Peter J. Kivisto, and Giuseppe Sciortino

INTRODUCTION Do we really need a research handbook on the sociology of migration? It’s a fair question. After all, during the past several decades, sociologists around the globe have devoted considerable scholarly time and effort to exploring contemporary migration across international borders. The International Sociological Association’s Research Committee on the Sociology of Migration (RC-31), the American Sociological Association’s section on International Migration, and the European Sociological Association’s Research Network on the Sociology of Migration (RN-35) are large and vibrant components of their respective organizations. Such is true of other nation-specific organizations. In addition to a presence in established sociological professional organizations, one can point to the International Migration Network (IMISCOE) as one preeminent freestanding organization. Founded in the Netherlands, its website describes the organization as the ‘largest interdisciplinary network of scholars in the field of migration’, currently connecting 63 research institutions around the world.1 The number of PhD programs has grown remarkably, and the number of migration-related scientific papers has skyrocketed. Specialized journals have multiplied in number.2 Moreover, the sociology of migration has not developed in isolation, but rather can best be described as part of a larger multidisciplinary research community supported by a professionalized research infrastructure. We could cite additional evidence, but the point is obvious: the sociology of migration does not suffer from a paucity of attention and the lack of a systematic research handbook has not deterred researchers from doing their work. However, we are convinced that the robustness of the field is precisely the reason for such a handbook. The sheer number of new concepts proposed by migration scholars, combined with a wide range of research methodologies deployed in ever-expanding sites of empirical investigation, using traditional and novel data sources, and proposed research questions in an especially dynamic sociological subfield, makes it difficult for those engaged in this collective enterprise to see the forest for the trees. We concur with Thelma Freides’ (1973, p. 1) succinct rationale for handbooks in general: ‘In the effort of the scholarly enterprise to synthesize a body of knowledge … it is sometimes useful to pause and take stock of the accomplishments of the past and the foreseeable tasks of the future’. We conceive this Handbook in this light. It is intended to be a research tool for those already immersed in the field and an introduction to it for novices. For both audiences, it is designed to offer an ecumenical view revealing what a big tent sociology of migration has to offer, one in which underlying the diversity, we contend, is a shared disciplinary core. Andrew Abbott (2001, p. 6) has argued that ‘sociology has become a discipline of many topics—always acquiring them, seldom losing them’. Focusing, as we do, on one of those topics, it is useful to see how the process of the acquisition of migration occurred a century 1

2  Research handbook on the sociology of migration ago and how succeeding generations of sociologists have responded. A comparison between developments that occurred a century ago and where we are in the third decade of the twenty-first century can help us appreciate that while not necessarily cumulative, sociology nonetheless has proven to be progressive (Abbott, 2001, p. 231). To get a feel for what has happened, it is useful to contrast past and present.

THE ORIGINS OF A SOCIOLOGICAL SUBFIELD The institutionalization of sociology in the academy coincided with the migratory wave that took off during the final two decades of the nineteenth century, the mass movement of people during the rapid transition in North American settler nations from agrarian to industrial economies. The points of departure were overwhelmingly from Europe—with the largest numbers coming from Eastern and Southern Europe—though considerably small streams originated from Asia’s ‘different shore’ (Takaki, 1989). The points of debarkation were equally circumscribed, with the vast majority relocating to the rapidly urbanizing United States, while a far smaller parallel stream settled in Canada. Demographically, as a migration system, it was far from unique. There were many large-scale migration systems shaping the era (McKeown, 2004; Lucassen & Lucassen, 2014). Its distinct impact on the intellectual development of the social sciences has been, however, undeniable. The transatlantic migrations have been, and partially still are, the ‘model cases’— in Monika Krause’s (2021) sense of the term—for the sociology of migration. Notably different sociological responses to this unprecedented mobility are evident depending on where the sociologists in question were situated. For Europeans, it proved to be a missed opportunity. During a period when most of the classics of European sociology were published, their work left only faint traces of interest in the topic. Where work was conducted, it proved to be a minor part of a scholar’s corpus. Max Weber’s writings on the role of Polish peasants as temporary migrant workers in Prussian agriculture is a case in point (Weber, 1979). The exception to this tendency were Marxist scholars, who viewed labor mobility as an intrinsic feature of capitalist development. In contrast, what would become the core figures associated with mainstream sociology tended to view migration from rural to urban areas and from agrarian to industrial economies as a transitory phenomenon, a necessary trauma that would break up what Marx and Engels (1967, p. 84) referred to as ‘the idiocy of rural life’, thereby paving the way for ‘modern’ forms of social relations and organizations. Underlying this progenitor of modernization theory was the conviction that ethnic differences and hierarchies predicated on ‘archaic’ mores and ‘backward’ values would lose their salience, giving way to more universalistic and progressive identities. In this framing, migration was subsumed under much wider processes, and consequentially it largely disappeared from view (Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002). It was thus left to the other side of the Atlantic to become the location where the first phase in the emergence of a sociological subfield devoted to migration would take place: specifically in the United States, or, even more specifically, Chicago (Bulmer, 1984; Matthews, 1977). A frontier city, its diverse population for over a half century, beginning in 1870, included a larger percentage of immigrants than any other city in North America (Paral, 2003). Simultaneously, it was a major center for internal migration, including rural and small town

Introduction  3 whites from communities throughout the Midwest and Blacks from the Mississippi Delta who were not far removed from slavery. And in this rapidly growing, mobile, and diverse city, John D. Rockefeller founded the University of Chicago in 1890—consciously intending to establish a premier institution of higher education that could rival the long established elite East Coast universities. Two years later, Chicago’s sociology department was launched, becoming in short order the premier sociology department in the country. The two most influential figures who succeeded in shaping immigration research and theorizing were W. I. Thomas and Robert Ezra Park. Thomas began his career at Chicago in 1895, remaining there until his forced resignation in 1918. He was instrumental in hiring Park, who arrived in 1914 and remained until his retirement in 1933. Among their major publications on immigration was Thomas’ five-volume The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920), co-authored with the Polish émigré sociologist Florian Znaniecki. Martin Bulmer (1984, p. 45) characterized the work as a ‘landmark because it attempted to integrate theory and data in a way no American study had done before’. The focus on Polish migration was hardly surprising: those were the years in which Chicago had the third largest population of Poles after Warsaw and Łódź. The authorship of the soon-to-follow Old World Traits Transplanted (1921) is cited as written by Robert E. Park and Herbert A. Miller, though Thomas had been the primary author. His name was deleted by the Carnegie Corporation that had originally commissioned Thomas to write the book for their Americanization series, but cut ties with him after the 1918 Chicago scandal. The following year Park’s The Immigrant Press and Its Control (1922) was published, bringing together the former journalist’s dual interests in the role of the newspaper and immigration, doing so by seeking to understand the role of ethnic language newspapers in the process of immigrant incorporation into a new homeland. Aside from a few articles by Park on migration, this small body of work constituted the beginning of the sociology of migration. It was carried forward by only two of Park’s students, Rose Hum Lee and Louis Wirth—the latter subsequently joining the Chicago faculty and ultimately chairing its sociology department. To be sure, there were other prominent sociologists who wrote about migration, but they did so from a very different point of view than the one advanced by Thomas and Park, which called for an empathic approach. Two notable figures were Edward A. Ross and Franklin Giddings, both motivated by anti-immigrant animus. Ross has been accurately described as a ‘Progressive nativist’ (Weinberg, 1967), while Giddings’ embrace of eugenics placed him in a group of like-minded intellectuals that historian Thomas Leonard (2017) has characterized as ‘illiberal reformers’, seeking social uplift for some, but not for others, namely, those located on the wrong side of the racial divide. Park and Thomas were reformers, but unlike Jane Addams, the founder of Hull House, they were intent on separating reform from sociological inquiry. Park was particularly insistent, leading to misinterpretations of his political inclinations. He was convinced that sociology could not advance as a discipline if it did not distance itself from social reform. A person could be both a sociologist and a reformer, but it was necessary to compartmentalize—thereby ensuring that scholarship was not compromised by partisanship. Mass immigration to the United States ended in 1924, with the passage of the National Origins Act. The Great Depression, followed by the Second World War, tapped down whatever legal immigration was permitted by this legislation. Reflecting on the singular focus of the Chicago School, one appreciates what did not engage its attention. First, remarkably little attention is devoted to the causes of migration or its processual character. There is certainly no effort expended in articulating anything akin to nineteenth-century geographer Ernst Georg

4  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Ravenstein’s (1889) ‘The Laws of Migration’. Indeed, for Park, migration in the ‘modern’ world of industrial capitalism simply seemed to be a given. With his focus on the urbanization resulting from the new economy, he was content to assert, tongue-in-cheek, one presumes, that, ‘America and, perhaps, the rest of the world, can be divided between two classes: those who reached the city and those who have not yet arrived’ (Park, 1950, p. 167). From this vantage, he was able to draw a parallel between international and internal migration, pointing to the similarities of the movement of Polish peasants and African American sharecroppers to Chicago. While there is merit in attempting to link international and internal migration within a broad migratory framework, as Russell King points out (King & Skeldon, 2010), Park’s comparison leaves out the role of the state in facilitating or impeding migration, yet another major lacuna. The few concepts deriving from Thomas and Park are concerned with issues related to the incorporation of immigrants, and the challenges involved. Thomas’ idea of disorganization at both the social psychological and social levels speaks to the challenges newcomers face. For Park, the idea of ‘assimilation’ serves the same conceptual purpose. Ideas related to marginality and prejudice point to the barriers newcomers typically confront. The continued currency of these ideas is evident. The most contested is assimilation, which has also explicitly and implicitly received the most attention as various scholars have sought to defend, reformulate, expand, reject, or replace it. There are aspects of the legacy that have not been fully appreciated, such as the recent case that has been made for seeing in Park’s thought a theory of democratic pluralism (Kivisto, 2022). These engagements with or revisiting of an early point in the development of a sociology of migration have occurred only after an interregnum during which immigration per se was not in any significant way on the agenda. Indeed, the sociology of migration stagnated until well into the second half of the twentieth century. In the interim, some historians turned their attention to the immigrants who arrived between 1880 and 1930. Many were the second generation offspring of the immigrant generation, some mixing fileopietism with history, others managing to produce quality scholarship. One stood out from the rest: Oscar Handlin. His The Uprooted (1951), which won a Pulitzer Prize, was informed by an admixture of the lessons of the Chicago School and the then fashionable existentialist thinking about alienation. For their part, the more presentist American sociologists turned to studying the children and grandchildren of the immigrants. This period yielded a substantial body of important work, including such classics by scholars with a Chicago connection: Lloyd Warner’s five volumes on Yankee City and Herbert Gans’ Boston ethnography of ‘urban villagers’ (Gans, 1962; Warner, 1963).

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF MIGRATION STUDIES This excursion into the past can serve to more fully appreciate the context in which the contemporary sociology of migration has emerged (Kivisto & Faist, 2010, pp. 13–45). It, too, was a response to a new migratory wave, one quite different from what preceded it in several ways. First, in contrast to the overwhelmingly Europe to North America movement in the previous wave, the new one was global in scope. Beginning in the aftermath of the Second World War, the powerful nations of Western Europe, both victors and defeated, confronted labor shortages due to the casualties of war. Simultaneously, decolonization, which profoundly changed socio-political and economic relations between former colonies and their respective metropo-

Introduction  5 les, resulting in the movement to Europe of former colonial subjects (Buettner, 2016) and colonial returnees (Eyerman & Sciortino, 2020). It also involved a variety of labor recruitment schemes, including those characterized as ‘guest worker’ programs. At the same time, as the Iron Curtain dropped, signaling the commencement of the Cold War, many anti-communists from the new Soviet sphere of influence fled westward as displaced persons (Gatrell, 2019). If the Europe of a half-century earlier was one characterized by mass emigration, during les trente glorieuses, Western Europe became a major destination for labor migrants. The establishment of the European Union created a new dynamic in international migration insofar as the Eurozone allowed for the free movement of citizens of member states within it, while setting barriers for those on the outside—what became known as ‘fortress Europe’. After legislatively shutting its doors to mass immigration for four decades, the United States passed the Hart-Cellar Act in 1965. Though its sponsors insisted it would not result in a new migratory wave, that is precisely what happened. Levels of immigration increased substantially during the last three decades of the twentieth century—with the 1990s being the decade during which more immigrants arrived than any time in the past or subsequently. Thus, during both the prior and the current wave, the United States has been the major destination nation. The major source countries were no longer European, but rather Asian and Latin American. The demographic change has been pronounced, with one quarter of the current population consisting of immigrants and their children (Foner, 2022). Not only are major cities more racially and religiously diverse, but the impact of newcomers has also impacted the suburbs and rural communities. On a smaller, but nonetheless consequential scale, two other settler states have become important destinations: Canada and Australia. In both cases, dramatic shifts from ‘whites only’ immigration laws to multiculturalism made possible the emergence of considerably more diverse populations. Yet another large-scale international migration was set in motion by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Whereas the Baltic states, like the former Warsaw Pact nations, were able to stake their futures by turning to the West, the majority of the former Soviet republics found themselves within the economic and geopolitical orbit of Russia. The creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was billed as a post-Soviet counterpart to the EU, aptly described as a ‘migration system with Soviet roots’ (Chudinovskikh & Denisenko, 2017). Given differing levels of economic development, the stage was set for residents of poorer states to seek employment opportunities in wealthier ones, leading to a migratory nexus that saw, for example, during the early part of this century Ukrainians constituting over one in five immigrants in Russia—while many of their national counterparts opted to move westward. Meanwhile, citizens of Kazakhstan migrated to both Russia and Ukraine, while residents of neighboring Uzbekistan opted to settle in Kazakhstan. To appreciate the significance of these migratory patterns within the (former?) empire, by the first decade of the current century, Russia ranked as the nation with the second largest immigrant population, after the United States. Two decades later, prior to the invasion of Ukraine, it had fallen to fourth place (Natarajan, Moslimani, & Lopez, 2022). One of the two countries that surpassed Russia was Saudi Arabia. It is one of several oil-rich Middle Eastern nations heavily reliant on international migration to meet its labor needs, particularly in sectors such as construction, services and the range of ‘3D’ (dirty, difficult, and dangerous) jobs. Working in autocratic regimes, these workers will never be granted permanent residence, let alone citizenship. Exploitative work conditions with low wages and few protections characterize the lives of these workers. One striking feature of these countries is

6  Research handbook on the sociology of migration the size of the immigrant population in each of them. Saudi Arabia, where immigrants constitute 37 percent of the population is actually on the low end. In five of these nations, immigrants make up over half the population, with the level reaching 81 percent in Qatar and 94 percent in the United Arab Emirates (Natarajan et al., 2022). There is a paucity of research on migration in this region, in no small part because the autocratic regimes of the region are disinclined to permit empirical inquiry into the lived experiences of immigrants. Cawo Abdi’s (2015) study of Somalian immigrants in three nations makes clear the necessity of flying under the radar of the authorities in conducting her case study in the United Arab Emirates. There are other substantial movements of people across borders that have not received the attention they deserve, in part for political reasons and in part due to the limited resources available to do sociological research. We note two places in particular where this is true: migration within the African continent and within the Indian subcontinent. While African migrants to Europe have garnered considerable scholarly (and polemical) attention, the 51.6 percent of African migrants who reside in another African nation remain understudied (Natarajan et al., 2022). The Indian diaspora has doubled during the past 25 years, becoming the top source for international migrants. At the same time, it is also the twelfth largest immigrant receiving nation, with the overwhelming percentage of those migrants arriving from four neighboring nations: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka (Connor, 2017). In taking stock of the sociology of migration past and present, the differences between now and then are numerous. Rather than a century ago, when North America could be considered, at least symbolically, ‘the paramount region’ for migration dynamics, migration today is truly global. The receiving countries today vary from wealthy to considerably less so, with the political systems of receiving nations ranging from full democracies to hybrid regimes. Whereas the Chicago School was primarily interested in immigrant incorporation, building on the work of economists, sociologists more recently have contributed to understanding the causes and characteristics of migration flows. New conceptual categories of movers across borders have been explicated. The call has been made for moving beyond the state by repudiating ‘methodological nationalism’ (Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002). Countering this, others have argued for the importance of a state-centered framing of research, one in which the receiving nation engages in a campaign of political resocialization, whereby in the process that transforms outsiders into insiders ‘they also get turned into nationals’ (Waldinger, Soehl, & Luthra, 2022). The role of international agencies promoting human rights since the Second World War has garnered attention. Economic changes brought about by the shift from industrial capitalism to financialized capitalism is one of the factors contributing to the heightened complexity of the situation. No longer simply a working-class phenomenon, migration involves people at all levels of social hierarchies, save the desperately poor who do not have the minimal resources to depart. Moreover, this subfield is located in a discipline that is exponentially larger than it was a century ago—sociology now operates as a global discipline. Sociologists have never been a unified tribe. The internal debates have been a persistent feature of the sociological landscape—and the debates have often been heated. Sociologists sometimes challenge those they disagree with, while at other times, they simply ignore them in order to engage with the discipline in a way they deem to be the correct path. Debates over conceptual definitions, theoretical frameworks, and methodological choices are hard-baked into the discipline, with all attempts to overcome them failing for so long that there is no desire to repeat such efforts.

Introduction  7 And the reason for not seeking to overcome such differences is not that it is futile, but rather that it is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because despite the disagreements, sociology does not exist in a state of chaos—it is not ‘a blooming, buzzing confusion’. Sociologists have managed over time to produce high quality empirical research, while likewise advancing our theoretical understandings of the processes and mechanisms that shape social relations in the highly differentiated and complex societies of the modern world. Just as this is true of sociology at large, so it is true of the sociology of migration (FitzGerald, 2022). Indeed, in recent decades, this subfield has proven itself to be especially dynamic and the results constitute a body of work that amounts to an embarrassment of riches. A cursory examination of the entries contained in the three sections of this Handbook—key concepts, methods and techniques, and sites, places, and spheres—illustrates the broad range of the sociology of migration. Perhaps less obvious on the surface is precisely what makes it all hang together. We round out this introduction by summarizing our understanding of the conceptual framing that has informed from the beginning and continues to inform—sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly—a distinctive way of looking at migration. Sociologists have insisted on viewing migration as a structured and embedded phenomenon, having properties that cannot be reduced to demographic, geographical, or economic dimensions alone. What makes international migration sociologically interesting is not the sheer number of individuals moving from one place to another, in the process crossing international borders. Even when massive, in fact, such movements may still lack any significant structural consequence. Rather, what makes mobility interesting from a sociological point of view are two features of these population movements. First, migration—as opposed to mobility per se—is not seen as the summation of individual movements, nor as an automatic reflexive response to the poor living conditions in the sending area, or the perceived good conditions in the prospective destination. On the contrary, sociologists see this as an interactive process, in which the decision-making of each individual migrant is influenced and governed by those of others. Individuals become migrants or decide to stay put not as atomized individuals, but as members of households, neighborhoods, cohorts, and networks. Their decision-making is inspired not only by a more-or-less accurate cost-benefit analysis, but also by narratives, normative expectations, peer pressures, and idealized notions of the good life. Each geographical movement, moreover, alters the conditions for subsequent moves. In some cases, the departure of a small group of ‘pioneers’ is not a one-shot affair because it is—more or less quickly—followed by the birth of a distinctive migration system, a structured set of social relations that, by linking the sending and receiving areas, make possible movements of individuals who would not have moved otherwise (Cvajner, 2019). In other cases, the pioneers fail to trigger further arrivals or develop any kind of distinctive migratory subculture. How structural conditions and migration projects interact to determine over time the outcome of some initial mobility is one of the key issues explored by scholars working in the sociology of migration. A second sociologically important feature of international migration is that it is a form of mobility that takes place across a social boundary. Migration is not defined sociologically by geographical distance. Rather, it is defined by the significance of the boundaries that are crossed. The importance of boundaries is acknowledged in the very definition of ‘international migration’ adopted by international bodies charged with collecting statistical data. In the world of nation states, the crossing of an international border implies nearly anywhere (the EU being, at least at the moment, a significant exception) that a person is categorically

8  Research handbook on the sociology of migration transformed from a citizen to an alien, which is to say, someone does not (wholly or partially) ‘belong’ in the place of residence. At the same time, migrants will still be considered members of the political community they departed. Sociologists, however, do not limit themselves to a sole interest in established legal or administrative boundaries. They are also interested in studying how geographical mobility is shaped by the crossing of a variety of social boundaries, including language, social class, ethnicity, religion, sexual identity and behavior, and others. And they are interested in how such mobility, in turn, modifies the existing social boundaries in various ways that include the possibility of hardening, crossing, blurring, or generalizing them. International migration is thus a key to studying a fundamental dimension of social life: the structural and symbolic mechanisms governing the membership orders of each context or society (Sciortino, 2012). Third, the focus on the embeddedness of migration movements requires the ability to see geographical mobility as enabled and constrained by specific constellations of institutional factors. In a world divided into nation states and marked by enormous inequalities, citizenship works as the main criterion of the global stratification system, albeit usually in an implicit way. All migration is thus also a process of social mobility through the capacity for geographic movement. Seen differently, migratory movements open up questions of inclusion and exclusion. In a highly differentiated world society, both inclusions and exclusions are to be understood in the plural, and many individuals—both natives and migrants—are at the same time included in certain spheres and excluded from others. Finally, migration always occurs within different forms of migration regimes: the often complex and partially contradictory set of social mechanisms and narratives concerning population movements. Until a few decades ago, the nature of these regimes was usually conceived in a reductive way. Migration was seen as solely governed by the imperatives of capitalist development, involved both in expelling workers through capital penetration and in putting them where they could be used as an industrial reserve army. Alternatively, migration regimes have been conceived in legal terms, as sets of rules intervening over the right of entry and abode, as well as the possibility of naturalization. More recently, the understanding of migration regimes has been deeply modified by a social and cultural turn in migration studies. The regulation of migration is now understood to be far messier and contingent than those reductive accounts would have it (Cvajner, Echeverría, & Sciortino, 2018). The consequences are often counter-intentional, resulting from the interaction of factual constraints, social expectations, norms, and practices deriving from the dynamics of a variety of social forces and elements of political cultures. This scenario points to one pressing agenda item for future research: working out a more robust understanding of these dynamics. In advancing this and other related agendas, sociologists of migration build on a tradition dating back to the Chicago School that begins with the very simple premise that mobility is a constitutive feature of the modern world. To do so does not require abandoning the idea of society (Urry, 2000), but rather to comprehend it as always and everywhere predicated on the reality of the mass movements of people across existing but not necessarily permanent borders and other social boundaries.

Introduction  9

NOTES 1. Disclosure: The International Migration Laboratory at the Università di Trento, where two of the editors work (and where the third is a research fellow), is one of the 63 members of IMISCOE. 2. For English-language, peer-reviewed journals, see the list compiled and regularly updated by PRIO (https://​migration​.prio​.org/​Journals/​). There are also many migration journals in vernacular languages, including Imis Beitrage, Migraciones, Migrações, Migracijske i etničke teme, Mondi Migranti, REMHU, and Revue européenne des migrations internationales.

REFERENCES Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Abdi, C. M. (2015). Elusive Jannah: The Somali diaspora and the borderless Muslim identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Buettner, E. (2016). Europe after empire: Decolonization, society, and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bulmer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chudinovskikh, O., & Denisenko, M. (2017). Russia: A migration system with Soviet roots. Migration Information Source, Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://​www​.migrationpolicy​.org/​ article/​russia​-migration​-system​-soviet​-roots. Connor, P. (2017). India is a top source and destination for world’s migrants. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://​www​.pewresearch​.org/​fact​-tank/​2017/​03/​03/​india​-is​-a​-top​ -source​-and​-destination​-for​-worlds​-migrants/​. Cvajner, M. (2019). Soviet signoras: Personal and collective transformations in Eastern European migration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cvajner, M., Echeverría, G., & Sciortino, G. (2018). What do we talk about when we talk about migration regimes? The diverse theoretical roots of an increasingly popular concept. In A. Pott, C. Rass, & F. Wolff (Eds.) Was is ein Migrationsregime? What is a migration regime? (pp. 65–80). Wiesbaden: VS Springer. Eyerman, R., & Sciortino, G. (Eds.) (2020). The cultural trauma of decolonization: Colonial returnees in the national imagination. London: Palgrave Macmillan. FitzGerald, D. S. (2022). The sociology of international migration. In C. B. Bretell & F. J. Hollifield (Eds.) Migration theory: Talking across disciplines. Fourth Edition (pp. 160–193). London: Routledge. Foner, N. (2022). One quarter of the nation: Immigration and the transformation of America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Freides, T. (1973). Literature and bibliography of the social sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. Gans, H. J. (1962). The urban villagers. New York: The Free Press. Gatrell, P. (2019). The unsettling of Europe: The great migration, 1945 to the present. London: Penguin UK. Handlin, O. (1951). The uprooted. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. King, R., & Skeldon, R. (2010). ‘Mind the gap!’ Integrating approaches to internal and international migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1619–1646. Kivisto, P. (2022). Re-reading Park and Burgess’s landmark textbook: An unacknowledged treatise on democracy and inclusion. The American Sociologist, 53(1), 91–106. Kivisto, P., & Faist, T. (2010). Beyond a border: The causes and consequences of contemporary immigration. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press. Krause, M. (2021). Model cases: On canonical research objects and sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leonard, T. C. (2017). Illiberal reformers: Race, eugenics, and American economics in the progressive era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Lucassen, J., & Lucassen, L. (2014). Globalising migration history: The Eurasian experience (16th–21st centuries). Leiden: Brill. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto. New York: Penguin Books. Matthews, F. H. (1977). Quest for an American sociology: Robert E. Park and the Chicago School. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. McKeown, A. (2004). Global migration, 1846–1940. Journal of World History, 15(2), 155–189. Natarajan, A., Moslimani, M., & Lopez, M. H. (2022). Key facts about recent trends in global migration. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://​www​.pewresearch​.org/​fact​-tank/​2022/​ 12/​16/​key​-facts​-about​-recent​-trends​-in​-global​-migration/​. Paral, R. (2003). Chicago’s immigrants break old patterns. Migration Information Source, Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://​www​.migrationpolicy​.org/​article/​chicagos​-immigrants​-break​ -old​-patterns. Park, R. E. (1922). The immigrant press and its control. New York: Harper and Brothers. Park, R. E. (1950). Race and culture: Essays in the sociology of contemporary man. New York: The Free Press. Park, R. E., & Miller, H. A. (1921). Old world traits transplanted. New York: Harper and Brothers. Ravenstein, E. G. (1889). The laws of migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 52(2), 241–305. Sciortino, G. (2012). Ethnicity, race, nationhood, foreignness and many other things: Prolegomena to a cultural sociology of difference-based interactions. In J. C. Alexander, R. Jacobs, & P. Smith (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of cultural sociology (pp. 365–389). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Takaki, R. (1989). Strangers from a different shore: A history of Asian Americans. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918–1920). The Polish peasant in Europe and America, 5 volumes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for volumes 1 and 2; Boston: Badger Press for volumes 3–5. Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge. Waldinger, R., Soehl, T., & Luthra, R. R. (2022). Nationalising foreigners: The making of American national identity. Nations and Nationalism, 28(1), 47–65. Warner, W. L. (1963). Yankee city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Weber, M. (1979). Developmental tendencies in the situation of East Elbian rural labourers. Economy and Society, 8(2), 177–205. Weinberg, J. (1967). E. A. Ross: The progressive as nativist. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 50(3), 242–253. Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334.

PART I KEY CONCEPTS

1. Mobility, immobility, and migration Nicholas DeMaria Harney

INTRODUCTION Since February of 2022, it is estimated that over 8 million Ukrainians have fled their country in the wake of the Russian invasion, with millions more internally displaced (UNHCR, 2023). This flight of people crossing international state borders, escaping war and terror, and the internal displacement of many more, are tragically familiar to those studying migration over the last century. The movement of people across space seeking safety, security, and opportunity elsewhere has been a classic focus in the sociology of migration. Yet, the current Ukrainian crisis is not simply a replay of previous mass migrations. Some of its characteristics encourage analysts to stress that it should not be examined only through a migration lens, which concentrates on the movement of people, but rather as an intensification of many kinds of motion, or mobilities, at play. In this view, taken together, these human (migration) and non-human mobilities provide a fuller and more nuanced reading of the crisis. The expansive frame of mobilities to examine this war highlights the collapse of time and space, the transformation of social relations through technology, and the upending of our sense of co-presence and experience. People using social media and mobile phones act as open-source intelligence gatherers, tracking Russian advances and geolocating them instantaneously. Technology destroys through drones, advanced weapons systems, or hand-held anti-tank weapons, displacing and killing people. Economic sanctions and the blocking of the SWIFT banking tool interrupt capital mobility to the Russian economy, while at the same time, sharing sites such as Airbnb and the Ukrainian diaspora’s mobilization via Western Union or IBAN transfers reveal the intensity of interdependence aided by mobile infrastructures and networks. These mobility spaces and tools augment the physical convoy of trucks with donations earmarked for Ukraine. The war in Ukraine, then, combines movement both as migration and the mobilities of things, images, and information. The war displaces masses of people across Europe, obscuring the world-changing pandemic, another mobility event, as viruses and infections spread in new variants. The immediate health threat of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in early 2020 provoked public health fears and led to an abrupt halt to population movements across international borders and within local jurisdictions and states. Seasonal farmworkers were stuck in place, corporate travel grounded, tourism suspended, supply-chains disrupted, and states arranged emergency flights to bring their citizens home, reaffirming the primacy of national identities in the face of a global biosecurity threat. The fear of strangers as carriers of disease increased, summoning older views about foreigners. An intensified focus on biosecurity meant that asylum camps, for example, in Greece, or along the US–Mexican border, were quarantined or neglected, and migrant boats crossing the Mediterranean heading for Europe were turned back. The limits on local movements through lockdowns and stay-at-home orders within cities, regions, and countries all exemplified the potential advantages of pairing the different scales of migration, the movement of people across space, with the more expansive, if amorphous term, ‘mobility’, as 12

Mobility, immobility, and migration  13 it has emerged in the last twenty years, to encompass the movement of people, things, objects, technologies, and infrastructures. The pandemic thus provides another useful event through which sociologists and other social scientists can see the relationship between the cognate terms, migration and mobility. The pandemic’s disruptive dynamics illustrate how mobility and immobility intersect with the sociology of migration. Scholars in this tradition reframe their analyses by focusing on layered and intersecting movement and stasis—or mobilities and immobilities. The complex, integrated relationships between disease, people, mobility systems, infrastructure, and the increased dependence on techno-virtual worlds to connect people during the pandemic show how reframing movement as mobility provides a perceptive frame for our contemporary world. The invasion of Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic each offer a glimpse of the utility of entangling migration with more recent ways of conceiving mobility in the twenty-first century. Sociologists are well-versed in social mobility as a concept that focuses on the movement of individuals or groups from all social strata (Sorokin, 1927). Social mobility calls attention to inequality, status, power, and hierarchy within nation-states. It focuses on the social opportunity to transform individual, family, or group socioeconomic position and status within social stratification systems (Lipset & Bendix, 1959). Social mobility research often focuses on the intergenerational progression across class and occupational status, with increased education seen as a key positive variable. Migration and ethnic studies in sociology have been particularly focused on these opportunity structures to assess the degree of upward mobility for migrant and racialized groups through concepts such as ‘assimilation’ and ‘integration’ (Alba & Nee, 2003; Gordon, 1964; Park, 1914; Portes & Zhou, 1993). In the context of the pandemic example presented above, a social mobility lens in migration studies highlights the fact that despite the cessation of movement for many across borders and within jurisdictions, social inequality prevailed as medical workers, delivery people, supermarket and warehouse employees, factory workers, (migrant) agricultural laborers, cooks, and cleaners were frequently required to work, often in unsafe conditions, and thus be ‘mobile’. Many returned to live in apartments or with family in small homes and thus could not limit their social interactions to reduce the spread of the disease, whereas middle-class knowledge workers worked from home with more space, and the even more privileged escaped to country homes to reinforce an unequal experience with this biothreat. The pandemic allows us to see both the persistent limits and inequalities of social mobility and the ways in which mobility, understood more recently as an all-encompassing paradigm to observe and analyze the spatial and temporal movement of things, people, logistics, and structures, intersect. The focus of this chapter will not encompass the extensive literature in sociology on ‘social mobility’ per se, yet the question of social mobility and its attendant focus on inequality has lurked implicitly in (spatial) ‘mobility studies’ since its inception. Migration studies research has often emphasized movement across international borders because of the profound political and economic effects of this movement. Migration scholars know that the movement of people from one location to another within states and jurisdictions, or from rural areas to towns and cities, is equally often entangled with wider migration patterns. The sociological research on migration that intersects with mobility tends to be organized around questions and social ‘problems’ and social policy responses that concern the governance, management, patterns, and control of migrants within and across state borders. The assumption of upward social mobility as inherent in a state of mobility often manifests in sometimes-exuberant enthusiasm within the new mobilities literature, which focuses on mobility as a manifestation of the liberal

14  Research handbook on the sociology of migration sense of freedom (Bigo, 2011). The flows and patterns of movement, and assessments of identity formations as they impact states and align with security concerns, have also been central concerns (Brettell & Hollifield, 2002). This chapter will rather engage with the relatively more recent emergence since the 2000s of the ‘new mobilities paradigm’, exploring the ways in which it potentially contributes, or fails to contribute, to a new way of thinking about the sociology of spatial movements. Since the early to mid-2000s, in several cognate disciplines adjacent to sociology, most notably geography, scholars have chosen to subsume migration within the broader frame of mobility studies. More frequently, mobility as a term simply serves as a replacement for migration with an implicit nod to the changing lexicon and its related implications, rather than a specific analytical application (Cresswell, 2006; Hannam, Sheller, & Urry, 2006; Sheller & Urry, 2006; Urry, 2000; see also the journals Mobilities and Transfers).

THE EMERGENCE OF A MOBILITY TURN Mobility is an analytic and metonym used to describe a contemporary transdisciplinary group of scholars who, in sociology, have called for a ‘sociology beyond society’ that aims to place movement at the center of sociological inquiry, as the force that drives society (Urry, 2000). Movement and mobility are often conflated in the literature, but, in general, movement is viewed as an object of observation and mobility is understood as a socially constructed object of analysis (Cresswell, 2006). The transdisciplinary field of mobilities studies focuses on the contingent, unequal, and uneven movement of people and objects materially, spatially, temporally, and virtually (Adey, Bissell, Hannam, Merriman, & Sheller, 2014; Sheller & Urry, 2006; Urry, 2007). Urry (2007) highlights Latour’s idea of ‘circulating entities’ across distances, identifying five interdependent modes of mobilities that are entangled and reconfigured in specific spatial-temporal conditions with fixed and fluid non-human infrastructures. These have been extended by other scholars: corporeal travel or people moving for family, work, pleasure, fear, or opportunity; the physical mobility of objects or things by producers, consumers, and distributors; imaginative travel that is produced, distributed, and consumed through visual, print, and multimedia forms; virtual travel that collapses space and time for real time connectivity through digital and communicative technology; and communicative travel through texts, letters, phone, and mobile smartphones. It consequently aspires to subsume the concept of migration within a broader emphasis on circulation, human and non-human, across political borders as well as within them. A considerable amount of mobility research has focused on the social processes in transport, tourism, travel, and migration in the flow of movement, sustained by dynamic and fixed infrastructures of capital such as airports, roads, cars, trains, borders, satellite systems, finance or network capital, and oil refineries, for example. Often with a focus on experience, the field tends to be dominated by qualitative perspectives but an abundant literature on ‘mobile methods’ has developed looking at quantitative, computational, experimental, visual, artistic, social network, digital and mobile positioning, and walk, drive, or bike-along methods, among others (Larsen, 2008; Büscher & Urry, 2009; Kusenbach, 2012; Molz, 2012; Merriman, 2014). Early research in the area had tended to focus on elite and tourist travel experiences and across spaces, but in its subsequent development, the field has begun to reckon with the unequal ways

Mobility, immobility, and migration  15 in which the ability to move is distributed, pairing mobility with moorings and immobilities to acknowledge the different regimes and capacities for being mobile in global capitalism (Adey et al., 2014).

MOBILITY’S HERITAGE Mobility, as a keyword for framing how sociologists engage with the theory of movement, has had until now a limited reach, especially within North American sociology. Mimi Sheller, one of the main US proponents of the concept, notes the scarce references to the term in recent American Sociology Association meetings (Sheller, 2021). In FitzGerald’s (2012) summary of the sociology of migration, there is no mention of the ‘new mobility paradigm’ or its spatial, non-human to human focus; instead, the review addresses traditional views in the sociology of migration through attention to social mobility and social networks for analyzing individual movement through social categories. The focus on mobility and migration as a structural feature of modern society, however, is far from being new. Proponents of the mobility turn may connect to, and rely upon, a long tradition, dating back to the nineteenth century, stressing movement as a key concept of modernity but with an awareness that this movement is inevitably entwined with place and, or as scholars attuned to mobility framing may use, ‘immobility’. Movement that entangled social with spatial mobility figured prominently in the analysis of modern social life in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as industrialization and the growth of cities transformed the concerns of social analysts. Mobility scholars often see Simmel (1908) as a forerunner of mobility studies, through his focus on the transformative processes of the pace and circulation of money in modern life. Simmel (1990 [1900]; 1950 [1903]) focuses on how circulation constitutes new forms of social interaction, culture, the spatial mobility of people, and the experience of modern urban life. Furthermore, Simmel’s (1950 [1903]) classic essay on the stranger highlights the relational aspects of mobility, social differentiation, and otherness that have become critical ways for understanding migration. Yet, even before Simmel, Marx and Engels observed the labor-based spatial mobility of Irish immigrants as crucial for capitalist development in England, the creation of a reserve army of labor, and how that mobility was also used to undermine wider solidarities. Marx and Engels (1975) compare these dynamics with the relationships of white and black labor in the United States, pointing us towards W. E. B. Du Bois’ foundational work on black mobility northward, seeking economic opportunity and an escape from the racism and violence of the post-reconstruction South (Du Bois, 1917, 2017). Du Bois sees mobility—social and spatial—as critical for apprehending the experience of black folks. In the late nineteenth century, Weber’s analysis of the spatial mobility of Polish migrants moving into northeastern Germany as ‘cheap’ labor migrants that led to the dislocation and out-migration of German-speaking peasants connects capitalism, nationalism, and mobility (Mommsen, 1984). In Robert Park’s foundational work on the city, he notes, ‘Society is, to be sure, made up of independent, locomoting individuals. It is this fact of locomotion, as I have said, that defines the very nature of society. But in order that there may be permanence and progress in society the individuals who compose it must be located’ (Park & Burgess, 1967 [1925], p. 159). His colleague Burgess (1967 [1925]) set out a program for research that put mobility at its center for understanding the growth of cities. Burgess’ work on mobility and Park’s work on loco-

16  Research handbook on the sociology of migration motion foreshadow the significant focus on transportation infrastructure, automobilities, road systems, biking, aeromobilities, and airports as transformative systems in the constitution of the social through the spatial and temporal dynamics of movement in urban, suburban, and global domains (Sheller & Urry, 2000; Adey et al., 2014; Cresswell, 2006; Merriman, 2007).

MAKING THE MOBILITY TURN Mobility’s significance in understanding late modernity therefore stretches back to foundational scholars in sociology, but the ‘new mobilities’ paradigm has a much more immediate and recent intellectual context that can be traced to wider global changes in the world’s political economy and technological transformation. Proponents of the ‘new mobilities’ paradigm insist that their focus on movement is not simply a reaction to politico-economic changes or the intensification and speed that technology and communication have enabled in the last forty years. Instead, they argue that this paradigm situates movement as fundamentally constitutive of social practices, culture, and institutions across and in-between different scales (Urry, 2000; Hannam et al., 2006; Sheller & Urry, 2006). Those working in this loosely organized paradigm assert that a relational ontological approach connects humans and non-humans in mobility through attention to the circulation of cultural forms, images, software, and technological infrastructures more broadly. They argue that its relational focus and emphasis on multiple scales of spatial mobility makes the paradigm different from traditional sociological and social theory analyses of the post-Cold War period. Despite their protestations, this ‘new paradigm’ certainly could be seen as part of wider trends across disciplines to comprehend the ‘speed-up’ of globalization marked symbolically by the fall of the Berlin Wall, disintegration of the Soviet bloc, refugee and population movements, and the connections to politico-economic neoliberal transformations: deregulation, the privatization of state enterprises, reduction of global trade barriers, and global financial investment seeking to open markets. Social theorists in the 1990s had responded to these transformations with a focus on flows, liquidity, and networks that transcended nation-state borders and that mimicked, reflected, or critiqued the overarching rhetoric of globalization (Bauman, 2000; Castells, 2004). This flourishing of analysis on the newfound awareness of globalization and its apparent fluidity, anticipated the ‘new mobilities’ approach that assumed mobility is both a process and an outcome. Working in the grounded lives of their informants, anthropologists have engaged with the intense swirls of global activity their informants have encountered. Appadurai (2015) and Hannerz (1992), informed by Deleuze and Guattari’s (1983) emphasis on assemblages, rhizomatic networks, and flow, examine global processes and pluri-perspectives with special attention to transnational migration, diasporas, ‘scapes’, and postcolonial movements. Migration scholars in the ethnographic tradition have followed peoples’ routes and their evolving sense of roots, to trace the circulation of people, things, and ideas in transnational and diasporic migrant worlds across the globe. Even so, this research has always insisted on the frictions, channels, and groundedness of global processes that understand change and movement as central to the construction of social reality (Basch et al., 1994; Clifford, 1997; Ong, 1999; Tsing, 2000). This perspective has resonance later in the work of mobility scholars who increasingly focus on the pair of concepts—mobility and immobility—or what they term ‘moorings’ or fixities, such as ports, transportation systems satellite infrastructure, roads, etc.

Mobility, immobility, and migration  17 It has also started to underscore the inequalities between those who can be mobile and those who cannot (Hannam et al., 2006; Urry, 2007). Social and human geographers have forced a reckoning with the spatial dynamics of power, inequality, and economics, having a profound influence on migration research through their focus on how power differentials across and through space require attention to the power geometries of space and the disjunctures created by global capital (Harvey, 1989; Soja, 2011; Castells, 1996; Massey, 1994). Moreover, connected to this flourishing of perspectives about the transnational and the global beyond the container of the nation-state, theorists have addressed scale and networks to grasp the rapidly changing dynamics of social life. Finance capital moving quickly across the global and technological change that collapsed distance have forced theorists to consider how late modernity affords different perceptions of time in our social relations, either through concepts of space-time compression (Bauman, 2000; Harvey, 1989) or distanciation (Giddens, 1984). This line of theoretical engagement reimagines social relations and co-presence through technological and virtual worlds. The displacement of the traditional subject by scholars interested in relationality with non-human things and systems connects to the work of scholars in science and technology studies who had foreshadowed the central role non-human infrastructure would play in social analysis in the ‘new mobility’s paradigm’ (Latour, 1987). In fact, the assemblage of people and things, systems, and entities of different scales points us towards the centrality of flows and the undermining of the liberal individual and already existing social groupings and the work of philosophers Deleuze and Guattari (1983, 2003). They posit a world in constant motion, through concepts such as territorialization, deterritorialization and reterritorialization by ‘machines’ or complex entities. Flows or forces of movement act and shape social phenomena that are constantly in a form of becoming. By looking at things in terms of flows, the world is seen as something in motion and not filled with static identities or things to be observed and comprehended. By privileging motion, mobility scholars critique a vision of the world structured through fixity.

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF ‘MOBILITY’: ANALYTICAL VALUE AND ITS POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Mobility’s analytical value is ironically limited by one of its greatest strengths: its ubiquity to describe movements of all kinds across disciplinary and transdisciplinary scholarly, institutional, and popular domains. This capaciousness can enable scholars to see the interdependencies across scales, domains, entities, time, and space. Conversely, this all-encompassing frame leads to the blurring of distinctions between many different forms of movement. Today, mobility’s use often reflects the unfortunate academic tendency to apply terms that are faddish to everything that moves (Adey, 2006). As a result, a critique of mobility must acknowledge an extensive variety of research, some of which is more nuanced and self-reflexive. More critically, the conflation of many types of movement glossed as mobility (and immobility) smooths out the variety and specificity of the world of people and things in motion across neutral space. This smoothing out and assumption of empty, neutral space has led some mobility research to resonate with the de-socialized, individualized, and financialized world of neoliberalism. The sociology of mobility’s focus on elites, tourism, and movements of short duration, as opposed to the sociology of migration, which has tended to focus on labor and low-skilled migrants, establishes a stark contrast in analysis. It is unsurprising that a focus on

18  Research handbook on the sociology of migration elites, tourists, and corporate travel would naturalize a seamless, borderless world and frame mobility as a world-changing paradigm. In relation to this, the enthusiasm for how modern technologies enable tourism, elite travel, or middle-class experiences with roads, cars, bikes, etc., engenders a critique, especially from those interested in social inequality within the migration processes of labor migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees (Dahinden, 2016; Portes, 2010). For example, in popular and institutional discourse in the European Union, mobility is seen as a positive feature of the Union, naturalized around middle-class work and consumption goals, whereas migration is heavily securitized and politically fraught. Those who are not mobile or places that are perceived as fixed or moored represent the residue in this analytic approach, instead of a phenomenon intimately involved in constituting the world. Mobile people act in the world, immobile people do not; moreover, mobility and mobile subjects project as forces that create the world, whereas immobility and those posited as sedentary, hence immobile, populations, passively exist. In this asymmetrical position, those moored lack the generative ability for change that comes with mobility. Immobilities imply a backwardness encumbered by traditions. Fixed coordinates, localities, and moorings are thus not engaged in the mutual constitution of social reality but instrumental means by which mobile subjects generate a future they write. The increased focus in this body of work on immobilities and moorings draws on Favell’s (2001) argument that to evaluate mobility one must study things that seem fixed, but this is done only insofar that we privilege mobility as the agent of change in our world. Sensitive to the emergent class-based critique of mobilities, proponents (Cresswell, 2010; Sheller & Urry, 2006) have indicated that the ‘new mobilities paradigm’ should examine how power operates in mobile practices and discourses and thereby constitutes social relations, hierarchies of mobilities, and diverse forms of mobile subjects. As Frello (2008, 2016) notes in her study of Roma, the difficulty is that inequality, in and through mobility, cannot be separated from specific ways mobile subjects are constructed though cultural tropes and historical context that may privilege certain kinds of mobile subjects. One strength of using the term mobility is that scholars who apply the term in migration studies often use it to signal human movement and social relations across spatial scales to disrupt the nation-state container that implicitly operates with a straightforward international state-system frame (Faist, 2013; Mezzadra & Neilson, 2013). Here, mobilities’ attentiveness to migrant agency across borders and through time acknowledges the refusal of migrants to fit within easy categories and can productively focus on the myriad of ways migrants move across jurisdictions and for different durations. Mobility can de-center assumptions about nation-state assimilation, integration, and settlement processes (Favell, Feldblum, & Smith, 2017; Favell, 2014). A mobilities frame addresses a broader canvas across space and time that disrupts the focus on the nation-state as the site for research on migrants and migration, since research often responds to (and is funded by) state-specific concerns about migration. A world of human and non-human mobility flows become grounded or ‘actualized’ in the lives and experiences of migrants that sociologists have studied over the past century. Mobility can productively examine how that grounded-ness may be engaged in networks, imaginaries, technologies, infrastructure, and logistics that extend beyond the nation-state and the temporal constraints of a straight-line assimilationist trajectory. The most promising work using the mobility frame connects digital technologies to the sociology of human migration trajectories and the state surveillance that inhibits, slows, and/ or channels migration’s technological forms. A mobilities frame forces the researcher to pay

Mobility, immobility, and migration  19 close attention to how data and technology transform social relationships and opportunities. Smartphones have become an invaluable tool for refugees on their journey to asylum by providing a multiuse digital infrastructure to aid with their mobility through and across space and time (Dekker, Engbersen, Klaver, & Vonk, 2018; Gillespie, Osseiran, & Cheesman, 2018; Harney, 2013). They provide access to vital information about safe routes, contacts, and where to find help. Smartphones also provide a way for refugees to stay in contact with their families and support networks, geopolitical news that may affect their journey, and entertainment to ease the stress and boredom across uncertain spatial terrains. With access to maps and GPS navigation, migrants have a better chance of avoiding dangerous or restricted areas. Finally, smartphones provide a platform for refugees to document their journey, which can be invaluable evidence for their asylum cases. If smartphones with GPS, WhatsApp, Signal, or Facebook, for example, compress space and time, offering migrants agency through mobile infrastructures to navigate dangerous and uncertain journeys, other technologies affect the mobilities of would-be refugees and asylum seekers by use of surveillance—data and drones, for example. Technology can control, channel, and prevent the mobility of would-be refugees by collecting and analyzing data from digital sources such as mobile phone records, social media accounts, and GPS tracking. These data can be used to identify patterns and trends in refugee movements, as well as to detect supposed suspicious activity. They can also be used to monitor refugee camps, manage refugee populations, and track migrants as they move between countries. Additionally, technology can be used to help prevent migrants from entering certain countries by providing border security agencies with real-time data on migration patterns, allowing them to identify, respond, and control migrants more quickly (Feldman, 2011). Mobility and technology help us confront degrees of speed and acceleration both in physical human migration and the flow of cultural imaginaries, rumors, and social control. Some people are allowed to be mobile; others wait, are made immobile, or are channeled at different speeds in and through different places. Yet, these controls are not always a success—the knowledge created through data on mobile smartphones defies and challenges the state technologies of surveillance in constant contestation over control and escape (Mezzadra & Neilson, 2013; Papadopoulos, Stephenson, & Tsianos, 2008; Scheel, 2019; Tazzioli, 2019). Mobility and immobility will continue to be broadly used to interpret and inform ongoing global processes bringing together humans, technology, and space and time in intriguing ways in an increasingly techno-assisted world. This framing and consideration of mobility and immobility in comprehensive ways can demonstrate how motion and movement transforms our social relations across time and space. The mobilities paradigm demands that scholars in the sociology of migration consider the intensity and variety of mobile forms, networks, agents, subjects and objects, mediated through technology, which have profound effects on our social relations and forms. In addition, by disrupting the nation-state frame that commonly sets the framing of work in the sociology of migration, mobility and immobility denaturalizes assumptions about what social forms exist and should be open to analytical consideration as potentially new objects of analysis and varied transborder or global assemblages of connections in human migration. For scholars of migration, the new mobilities paradigm’s holistic view of human mobility as migration, tourism, commuting, travel, virtual mobility, etc. situates mobility as a central aspect of the sociology of the contemporary world. Some sociologists have attempted to integrate the new mobilities paradigm into their analysis, while others have argued that the new mobilities paradigm can lead to an overemphasis on individual agency and

20  Research handbook on the sociology of migration a neglect of the structural factors that shape migration patterns. Generally, the sociology of migration seeks to balance a recognition of the role of mobility in shaping migration with an understanding of the complex social, economic, and political forces that influence migration decisions and experiences.

REFERENCES Adey, P. (2006). If mobility is everything then it is nothing: Towards a relational politics of (im)mobilities. Mobilities, 1(1), 75–94. Adey, P., Bissell, D., Hannam, K., Merriman, P., & Sheller, M. (Eds.) (2014). The Routledge handbook of mobilities. London: Routledge. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Appadurai, A. (2015). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In P. Williams & L. Chrisman (Eds.) Colonial discourse and post-colonial theory (pp. 324–339). London: Routledge. Basch, L., Schiller, N. G., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1994). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. New York: Gordon and Breach. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bigo, D. (2011). Freedom and speed in enlarged borderzones. In V. Squire (Ed.) The contested politics of mobility: Borderzones and irregularity (pp. 31–50). New York: Routledge. Brettell, C. B., & Hollifield, J. F. (Eds.) (2002). Migration theory: Talking across disciplines. New York & London: Routledge. Burgess, E. W. (1967 [1925]). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess, The city (pp. 47–62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Büscher, M., & Urry, J. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 99–116. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Castells, M. (2004). The network society. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and translation in the late twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern Western world. London: Routledge. Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space, 28(1), 17–31. Dahinden, J. (2016). A plea for the ‘de-migranticization’ of research on migration and integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(13), 2207–2225. Dekker, R., Engbersen, G., Klaver, J., & Vonk, H. (2018). Smart refugees: How Syrian asylum migrants use social media information in migration decision-making. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118764439. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. R. Lane, trans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2003). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1917). The migration of Negroes. Crisis (June), 63–66. Du Bois, W. E. B. (2017). Black reconstruction in America: Toward a history of the part which black folk played in the attempt to reconstruct democracy in America. London: Routledge. Faist, T. (2013). The mobility turn: A new paradigm for the social sciences? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(11), 1637–1646. Favell, A. (2001). Migration, mobility and globaloney: Metaphors and rhetoric in the sociology of globalization. Global Networks, 1(4), 389–398. Favell, A. (2014). Immigration, integration and mobility: New agendas in migration studies. Colchester: ECPR Press. Favell, A., Feldblum, M., & Smith, M. P. (2017). The human face of global mobility: A research agenda. Society, 44(2), 15–25.

Mobility, immobility, and migration  21 Feldman, G. (2011). The migration apparatus: Security, labor, and policymaking in the European Union. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. FitzGerald, D. (2012). A comparativist manifesto for international migration studies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(10), 1725–1740. Frello, B. (2008). Towards a discursive analytics of movement: On the making and unmaking of movement as an object of knowledge. Mobilities, 3(1), 25–50. Frello, B. (2016). ‘Inappropriate’ Europeans: On fear, space and Roma mobility. In M. Endres, K. Manderscheid, & C. Mincke (Eds.) The mobilities paradigm: Discourses and ideologies (pp. 144–160). London: Routledge. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gillespie, M., Osseiran, S., & Cheesman, M. (2018). Syrian refugees and the digital passage to Europe: Smartphone infrastructures and affordances. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118764440. Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation and American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. New York: Oxford University Press. Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Mobilities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities, 1(1), 1–22. Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning. New York: Columbia University Press. Harney, N. (2013). Precarity, affect and problem solving with mobile phones by asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in Naples, Italy. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26(4), 541–557. Harvey, D. (1989). The urban experience. Oxford: Blackwell. Kusenbach, M. (2012). Mobile methods. In S. Delamont (Ed.) Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 252–264). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Larsen, J. (2008). Practices and flows of digital photography: An ethnographic framework. Mobilities, 3(1), 117–140. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Lipset, S. M., & Bendix, R. (1959). Social mobility in industrial society. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1975). Selected correspondence. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Retrieved from https://​www​.marxists​.org/​archive/​marx/​works/​1870/​letters/​70​_04​_09​.htm. Massey, D. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Merriman, P. (2007). Driving spaces: A cultural-historical geography of England’s M1 motorway. Oxford: Blackwell. Merriman, P. (2014). Rethinking mobile methods. Mobilities, 9(2), 167–187. Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Molz, J. (2012). Travel connections: Tourism, technology and togetherness in a mobile world. London: Routledge. Mommsen, W. J. (1984). Max Weber and German politics, 1890–1920. M. S. Steinberg trans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Papadopoulos, D., Stephenson, N., & Tsianos, V. (2008). Escape routes: Control and subversion in the twenty-first century. London: Pluto Press. Park, R. E. (1914). Racial assimilation in secondary groups with particular reference to the Negro. American Journal of Sociology, 19(5), 606–623. Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1967). The city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Portes, A. (2010). Migration and social change: Some conceptual reflections. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1537–1563. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530(1), 74–96. Scheel, S. (2019). Autonomy of migration? Appropriating mobility within biometric border regimes. London & New York: Routledge.

22  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Sheller, M. (2021). Advanced introduction to mobilities. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2000). The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 737–757. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226. Simmel, G. (1908). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Simmel, G. (1950 [1903]). The metropolis and mental life. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.) The sociology of Georg Simmel (pp. 409–424). New York: Free Press. Simmel, G. (1990 [1900]). Philosophy of money. Second Edition, D. Frisby (Ed.). London: Routledge. Soja, E. (2011). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso. Sorokin, P. A. (1927). Social mobility. New York: Harper. Tazzioli, M. (2019). The making of migration: The biopolitics of mobility at Europe’s borders. London: Sage. Tsing, A. (2000). The global situation. Cultural Anthropology, 15(3), 327–360. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2023). Operational Data Portal, Ukrainian Refugee Situation. Retrieved from https://​data​.unhcr​.org/​en/​situations/​ukraine. Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.

2. Borders and boundaries Giuseppe Sciortino

INTRODUCTION The place in which I was born and raised is, according to Google Maps, 1,494 kilometers from my current place of residence. To travel there by car, according to the same source, would take 16 hours and 18 minutes. The place where my wife was born and grew up is a mere 424 kilometers from our current place of residence. If we wanted to visit, the trip by car would take a little less than five hours. I am not a migrant. My wife, in contrast, is a full-fledged one: her homecoming visits require the crossing of two state borders. As this family story reveals, migration has little to do with geographical distance, and a lot to do with borders. These borders, however, change over time. A little more than a century ago, my wife would have been a mere internal migrant, as she would have moved entirely within the territory of a single, well-established, empire. In the same period, I would have been a foreign migrant arriving from a faraway land. Political borders—with their checkpoints, customs, uniforms, and documents—are only the most visible (if only deceivingly obvious), form of boundaries regulating spatial mobility. Legal boundaries, establishing legitimate membership (with its accompanying rights) are no less important. They also move in space and time. To go back to the family story, my wife used to be, in our place of residence, a resident foreigner. In 2008, having lived in the country for more than the required decade, she went through a process called ‘naturalization’, which transported her across the main boundary of contemporary membership, namely, citizenship. The apparent ‘naturalness’ of the alignment of residence and nationality was thus confirmed (Brubaker, 1990; Bauböck, 1994). Over the same period, many of her former schoolmates did the same without ever having left their hometown. A new Italian law had just determined that, if their grandparents had been (even if rather briefly) Italian subjects, they were considered eligible fellow citizens. While they had stayed put, the boundaries of the Italian polity had expanded into the territory of another state (Croatia) to include them. As political borders, legal boundaries are dynamic entities: sometimes people move across them, sometimes they move across people. Political borders and legal boundaries are far from the only lines across which migrants travel. Even with their ‘papers’ in order, even when ‘naturalized’, migrants encounter many other forms of closed membership, and inclusion must be negotiated, not always successfully. Even the space of universalistic solidarities is nearly always marked by, intentionally or indirectly, exclusionary understandings (Alexander, 2001). In everyday life, migration means encountering the rather strict boundary separating those who have the tacit knowledge that entitles them to insider status and those who can be considered, at best, tolerated novices. Both inclusion and exclusion shift over time.

23

24  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

BORDERS AND MIGRATION The world, as any schoolchild knows, is divided into sovereign nation states, each of them claiming exclusive control over a well-defined slice of the landmass. Except for the Russian Federation, empires have largely disappeared. Once popular political forms—such as buffer states—have receded into remote memory. Although a relatively recent invention, the nation state is the leading political form on the planet, and it is bound to remain so at least over the medium term (Poggi, 1991). Well-defined political borders are an essential feature of this hegemonic political form. Each nation state controls its slice of territory on behalf of a population assumed to have specific features. Unsurprisingly, states have acquired a growing interest in the composition of their population. They claim, with varying degrees of good faith, to exist in order to ensure the rights of their citizens and the reproduction of a distinctive cultural lifestyle. Their citizens increasingly believe such claims, holding states responsible for a growing number of social and political shortcomings. In some nation states, the population—turning into an electorate— even has the power to fire its own rulers. None of this would be possible without a formalized procedure for establishing who has a legitimate voice and who has the right to have rights. Nor is this limited to arcane issues of political theory. Many contemporary states are welfare states, extracting astonishingly—in historical-comparative terms—large quantities of resources from their citizens and delivering them, in turn, a large (again comparatively) basket of goods and services. The size of the population, and the contribution it may bring to the state coffers, are consequently of great importance (Freeman, 2013; Sciortino & Finotelli, 2015). Not all states are able, however, to control their populations with the same legitimacy and efficacy. The international migration regime is actually built on a fundamental asymmetry: sending countries are requested to respect the emigration of their citizens; in fact, it is enshrined as a fundamental human right. Receiving countries are granted by international law a great latitude—with the partial exception of refugees—in selecting how many people are to be admitted (and under which conditions). Emigrating is a human right; immigrating is a concession. Unsurprisingly, it is the power of (potential) receiving states that shapes the international migration regime (Hollifield & Foley, 2022). The asymmetry is the direct consequence of the growth of regional inequality over the last two centuries. It has made location, the place where you do something, nearly always more important than what you do. On a global scale, 60 percent of lifetime income is determined by the country of birth (Milanovic, 2016). The existence and functioning of political borders consequently play a crucial role in preserving the stratification order. On a hypothetical continuum ranging from ‘open’ to ‘closed’, the immigration policies of capitalist democracies are clustered around the most restrictive pole (Zolberg, 1999). Potential movements towards the most desired destinations are to be closely watched, entry slots are carefully monitored (Hollifield, Martin, Orrenius, & Héran, 2022). More and more often, economically developed receiving states must try to ‘court the Top’, namely, to attract highly skilled migrants, while at the same time ‘fend-off the Bottom’ (Joppke, 2021). Given the importance of state borders in the contemporary world, it is surprising that the sociology of migration has long ignored, or at least seriously downplayed, them. For quite a long time, the role of policies was considered of little importance. When sociologists did consider borders, they assumed their action was simply the automatic reflex of structural interests (Sciortino, 2000). Otherwise, as in the early 1990s, borders were judged to be in

Borders and boundaries  25 a state of structural crisis, unable to seriously influence the migration dynamics propelled by globalization (Arango, 2000). It is only thanks to the seminal work of Aristide Zolberg that the sociology of migration has increasingly acknowledged the growing role played by political boundaries in restricting, regulating, and shaping population movements (Zolberg, 1981, 1989). Zolberg has opened a line of research that has quickly highlighted how the monopolization of the legitimate means of movements is a main feature of the development of the modern state (Fahrmeir, Faron, & Weil, 2003; Reinecke, 2009; Roche, 1969). Such monopolization derives both from the need to control spatial movements and to distinguish members from non-members (Torpey, 1998). Equally important is the growing literature on the current functioning of borders, highlighting the set of (often contradictory) tensions that operate behind, and beyond, what are often perceived as simple operational shortcomings (Bigo & Guild, 2005; De Genvoa, 2017; Dijstelbloem & Broeders, 2015; Fassin, 2011; Leerkes, Leach, & Bachmeier, 2011; Monzini, Pastore, & Sciortino, 2006). To fully understand the importance of state borders in migration research, it is necessary to go beyond the traditional understanding of borders as a physical line delineating a territory. Again, it is Aristide Zolberg who first pointed out how the migration controls of modern receiving states have quickly expanded well beyond physical borders. Borders have actually proliferated, both outside and inside the territory of the state. Most unwanted migrants encounter the border in embassies (when denied a visa), in travel agencies (when denied tickets without the proper documents), or on the territory of a third country entrusted with discouraging ‘transit’ migrants (Zolberg, 2003). The externalization of borders has been progressively adopted by receiving countries, fostering a growing symbolic separation between them and the places of origin for potential migrants (Brochmann & Hammar, 1999; FitzGerald, 2020; Thomas, 2021). In particular, entry visas have become the main tool of contemporary migration control, allowing for a strong and granular selectivity of entry requests (Finotelli & Sciortino, 2013; Mau, Gülzau, Laube, & Zaun, 2015; Neumayer, 2006). The adoption of remote controls has been particularly useful in deflecting the flows of refugees and asylum-seekers, categories of migrants that, if able to reach the border of liberal states, would be able to claim international law protection again refoulement (FitzGerald, 2019). Borders, moreover, have also been internalized, operating within the territory of the receiving states. In many receiving countries, a set of measures has been enacted, and subsequently tightened, to make the lives of those migrants who have been able to cross the border more difficult. Most of these measures have been focused on strengthening the boundary between those entitled to participate in the opportunities existing in the territory and those who are not. For example, while in the past, the offer of a job could pave the way towards legitimate residence status, today, it is much more often the case that the availability of jobs is contingent upon already possessing a regular residence permit (Bommes & Sciortino, 2011). Some of these policies have been explicit, such as the introduction of border ‘areas’, from which irregular migrants may be repelled even if they are already physically inside the border lines, the intensification of identity checks in public spaces, and the strengthening of sanctions for smugglers and traffickers. Others operate irregularly, such as increased sanctions for those providing services to unauthorized migrants, the strengthening of controls on the labor market, and—above all—the closing of any loopholes allowing unauthorized migrants to access welfare provision (Engbersen, 2003; Geddes, 2000; Sciortino, 2013). How effective have these policies been in containing ‘unwanted’ immigration in receiving states? The literature is sharply divided on the issue (Czaika & De Haas, 2013). A main reason

26  Research handbook on the sociology of migration for the lack of a clear answer is that liberal states often self-sacrifice the potential efficacy of border control to preserve their embedded liberalism (Joppke, 1998). A second important consideration is that scholars discussing the efficacy of control policy often look at very different indicators (Echeverría, 2020). For some, controls are ultimately ineffective, as demonstrated by the large unauthorized populations able to live in developed countries without legitimate residence status. Others argue that what matters is not the size of the actual unauthorized population (that is, anyway, relatively contained), but the capacity of receiving states to contain actual migration against a skyrocketing increase in the demand for admissions (Cvajner & Sciortino, 2010). The dynamic efforts in creating layer after layer of internal and external controls have highlighted how borders cannot be simply considered boundaries that are lines (Jones, 2009). They must be understood also in processual terms, not as a ‘thing’ but rather as a constant process. It has thus become increasingly common to talk of ‘bordering’, as a practice, rather than of ‘borders’ as a thing (Cooper & Perkins, 2011; Yuval-Davis, Wemyss, & Cassidy, 2019).

MIGRATION AND BOUNDARIES The importance of bordering by contemporary states should not lead to an over-politicization of the migration process, which would overshadow the importance of social and cultural boundaries. Most current definitions of international migration require the crossing of a political border, and for good reasons. At the same time, defining migration in terms of the crossing of state borders is not without problems. It implies a distinction between internal and international (and permanent and temporary) migration that is often too sharp for the analysis of many flows.1 Many forms of migration—such as the movement from rural to urban areas—imply the crossing of quite significant boundaries without crossing a state border (FitzGerald, 2006). It is also a hindrance to most historical comparisons, as it makes migration strongly dependent on the crossing of borders typical of modern society. It has consequently been argued recently that, for many analytical purposes, it is preferable to see migration as the spatial crossing of an ethno-cultural (or even simply ‘cultural’) boundary rather than an international one (Lucassen & Lucassen, 2017). The importance of seeing migration in terms of cultural boundary crossing is not restricted to historical comparative work. It is related to the nature of migration itself. As a social process, migration always involves crossing a variety of symbolic and social boundaries. Migrants interact—in sending, transit, and receiving contexts—with many categorical systems that strongly frame the classification of individuals, networks, and groups, organizing and limiting everyday life, reifying distinctions between insiders and outsiders. Many of these bounding processes are not codified in legal terms, and some of them operate largely informally, if not subconsciously. The migrant—whether an emigrant or immigrant—is perceived as someone who does not properly belong, or who—at best—may be given a probationary status within a given social sphere (Brubaker, 2010). The perceived quality of belonging, and its ongoing boundary work, influence the willingness to engage in interpersonal contact (Manevska, Achterberg, & Houtman, 2018), attitudes towards immigrants (Bail, 2008; Jaworsky, Klvaňová, Rapoš Božič, Rétiová, & Krotký, 2023) and even the willingness to help (Jaworsky, Rétiová, & Binder, 2022). In fact, understanding the outcome of any settlement process requires paying attention not only to the structure of socio-economic opportunities but

Borders and boundaries  27 also to the available symbolic means to claim membership, to establish a legitimate foothold in the social space (Bauböck, 1998; Sciortino, 2012). While socio-economic incorporation has received a good deal of attention in migration studies, the study of the cultural dimensions of migration is still largely underdeveloped (Levitt, 2005). Many migration scholars do not have problems in focusing on state borders— with their institutional visibility and material cogency—while judging social or symbolic boundaries too ‘soft’ to be studied systematically. Dealing with issues of cultural difference, the field of migration studies is still largely split between those who see cultural differences as a mere decoy for power inequalities and those willing to take at face value the description of reality endorsed by the involved actors, particularly when they are the migrants themselves. Even if an increased cultural sensibility may be detected, it is still largely employed to ‘uncover’ hidden forms of prejudice and xenophobia. As a consequence, most of sociological work on the cultural dimension of international migration seems still caught in a debunking mode. The attention to the contingency of difference-based discourses generates neither fascination with their meaning structures nor an interest in explaining the specific semantic structures that sustain (and constrain) their classificatory power and their capacity to persuade. As a field, migration studies have only marginally contributed to one of the (few) main positive novelties of the last decades of social scientific research: the emergence of an integrated field devoted to the study of ethnicity, race, and nationhood as a ‘single integrated family of forms of cultural understanding, social organization and political contestation’ (Brubaker, 2009, p. 22; emphasis in original). A renewed interest in migration-related social boundaries offers an important opportunity to go beyond these shortcomings. Within cultural sociology, in fact, there is an important debate on the dynamic study of social boundaries and—above all—on the role social interaction plays in sustaining, hardening, or blurring them (Abbott, 1995; Lamont & Molnar, 2002; Lamont, Pendergrass, & Pachucki, 2015). Research on social boundaries has shown that the way in which boundaries are drawn is not without consequences for the development of processes of inclusion and exclusion (Bauböck, 1998; Edgell, Stewart, Billups, & Larson, 2020).

MOVING TOWARDS A CULTURAL SOCIOLOGY OF BOUNDARY MAKING The contemporary sociology of social boundaries has nothing to do with a holistic vision of groups, cultures, and identities. Fredrick Barth, the social anthropologist often considered the founder of contemporary research on boundaries, designed it as a project on group boundary making (Barth, 1969). He claimed that ethnicity should not be conceived in terms of stable patterns of shared cultural traits. The significance of ethnic categories is not rooted in actual cultural differences—what he called derogatorily ‘the cultural stuff’—but rather in specific patterns of social interaction. Barth claimed that it was this system of differential expectations—not the cultural traits that may or may not be used to identify members of each category—that constitute the key dimension of ethnic phenomena. Boundaries are not a consequence of the existence of different groups; they are the way in which groups and categories are created and maintained. Actors use cultural resources to make and maintain the boundary, not the other way around. This explains why ethnic differences may persist regardless of

28  Research handbook on the sociology of migration mobility across categories, high cultural commonality across different ethnic groups, or, on the contrary, high cultural variance within the group. Barth’s criticism has been highly influential, his paper being one of the most quoted in the social sciences (Barth, 2012; Eriksen & Jakoubek, 2018; Hummell, 2014). It has contributed to a radically new way of understanding difference-based interactions in terms of boundary work rather than collective actors (Brubaker, 2004). The potential contribution of his approach to migration studies is, however, still far from being exhausted (Wimmer, 2009). The subsequent development of a sociology of boundaries has followed two rather different paths. They bifurcate concerning (1) the nature of boundary-making actions and (2) the relationships between social and symbolic boundaries. The most popular strand of boundary research sees symbolic boundary making as an instrumental, strategic activity. Boundary making—both symbolic and social—is equated with social closure (and social closure, in turn, with social inequality). In studying the incorporation of migrants, Charles Tilly (1998) has defined boundary making as a strategy implemented by networks and groups in order to marginalize other potential competitors and to hoard any set of occupational opportunities they may succeed in controlling. Unsurprisingly, in his model, structural processes may lead to changes in the configuration of symbolic boundaries, while the inverse case is hardly ever mentioned (Tilly, 2004). Tilly has defined migration in terms of networks and categories. Networks migrate; categories stay put; networks create new categories (Tilly, 2000). For Tilly, it is always the network that creates the symbolic categories, in order to hoard some source of opportunities and exclude others. It is never the opposite (Tilly, 1998, 2005). A similar tendency can be seen in the work of Andreas Wimmer, one of the most innovative theorists of boundary making. He insists that boundary-making activities require the availability of convincing discourses, able to redefine the meaning of ascriptive categories. He even suggests that, lacking such persuasive elements, actors may resist and refuse boundary-making activity even if it would improve their social status (Wimmer, 2008). Still, in his framework for studying the various possible outcomes of immigrant incorporation, Wimmer (2009) marginalizes the discursive, symbolic, activities in favor of a triad composed of institutional rules, power distribution, and networks of political alliances. The most systematic combination of an instrumental understanding of social action and a subordinate understanding of symbolic boundaries is offered by the work of Pierre Bourdieu that, although only marginally relevant to migration research, has been an inspiration for many scholars dealing with mobility and migration (Erel, 2010; Kim, 2018; Oliver & O’Reilly, 2010; Sayad, 2004). In his framework, there is a fundamental homology between social and symbolic boundaries. They are not only highly interrelated; they follow the same logic of instrumental conflict: the creation of symbolic boundaries is a performative action that, using the language of revelation and construction, produces what it claims to have found in reality (Bourdieu, 1991). The conflict about the legitimate ways of dividing the social world is one and the same thing as the conflict over the distribution of social power. From Bourdieu’s perspective, the significant symbolic boundaries are the ones that are largely overlapping with specific social configurations and functional to their reproduction.2 The combination of a strong notion of boundary making as a strategic activity and a weak notion of the autonomy of the symbolic dimension is not, however, the only possibility. Indeed, it can be argued that such a perspective imposes unnecessary analytical limits on social research (Sciortino, 2012). Granting (analytic) autonomy to symbolic boundaries—far from being a postmodern bonfire of the vanities—renders visible how, in complex societies, collec-

Borders and boundaries  29 tive representations are hardly ever homologous with social structures. A major implication is that boundary-making processes are contingent upon a creative interpretation of the cultural codes, classifications, and narratives that constitute a major resource for their creation and maintenance. ‘Foreignness’—as is the case for ethnicity, race, or nationhood—can be seen as one form belonging to a rich family of semantic constructions dealing with social membership and with the qualities necessary to be included in it. They are forms able—or at least make a claim—to define ‘imagined communities’ in Anderson’s (1983) use of the term. In short, granting analytical autonomy results in a cultural sociology of boundary making. The theoretical choice of giving analytical autonomy to symbolic boundaries opens new possibilities for exploring immigrant incorporation (Kivisto, 2012). Many of the most interesting phenomena in migration research take place precisely when symbolic categories and social clusters do not coincide. It is, to cite one example out of many, precisely the mismatch of social and symbolic boundaries that energizes the processes of civil repair as well as the tensions over inclusion or exclusion (Alexander, 2016; Sciortino, 2021). In short, exclusion and inclusion are determined by structural and cultural forces, by network positions and coding according to specific symbolic codes, by political coalitions and crosscutting understanding of the moral order (Alexander, 1990, 2006). If processes of boundary making are so dynamic, it is precisely because actors may develop claims to social inclusion grounded on their previous membership in larger symbolic communities, as well as try to disqualify members of existing social networks owing to their polluting location in the symbolic order (Becker, 2021). Rather than reflecting sic et simpliciter the balance of powers among members of various categories, the dynamism of boundary making is oriented to, and acting upon, the gaps and discrepancies between social and symbolic orders. Granting analytical autonomy to symbolic boundaries does not imply denying that boundary making is a process in which uneven and motley networks and asymmetric power relations play a great role. It acknowledges, however, that it is also a cultural activity linked to a vision of the world, triggered and regulated by overarching semiotic structures that classify events and possibilities in structured patterns of codes and narratives. Stressing the importance of symbolic boundaries, and their analytical autonomy, does not imply going back to a vision of boundaries as reflexes of actual differences in specific cultural contents. Nor is it a return to the vision of boundaries only as a matter of subjective attribution. To claim that symbolic boundary making is rooted in deeper cultural structures actually strengthens the view that social categories, social groups, identities, and subcultures do not exist in isolation. Their actual meaning is always given by their position in the structural and symbolic orders that regulate social life. Such categories are a consequence of the specific form of the social and moral order in its historical developments, not its elementary, pre-existing, constituents.

CONCLUSIONS Migration is a process of spatial mobility that implies the crossing of boundaries. Migration movements cannot be understood adequately looking only at the projects of migrants and households, the functioning of networks, the expected opportunities in the receiving contexts, or changes in the conditions in sending contexts. Individual characteristics of migrants and features of the contexts of incorporation are important, but partial, pieces of the puzzle. Important

30  Research handbook on the sociology of migration as they may be, the birth of a migration system can be understood only by looking at how these factors interact with the boundaries separating the territories, the social worlds of migrants and natives, of insiders, and outsiders. Migration, moreover, produces its own boundaries, and its impact on sending and receiving societies cannot be adequately understood without taking into consideration the ways in which it modifies—hardening, blurring, shifting—the system of membership that regulates such boundaries. Surprisingly, the sociology of migration has—for a long time—paid little attention to boundaries. Even state borders, a key element in the very same definition of international migration, have started to be explored systematically only in the last decades. Migration studies, moreover, are still contributing relatively little to the fast-growing field of boundary studies. In the previous pages, it has been argued that migration scholars should pay much more attention to the role of borders in shaping contemporary mobility, thus paying the political dimension of migration its due. They should also, however, avoid conflating state borders and social and symbolic boundaries. There are good theoretical reasons to respect the autonomy of these analytical levels. Empirically, some of the most interesting phenomena in migration research are precisely those that are energized by the fact that political borders, symbolic categories, and social clusters do not coincide.

NOTES 1. It should not be forgotten that there are many cases in which ‘internal’ migration is heavily controlled and regulated. The regulation of domestic travel and resettlement through a system of internal passports and residence permits was a key feature of everyday life in the USSR, shaping most life-chances (Light, 2012). The Hukou household registration system in contemporary China determines an effective loss of civil and social rights for millions of internal migrants moving to industrializing cities (Chan, 2018). 2. The same applies to many researchers employing a Bourdieusian framework, with some important exceptions. Todd (2005) offers an interesting attempt to revise Bourdieu’s framework, making it possible to account for the autonomy of the categorical order in social transformation and not only reproduction. Bail (2008), in his analysis of symbolic boundaries drawn against immigrants in Europe, argues that the materials employed to trace such boundaries has consequences on integration processes.

REFERENCES Abbott, A. (1995). Things of boundaries. Social Research, 62(4), 857–882. Alexander, J. C. (1990). Core solidarity, ethnic outgroups and structural differentiation: Toward a multidimensional model of inclusion in modern societies. In J. C. Alexander & P. Colomy (Eds) Differentiation theory and social change (pp. 267–293). Los Angeles: Sage. Alexander, J. C. (2001). Theorizing the ‘modes of incorporation’: Assimilation, hyphenation and multiculturalism as varieties of civil participation. Sociological Theory, 19(3), 237–249. Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexander, J. C. (2016). Progress and disillusion: Civil repair and its discontents. Thesis Eleven, 137(1), 72–82. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Borders and boundaries  31 Arango, J. (2000). Explaining migration: A critical view. International Social Science Journal, 165, 285–296. Bail, C. A. (2008). The configuration of symbolic boundaries against immigrants in Europe. American Sociological Review, 73(1), 37–59. Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Barth, F. (2012). Boundaries and connections. In A. Cohen (Ed.) Signifying identities (pp. 25–44). London: Routledge. Bauböck, R. (1994). Transnational citizenship: Membership and rights in international migration. Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, VT, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Bauböck, R. (1998). The crossing and blurring of boundaries in international migration. In R. Bauböck & J. Rundell (Eds.) Blurred boundaries: Migration, ethnicity, citizenship (pp. 17–52). Aldershot: Ashgate. Becker, E. (2021). Mosques in the metropolis: Incivility, caste, and contention in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bigo, D., & Guild, E. (2005). Controlling frontiers: Free movements into and within Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate. Bommes, M., & Sciortino, G. (Eds.) (2011). Foggy social structures: Irregular migration, informal economy and welfare regimes. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brochmann, G., & Hammar, T. (1999). Mechanisms of immigration control. Oxford: Berg. Brubaker, R. (1990). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. New York: Columbia University Press. Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brubaker, R. (2009). Ethnicity, race and nationalism. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 21–42. Brubaker, R. (2010). Migration, membership, and the modern nation-state: Internal and external dimensions of the politics of belonging. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 41(1), 61–78. Chan, K. W. (2018). Urbanization with Chinese characteristics: The hukou system and migration. London: Routledge. Cooper, A., & Perkins, C. (2011). Borders and status-functions: An institutional approach to the study of borders. European Journal of Social Theory, 15(1), 55–71. Cvajner, M., & Sciortino, G. (2010). Theorizing irregular migration: The control of spatial mobility in differentiated societies. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 389–404. Czaika, M., & De Haas, H. (2013). The effectiveness of immigration policies. Population and Development Review, 39(3), 487–508. De Genova, N. (2017). The borders of ‘Europe’: Autonomy of migration, tactics of bordering. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Dijstelbloem, H., & Broeders, D. (2015). Border surveillance, mobility management and the shaping of non-publics in Europe. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(1), 21–38. Echeverría, G. (2020). Towards a systemic theory of irregular migration: Explaining Ecuadorian irregular migration in Amsterdam and Madrid. Cham: Springer Nature. Edgell, P., Stewart, E., Billups, S. C., & Larson, R. (2020). The stakes of symbolic boundaries. The Sociological Quarterly, 61(2), 309–333. Engbersen, G. (2003). The wall around the welfare state in Europe: International migration and social exclusion. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 46(3), 479–495. Erel, U. (2010). Migrating cultural capital: Bourdieu in migration studies. Sociology, 44(4), 642–660. Eriksen, T. H., & Jakoubek, M. (Eds.) (2018). Ethnic groups and boundaries today: A legacy of fifty years. London: Routledge. Fahrmeir, A., Faron, O., & Weil, P. (Eds.) (2003). Migration control in the North Atlantic world. Oxford: Berghahn. Fassin, D. (2011). Policing borders, producing boundaries: The governmentality of immigration in dark times. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 213–226. Finotelli, C., & Sciortino, G. (2013). Through the gates of the fortress: European visa policies and the limits of immigration control. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 14(1), 80–101.

32  Research handbook on the sociology of migration FitzGerald, D. S. (2006). Towards a theoretical ethnography of migration. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 1–24. FitzGerald, D. S. (2019). Refuge beyond reach: How rich democracies repel asylum seekers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. FitzGerald, D. S. (2020). Remote control of migration: Theorising territoriality, shared coercion, and deterrence. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(1), 4–22. Freeman, G. (2013). Migration and the political economy of the welfare state: Thirty years later. In G. Brochmann & T. Jurado (Eds.) Europe’s immigration challenge (pp. 15–31). London: I. B. Tauris. Geddes, A. (2000). Denying access: Asylum seekers and welfare benefits in the UK. In M. Bommes & A. Geddes (Eds.) Immigration and welfare: Challenging the borders of the welfare state (pp. 134–147). London: Routledge. Hollifield, J. F., & Foley, N. (2022). Understanding global migration. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hollifield, J. F., Martin, P. L., Orrenius, P. M., & Héran, F. (Eds.) (2022). Controlling immigration: A comparative perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hummell, E. (2014). Standing the test of time: Barth and ethnicity. Coolabah, 13, 46–60. Jaworsky, B. N., Klvaňová, R., Rapoš Božič, I., Rétiová, A., & Krotký, J. (2023). A critical cultural sociological exploration of attitudes toward migration in Czechia: What lies beneath the fear of the thirteenth migrant. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Jaworsky, B. N., Rétiová, A., & Binder, W. (2022). ‘What do we see when we look at people on the move?’ A visual intervention into civil sphere and symbolic boundary theory. Visual Studies, 1–12. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​1472586X​.2022​.2145990. Jones, R. (2009). Categories, borders and boundaries. Progress in Human Geography, 33(2), 174–189. Joppke, C. (1998). Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration. World Politics, 50(2), 266–293. Joppke, C. (2021). Neoliberal nationalism: Immigration and the rise of the populist right. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, J. (2018). Migration-facilitating capital: A Bourdieusian theory of international migration. Sociological Theory, 36(3), 262–288. Kivisto, P. (2012). We really are all multiculturalists now. The Sociological Quarterly, 53(1), 1–24. Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195. Lamont, M., Pendergrass, S., & Pachucki, M. (2015). Symbolic boundaries. In J. Wright (Ed.) International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, vol. 2 (pp. 850–855). Oxford: Elsevier. Leerkes, A., Leach, M., & Bachmeier, J. (2012). Borders behind the border: An exploration of state-level differences in migration control and their effects on US migration patterns. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(1), 111–129. Levitt, P. (2005). Building bridges: What migration scholarship and cultural sociology have to say to each other. Poetics, 33, 49–62. Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395–429. Lucassen, J., & Lucassen, L. (2017). Theorizing cross-cultural migrations: The case of Eurasia since 1500. Social Science History, 41(3), 445–475. Manevska, K., Achterberg, P., & Houtman, D. (2018). Why there is less supportive evidence for contact theory than they say there is: A quantitative cultural-sociological critique. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 6(2), 296–321. Mau, S., Gülzau, F., Laube, L., & Zaun, N. (2015). The global mobility divide: How visa policies have evolved over time. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(8), 1192–1213. Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Monzini, P., Pastore, F., & Sciortino, G. (2006). Schengen’s soft underbelly? Irregular migration and human smuggling across land and sea borders to Italy. International Migration, 44(4), 1–25. Neumayer, E. (2006). Unequal access to foreign spaces: How states use visa restrictions to regulate mobility in a globalized world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(1), 72–84. Oliver, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2010). A Bourdieusian analysis of class and migration: Habitus and the individualizing process. Sociology, 44(1), 49–66.

Borders and boundaries  33 Poggi, G. (1991). The state: Its nature, development, and prospects. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Reinecke, C. (2009). Governing aliens in times of upheaval: Immigration control and modern state practice in early twentieth-century Britain, compared with Prussia. International Review of Social History, 54(1), 39–65. Roche, T. W. E. (1969). The key in the lock: Immigration control in England from 1066 to the present day. London: John Murray. Sayad, A. (2004). The suffering of the immigrant. Cambridge: Polity Press. Sciortino, G. (2000). Toward a political sociology of entry policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 26, 213–228. Sciortino, G. (2012). Ethnicity, race, nationhood, foreignness and many other things: Prolegomena to a cultural sociology of difference-based interactions. In J. C. Alexander, R. Jacobs, & P. Smith (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of cultural sociology (pp. 365–389). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sciortino, G. (2013). The regulation of undocumented migration. In M. Martiniello & J. Rath (Eds.) International migration and immigrant incorporation: The dynamics of globalization and ethnic diversity in European life. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Sciortino, G. (2021). A blueprint for inclusion: Talcott Parsons, the societal community and the future of universalistic solidarities. The American Sociologist, 52(1), 159–177. Sciortino, G., & Finotelli, C. (2015). Closed memberships in a mobile world? Welfare states, welfare regimes and international migration. In L. S. Talani & S. McMahon (Eds.) Handbook of the international political economy of migration (pp. 185–208). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Thomas, J. (2021). From local control to remote control: An excavation of international mobility constraints. Theory and Society, 50(1), 33–64. Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tilly, C. (2000). Transplanted networks. In V. Yans-MacLoughlin (Ed.) Immigration reconsidered: History, sociology, and politics (pp. 79–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tilly, C. (2004). Social boundary mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 211–236. Tilly, C. (2005). Identities, boundaries and social ties. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Todd, J. (2005). Social transformation, collective categories, and identity change. Theory and Society, 34, 429–463. Torpey, J. (1998). Coming and going: On the state monopolization of the legitimate ‘means of movement’. Sociological Theory, 16(3), 239–259. Wimmer, A. (2008). Elementary strategies of ethnic boundary making. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(6), 1025–1055. Wimmer, A. (2009). Herder’s heritage and the boundary-making approach: Studying ethnicity in immigrant societies. Sociological Theory, 27(3), 244–270. Yuval-Davis, N., Wemyss, G., & Cassidy, K. (2019). Bordering. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Zolberg, A. (1981). International migration in political perspective. In M. M. Kitz, C. B. Keeley, & S. M. Tomasi (Eds.) Global trends in migration (pp. 3–27). New York: Center for Migration Studies. Zolberg, A. (1989). The next waves: Migration theory for a changing world. International Migration Review, 23(3), 403–430. Zolberg, A. (1999). Matters of state: Theorizing immigration policy. In C. Hirshmann, P. Kasinitz, & J. DeWind (Eds.) The handbook of international migration: The American experience (pp. 71–93). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Zolberg, A. (2003). The archeology of ‘remote control’. In A. Fahrmeir, O. Faron, & P. Weil (Eds.) Migration control in the North Atlantic world (pp. 195–222). Oxford: Berghahn.

3. Migration categories and the politics of labeling Leila Hadj Abdou and Federica Zardo

INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses migration categories. As we write this chapter, we are in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been reshaping international migration, mobility, and its governance in manifold ways. One example includes a group of migrants previously categorized by the media, politicians, and academics as ‘low-skilled’ (migrant) workers who have suddenly turned into ‘heroes’. Across Europe, people have ventured out into the streets to collectively clap for healthcare workers and cleaners, many of whom are migrant workers. These workers have now been relabeled as ‘frontline’ or ‘essential’ workers, as they were ‘(seemingly) willing to sacrifice their lives for the … nation’ (Tinsley & Begum, 2020); thus, public regard for migrant workers, especially those working in the health sector, has increased (Carter, 2020). During another crisis, namely, the 2015 migration crisis, the English-speaking branch of the news outlet Al Jazeera announced that it was ditching the word ‘migrant’. It had been viewed by the editors of the paper as having become a dehumanizing term that omitted the plight of people on the move, a ‘word that strips suffering people of voice’ (Malone, 2015). The crisis itself became infused with contested meaning-making in academic circles and public debate: was it a humanitarian crisis, a migrant crisis, a refugee crisis, a governance crisis, or all of these? These examples from recent crises highlight that categorization, as well as recategorization always occurs in specific (historical, political, social, and economic) contexts. However, by no means does this imply that categories can be changed easily. Instead, they are entangled with relations of power, infused with meaning, and carry associations and images that make them stick. Categories are also often codified in laws and norms, and even if they are erased on paper, categorizations of groups often continue to be enshrined in real-life practices and potentially incorporated into the habits of oneself and others. The recategorization of the low-skilled (migrant) worker, for instance, in many cases, does not necessarily translate into higher remuneration, and it is questionable whether the recognition of these workers will outlive the current crisis. The attempt of Al Jazeera to abolish the use of the word ‘migrant’ for people attempting to cross the Mediterranean, and to highlight prejudices against certain people on the move, is an exception rather than the rule. Given the opposition to international migration today and the ever-increasing attempts to curb migration, the dominant public debate centers instead on the question of which types of migration are justified and which are not. While some migration categories are deemed necessary, the movement of others is presumed illegitimate or unjustified. In this chapter, we will shed light on selected, relevant migration categories (high-skilled/ low-skilled, regular/irregular, forced/voluntary, vulnerable/non-vulnerable). These catego34

Migration categories and the politics of labeling  35 rizations are central to the current debates concerning what types of migration are justified and what constitutes the distinction between unwanted and wanted migrants or legitimate or illegitimate forms of international mobility. The categorization process is an act of migration governance, an attempt to understand and/ or shape and steer migration. Migration categories that emanate from administrative contexts are usually policy-driven. They tend not to emerge from the complex reality constituted by people on the move but are shaped by and derived from laws, organizational practices, and migration politics. Researchers are not outsiders; they are a part of the migration governance system. They produce knowledge, which relies on categorizations. This academic knowledge can be used in ‘managing migration’, or it may also shape governance processes through ways of contesting established perspectives and categories. Along with the reflexive turn in migration studies, migration scholars have emphasized that migration categories (like all categories) lack clear boundaries, are ambiguous, messy, and fuzzy, and are to be understood in terms of a spectrum instead of fixed, binary categories (Cole, 2018; Crawley & Skleparis, 2018; Hamlin, 2021). Based on this growing and rich scholarship, we first elaborate each category, starting with those that frame debates about economic migration (regular/irregular and high-/low-skilled migration) and then move on to those that frame debates about seeking asylum (forced/voluntary migration and vulnerable/non-vulnerable migration). We will discuss the emergence and the development of each of these categories and summarize the contemporary academic debates concerning them. To conclude, we assess their analytical value.

IRREGULAR MIGRATION Emergence and Development of the Categories There exists no agreement about a universal definition of irregular migration. A distinction between irregular and regular migration can be made according to whether a person has entered a state in line with current migration rules or not and/or whether their residence status and/or status of employment is regular or not and/or, eventually, whether the nature of employment is irregular or not (including, for example, payment of foreseen insurance contributions) (Geddes, Hadj Abdou, & Brumat, 2020, p. 100). Public opinion data on migration reveals consistently higher concerns about irregular migrants than other types of migrants (Dempster & Hargrave, 2017, p. 10). While irregular migration, in contrast to regular migration, is often perceived as an unwanted type of migration, or even a threat, it is not something that simply occurs. It is the result of systemic features among migration nations, such as restrictive migration laws and demands of certain sectors of the labor market, including agriculture or healthcare, for a cheap and flexible workforce (Cvajner & Sciortino, 2010; Geddes et al., 2020, p. 99). The emergence of the category of irregular migration, or what has also often been labeled as illegal or undocumented migration is a relatively recent development (Cvajner & Sciortino, 2010). In the United States, the usage of the term ‘illegal alien’ can be traced back to the 1920s, whereas very few cases using this type of terminology can be identified in Europe before the Second World War. In the latter case, the terminology of illegal or irregular migration only started being used in official documents and public debates in the last quarter

36  Research handbook on the sociology of migration of the twentieth century, between the 1960s and 1980s, with variation across European countries (Düvell, 2011). The emergence and spread of the term within Europe was the result of growing restrictive immigration policies aimed at controlling the entry, residence, and work of foreign nationals. These policies were a response to the increasing transformation of European emigration states into migration nations, coupled with the increased desire of governments to curb migration for different reasons, such as economic recession or the mounting public and political contestation over migration. Especially at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, a sharp increase of the category ‘illegal migration’ can be observed (Düvell, 2011), closely related to the politicization of migration and changing policy frameworks aimed at clamping down on migration. More recently, the term ‘illegal’ has been replaced by ‘irregular migration’ in official policy documents by the EU and its member states. Academic Debate Academic debates have highlighted that labels such as ‘illegal’ or ‘undocumented’ migration, and to some extent also ‘irregular’ migration, are too simplistic and mask a more complex reality (Geddes et al., 2020, p. 97). Indeed, each of these terms has severe shortcomings. For example, someone deemed an ‘irregular migrant’ might be a person who has entered legally, has a residence permit, but then works irregularly. The term ‘illegal migrant’ has often been considered problematic given its pejorative connotations in academic and public debates. In 2015, a resolution by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe condemned the use of the term ‘illegal immigrant’. According to the Assembly, it reinforces racist attitudes and increasing anxiety towards aliens (Council of Europe, 2015). In line with skepticism about the effects and underlying meaning of the term ‘illegal’, migration advocates have been using the label ‘undocumented migrants’. This term, however, has been viewed too as somewhat inappropriate, given that migrants may well have proper documents at the time of entry, but these permits may have expired (Geddes et al., 2020, p. 100). Both terms, ‘illegal’ and ‘undocumented’, are inherently political and politicized. Both imply preferred policy solutions. Whereas in the case of ‘illegal’ migration, the focus is placed implicitly on enforcement policies, when using the term ‘undocumented migrant’, the focus is on regularizing those who do not have regular status. In turn, migration researchers have instead tended to settle on a middle ground, using predominantly the terms ‘irregular’ or ‘unauthorized’ migration (Düvell, 2011). At the same time, migration scholarship has grappled with the effects of the terms ‘undocumented’ and ‘illegal’. There exists an assumption in the field of migration research that the term ‘illegal’ is used intentionally by governments (and other restrictively minded political entrepreneurs) to activate popular concerns and to gather support for restrictive migration control agendas. As Boswell and Slaven (2019) find for the United Kingdom, government elites do not manipulate the public but instead respond to a perception of popular discontent with (irregular) migration. This finding does not imply that the label ‘illegal’ and its association with crime does not matter; indeed, it probably matters and is mobilized in more complex ways than commonly assumed. A growing analytical focus has also addressed the question of whether the choice between the terms ‘illegal’ or ‘undocumented’ shapes public opinion towards irregular migration. Research findings are partly contradictory and inconclusive. A study in the United States found that the use of the term ‘illegal immigrant’, contrary to widely held assumptions by migrant advocates, does not lead to more restrictive immigration preferences compared to the

Migration categories and the politics of labeling  37 terms ‘unauthorized’ and ‘undocumented’ (Merolla, Ramakrishnan, & Haynes, 2013). This result underlines the complexity with regard to the effects of categorizations and the politics of labeling, and the need for more research concerning these effects.

HIGH-SKILLED/LOW-SKILLED MIGRATION Emergence and Development of the Categories The term ‘skill’ refers to capacities required by the labor market to perform specific tasks (OECD, 2011, p. 14). The emergence of the category of skilled migration and the distinction between high- and low-skilled migration is closely related to structural changes in the labor market of (usually) migration receiving polities and the development of a global migration market from the late 1980s onwards (Blitz, 2010). The political emphasis on this category and its spread is tied to the shift to knowledge economies, in which human capital is considered the most important factor of productivity. Debates about the conceptualization of highly skilled migrants initially emerged in the 1990s (Weijnar & Koppenfels, 2020, p. 14). In Europe, in 2000, the concept of skills acquired additional relevance with the EU Lisbon Strategy agenda for economic reform, which introduced the intention to make Europe the world’s leading knowledge-based economy by 2010. Debates about highly skilled migrants consequently intensified from the early 2000s onwards. Lately, we can also observe a policy trend towards so-called skills partnership, programs that promote the development of skills and the exchange of skilled migration between countries of origin (usually in the Global North) and destination countries (also usually in the Global North) (ILO, 2020). As with all migration categories, categories referring to skills do not represent innate or inherent characteristics of migrants. Instead, concepts of skilled migration reflect political decisions made (usually) in destination countries about required skills in domestic labor markets. Low-skilled migration often tends to be viewed as an unwanted and/or challenging phenomenon. For example, in terms of competition with the native workforce or integration into the host communities, which has usually been used to justify more restrictive immigration policies, highly skilled migration tends to represent a positive reading of migration. Focusing on its economic benefits has been used to justify more expansive approaches to labor migration. More and more governments have been instituting preferential policy programs for highly skilled migrants (Boucher, 2020). This preference for skilled migration is also mirrored in public attitudes: people tend to favor skilled migrants over other categories of migrants. Surveys have repeatedly indicated that even among the portion of society that wants to reduce immigration, there is a strong tendency to support migration from highly skilled migrants (Connor & Ruiz, 2019). For instance, according to a 2017 UK study, 82 percent of respondents that voted for leaving the EU in the Brexit referendum agreed that high-skilled migration from the EU should remain at the same levels or even increase (51 percent said remain the same; 31 percent said increase) (Katwala, Rutter, & Ballinger, 2017). The utility and evaluation of skilled migration is also dependent on specific labor market models. Markets that rely on generalist, transferable skills tend to be open to low-skilled labor, while markets that rely on sector-specific skills, either acquired through applied tertiary education or post-secondary vocational training, are less open to ‘low-skilled’ labor (Menz, 2011).

38  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Academic Debate While there is no agreement among scholars on how to define a high- or low-skilled migrant, the academic debate largely tends to adopt policy-driven definitions of skilled migration. The existing scholarly literature has predominantly used education and skills based on international classification schemes, including the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), and the International Standard Classification of Occupation (ISCO) to conceptualize the phenomenon. Some scholars have also used income levels as a proxy for skills (Weijnar & Koppenfels, 2020, p. 13). More recently, the concept of skills itself has been questioned more frequently in scholarly debates. For instance, scholars have underlined that the conceptualization of skilled migration, along with the criterion of wages, is based on an inadvertent racial and gender bias that often tends to exclude women and racialized minorities from this category (Boucher, 2020). In this vein, Ribeiro (2018, p. 487) emphasizes the need for shedding light on ‘(in)visible social mechanisms that act as barriers, or supports, in the recognition as skilled professional’. Defining skills solely upon skill classification, education levels, or wage thresholds, moreover, sidelines practical on-the-job experiences, a component many government programs (in contrast to academic debates) take into account (Ribeiro, 2018). Boucher (2020) argues that these disjunctures between academic categorizations of highly skilled and definitions of skilled migration in government programs constitute a major issue in identifying skilled migration and detecting changes in skilled migration flows and stocks. There is considerable variation across governments as well when it comes to skill definitions in migration programs (Weijnar & Koppenfels, 2020, p. 15). Moreover, administrative data only capture persons who pass through highly skilled programs, whereas migrants arriving through other means would qualify to be labeled as highly skilled (Weijnar & Koppenfels, 2020, p. 20). Anderson, Poeschel, and Ruhs (2020) have underlined the politicized nature of the notion of skills. They also criticize the inflexible usage of skills in the migration domain, which stands in contrast to debates outside the immigration system, in which ‘soft skills’ have gained relevance and have been applied to employee qualities. Soft skills, like experience, are less likely to be reflected in wages, as Anderson et al. (2020) highlight. The academic and the public debate on skilled migration has gained new stimulus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Much of migrant work has been reframed as essential, and policy analysts and commentators highlight that while, globally, migrants make up less than 5 percent of the workforce, they are far more numerous in terms of the labor force in ‘essential’ functions (Kumar, 2021). The new category of key workers has partially dissolved the distinction between low- and high-skilled, as it has focused on occupations providing vital care and support services. Paradoxically, it is thus also those that have previously been framed as the most undesired, namely low-skilled workers, including irregular migrants, who predominantly work in key sectors such as food supply, who have now been deemed essential. Most EU and OECD countries have identified specific occupational sectors considered ‘essential’ and for which the admission of labor migrants during the COVID-19 crisis has continued (EC, 2020).

Migration categories and the politics of labeling  39

FORCED/VOLUNTARY MIGRATION Emergence and Development of the Categories According to the IOM Glossary on Migration, forced migration is ‘a migratory movement which, although the drivers can be diverse, involves force, compulsion, or coercion’ (IOM, 2019, p. 77). The definition includes a note, which clarifies that: ‘while not an international legal concept, this term has been used to describe the movements of refugees, displaced persons and, in some instances, victims of trafficking’ (IOM, 2019, p. 77). In international humanitarian law, forced migration as a category appeared for the first time in 1949 under the label ‘forced displacement’, intended as ‘forcible transfer outside the bounds of an occupied territory’. The 1949 Geneva Convention established protections for the civilians in and around war zones and triggered the normative process that led to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Therefore, war and post-war frameworks became the first contexts associated with the category of forced migration, while non-violent contexts became, by default, proxies for voluntary migration in public discussions. While the 1997 UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement broadened the definition of forced displacement to encompass the movements caused by generalized violence, violations of human rights, or natural or human-made disasters, the association between violent conflict and migrants deserving international protection still shapes public discourse and the academic debate (Erdal & Oeppen, 2018). The category of voluntary migration has emerged by exclusion, as a result of the development of the normative and institutional frameworks for the protection and assistance of forcibly displaced persons. It is conceived as the absence of coercion and is driven by ‘personal convenience’ to improve the quality of one’s life by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunification, or other reasons (UNHCR, 2006, p. 14). In the wake of the 2015 migration crisis, the debate on the distinction between forced and voluntary migration was openly raised by the UN refugee agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The agency argued that the difference between migrants and refugees, and, therefore, between forced and voluntary migration, exists and should be acknowledged in public discourses, to the extent that it involves different legal frameworks. Conflating the terms, it was claimed, can have serious consequences for the lives and safety of refugees and take attention away from the specific legal protections refugees require (UNHCR, 2016). Despite the significant normative work it is meant to perform, the notion of voluntariness is under-conceptualized, both in policy documents and in research (Ottonelli & Torresi, 2013). At the policy level, for instance, a definition of voluntariness can only be found with reference to return programs. In this context, voluntariness is assumed to exist ‘if two conditions apply: freedom of choice, as the absence of physical or psychological pressure; and informed decision, which requires the availability of timely, unbiased and reliable information upon which to base the decision (to return)’ (IOM, 2018). No standards are set and shared, however, to assess voluntary choices to migrate. This is problematic because, on the one hand, it leads to inadequate and unjust institutional responses and, on the other, it does not allow engagement with the full spectrum of migratory experiences, capturing the drivers of migration and their connection to aspirations and desires (Carling & Collins, 2018). The way, however, in which the reasons for migration are labeled has implications in terms of public opinion (Verkuyten, Mepham, & Kros, 2018). As surveys show, migrants labeled

40  Research handbook on the sociology of migration as ‘refugees’ tend to be viewed more positively than other migrants (Rasmussen & Poushter, 2019; Dempster & Hargrave, 2017, p. 10). Academic Debate Academic debate around forced and voluntary migration has highlighted the extent to which the conflation of policy-driven, administrative, and academic analytical categories is problematic not only because it constrains the questions and the objects of study, but because it contributes to transforming categories into labels, which involves standardization, stereotyping, and the subsumption of a set of needs (Bakewell, 2008). At the same time, as highlighted in the public statement by UNHCR in the wake of the 2015 refugee crisis described above, questioning these categories may destabilize the refugee regime and rights to protection (Erdal & Oeppen, 2018). Moving beyond an acknowledgment of the complexity of migration flows is necessary to advance the understanding of forced and voluntary migration. A rights-based definition of voluntariness—in which only the presence of consent, or the lack thereof, measures the degree of voluntariness—provides a restricted account of what counts as a ‘voluntary’ choice (Olsaretti, 1998). In the migration realm, such a limited conceptualization of voluntariness is particularly problematic insofar as it allows neither for recognizing migrant agency nor for grasping the overlapping nature of voluntary and forced migration (Ottonelli & Torresi, 2013). What might begin as forced migration could involve voluntary onward migration. While many migrants migrating voluntarily from their home countries may reach destination countries successfully, they may be exposed to a myriad of risks such as violence, sexual harassment, torture, human trafficking, kidnapping, and other forms of exploitation, which may force them to transit to other destinations (Öner, 2020). Moreover, subjective interpretations of voluntariness change during the migration process itself, affecting the drivers of migration along the route (Pijnenburg & Rijken, 2021). According to critical scholarship, unpacking the migration journey and engaging with the temporalities of migration could help challenge the homogeneous and over-simplified picture of migration constructed through these categories (Crawley & Skleparis, 2018). The dissatisfaction with existing dichotomous categorizations during the 1990s led policymakers and scholars to rely on concepts such as mixed-migration and mixed-motivation migration, to capture the continuum between the extremes of forced and voluntary (Van Hear, Brubaker, & Bessa, 2009). While acknowledging that the reality of migratory flows defies simplistic distinctions, the notion of mixed-migration has proved to have limited explanatory power (Erdal & Oeppen, 2018). It has also not solved the inherent problems of the politics of labeling in relation to the forced/voluntary categorization, but has simply created a new category instead of stepping outside this binary (Crawley & Skleparis, 2018, p. 60).

VULNERABLE/NON-VULNERABLE MIGRANTS Emergence and Development of the Categories Despite the common use of the concept of vulnerability, its definition is complex and contested. In the realm of migration, the language of vulnerability had become increasingly widespread towards the end of the twentieth century (Atak, Nakache, Guild, & Crépeau, 2018), and

Migration categories and the politics of labeling  41 often refers to asylum-seeking migration. Building on UN resolutions, the IOM Glossary of Migration defines vulnerability as ‘the limited capacity to avoid, resist, cope with, or recover from harm. This limited capacity is the result of the unique interaction of individual, household, community, and structural characteristics and conditions’ (IOM, 2019, p. 229). The use of this category in policy debates about asylum has implications concerning public support for refugee protection. Citizens in refugee-hosting nations tend to be more accepting of asylum seekers who are traumatized and vulnerable (Dempster & Hargrave, 2017, p. 12). In Europe, a study conducted by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) shows how the existence of groups of asylum seekers considered vulnerable was acknowledged in the first generation of legislative instruments under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which dates back to 2003. The first legislative package, however, did not include a definition of vulnerability beyond that of unaccompanied children (ECRE, 2017). This lack of distinction has been perceived by the report as exhibiting significant deficiencies in addressing special needs. These ‘deficiencies’ have been partly corrected in the 2013 recast of the CEAS, but ambiguity about the term and policy implementation remains. The ECRE report shows, for instance, that ‘persons fleeing their country of origin for reasons relating to sexual orientation or gender identity may require special attention in the asylum procedure but do not straightforwardly present vulnerability factors that require special attention as regards their reception’ (ECRE, 2017, p. 16). While highlighting vulnerability can address special needs, the category ‘vulnerability’ also serves to portray migrants in a negative light, as helpless victims, discarding their agency as well as the structural issues that render them vulnerable. More recent legislation and policy documents, such as the documents produced by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ahead of the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration in 2018, acknowledged that rather than being inherent, vulnerability is relational and is mostly constructed by states and other actors through policies and practices. Similarly, a report from 2018 by the UNHCR recalls that ‘migrants are not inherently vulnerable, nor do they lack resilience and agency’ (OHCHR, 2018). Academic Debate The scholarly debates on vulnerability and migration have analyzed how this category has emerged and developed in international and European asylum legislation, following what has been defined as a ‘vulnerability zeitgeist’ in contemporary welfare policies (Brown, Ecclestone, & Emmel, 2017). Since the term has been traditionally associated with childhood, there has been an initial focus on the immutable and inherent factors leading to vulnerability. In the comparative analysis of the 2018 Global Compact for Migration and the Canadian court ruling on cases related to vulnerable migrant groups, Atak et al. (2018) underline the persistence of inherent factors in the list of refugees and migrants considered to be subject to vulnerable conditions, with limited attention devoted to the situational factors that come into play as people transition from place to place. Critical migration studies and feminist scholarship emphasize the gendered and racialized spin on the vulnerable/invulnerable binary, and its impact on the perceptions and treatment of specific groups of asylum seekers and refugees, including women, children, Romani communities, and Black minorities. While this has led to greater protection, many studies have also pointed to the infantilization and ‘feminization’ of certain groups of migrants, which reproduces ideas about passivity and weakness (Peroni

42  Research handbook on the sociology of migration & Timmer, 2013). If not challenged, these associations can lead to the troubling exclusion of those that do not fit neatly into these categorizations from the universal protection of human rights. In addition, critical migration studies, and reflexive approaches within humanitarian circles, have drawn attention to how assessments of ‘vulnerability’ disregard the struggles of refugee men. An increase in studies on gendered lives and experiences of refugee men has addressed this lacuna (Moliner, 2020), while also pointing to the risk of contributing to the construction of hierarchies of vulnerability rather than challenging the power structures of humanitarianism. Indeed, vulnerability hierarchies and discourses in humanitarian governance guide mechanisms for need assessments and set standards regarding the allocation of resources in refugee communities (Turner, 2021). Analyses of trafficking and smuggling policies and debates also demonstrate that the logic of vulnerability discourses legitimizes the curbing of migration and restricting the mobility of migrants, as vulnerability narratives imply that ‘migrants are almost (if not) always better off at “home”’ (Sharma, 2003, p. 54). Establishing scales or hierarchies of vulnerabilities can hence serve to legitimize exclusion based on seemingly objective criteria of vulnerability. Overall, the academic community concurs with the idea of approaching vulnerability as a critical conceptual tool capable of disentangling the societal or institutional arrangements that generate, sustain, and reinforce migrant vulnerabilities.

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ANALYTICAL VALUE OF MIGRATION CATEGORIES This chapter has built on the rich debate about migration categories and the politics of labeling. Migration scholars have alerted us for decades that even core categories of migration research, including the category of migration itself, or integration (Hadj Abdou, 2019; Schinkel, 2018) are deeply flawed, and/or guided by methodological nationalism (Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2003), i.e. entangled with the logic of the nation state (Dahinden, Fischer, & Menet, 2021, p. 537). In this chapter, we have examined and selected specific categories that are central to the contemporary migration debate and its core concern about which types of migration are welcome and/or which groups of migrants are deserving of admission and inclusion. As our discussion has demonstrated, there are no universally accepted definitions for any of the key migration categories. We have also highlighted that, even if used in scholarly debates, categories often do replicate a political or policy-driven logic that is not necessarily based on empirical realities but political interests and power relations. Rather than mirroring innate qualities of people on the move, categories like vulnerable, skilled, forced, or irregular are key components and outcomes of migration governance. Put differently, they represent choices that are part of political struggles and contestations (Geddes et al., 2020, p. 99). These choices have consequences, shaping opportunities and access to rights and resources for migrants. Categorization and labeling highlight some qualities of migrants and/or exclude others, which, in turn, creates ideas of (un)desirability for certain migrants. Categories consequently shape the openness or restrictiveness of migration policies and also influence public perceptions of migrants. For migration research, categories are inevitable, as they are fundamental for social inquiry and theory building (Collyer & de Haas, 2012, p. 468). At the same time, categories are

Migration categories and the politics of labeling  43 always political and increasingly politicized. Simply ignoring or rejecting them in academic debates, as Collyer and de Haas (2012, p. 468) remind us, does not make them disappear. Instead, migration researchers must make migration categories an object of study, reconstruct their emergence, and unveil the power relations that are constitutive of these categories. The one potentially useful approach of unveiling power relations, for instance, in the case of the category of irregular migrants, would be to use the term ‘irregularized’ instead of ‘irregular’. A similar approach could be useful concerning vulnerable migrants, as vulnerability is not an innate quality of certain people on the move, but is often constructed through social, political, legal, and economic processes. Regarding forced and voluntary migration, as we have underlined, there is a strong consensus among scholars that, from an analytical standpoint, this distinction is highly questionable. At the same time, erasing this category in administrative practices would probably mean less protection for migrants. Hence, while analytically correct, such choices might also have political repercussions. Substituting one category with another does not necessarily depoliticize processes of categorization. The recent attempt to substitute the skills category with the category of essential (migrant) workers in the framework of the COVID-19 pandemic is telling in that regard. Who is ‘essential’ and who is not, is a highly political question. Put bluntly, ‘essential’ is another category entrenched in societal, political, and institutional structures, ultimately about controlling migration. To continue to use the category of skills is equally challenging. In addition to the points already discussed in this chapter, using the skills category tends to downplay the fact that labor markets ultimately rely on both workers engaged in supposedly low-skilled work and on workers that perform so-called high-skilled tasks. It might be more relevant to analyze labor market needs and their dependence on migrant workers and adjust academic labor migration categories to this diagnosis, rather than categorizing migrants a priori as skilled or unskilled. While undoubtedly this would follow a policy logic, it might better correspond to changing complexities of labor markets and required skillsets. There are no easy or definite answers when it comes to migration categories. What is certain is that analyzing and reflecting on how migration scholars and other migration governance actors make sense of migration through categorizations is a subject that migration researchers need to continuously engage in.

REFERENCES Anderson, B., Poeschel, F., & Ruhs, M. (2020). COVID-19 and systemic resilience: Rethinking the impacts of migrant workers and labour migration policies. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2020/57. Atak, I., Nakache, D., Guild, E., & Crépeau, F. (2018). ‘Migrants in vulnerable situations’ and the Global Compact for Safe Orderly and Regular Migration. Social Science Research Network (SSRN) Scholarly Paper ID 3124392. Retrieved from https://​papers​.ssrn​.com/​sol3/​papers​.cfm​?abstract​_id​=​ 3124392. Bakewell, O. (2008). Research beyond the categories: The importance of policy irrelevant research into forced migration. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(4), 432–453. Blitz, B. (2010). Highly skilled migration. In R. A. Denemark (Ed.) The international studies encyclopedia (pp. 3292–3320). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Boswell, C., & Slaven, M. (2019). Why symbolise control? Irregular migration to the UK and symbolic policy-making in the 1960s. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(9), 1477–1495. Boucher, A. (2020). How ‘skill’ definition affects the diversity of skilled immigration policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(12), 2533–2550.

44  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Brown, K., Ecclestone, K., & Emmel, N. (2017). The many faces of vulnerability. Social Policy and Society, 16(3), 497–510. Carling, J., & Collins, F. (2018). Aspiration, desire and drivers of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 909–926. Carter, R. (2020). The corona crisis has made us value migrants, here’s how to build on that. OpenDemocracy. Retrieved from https://​www​.opendemocracy​.net/​en/​opendemocracyuk/​the​-corona​ -crisis​-has​-made​-us​-value​-migrants​-heres​-how​-to​-build​-on​-that/​. Cole, G. (2018). Beyond labelling: Rethinking the role and value of the refugee ‘label’ through semiotics. Journal of Refugee Studies, 31(1), 1–21. Collyer, M., & de Haas, H. (2012). Developing dynamic categorisations of transit migration. Population, Space, and Place, 18(4), 468–481. Connor, P., & Ruiz, N. G. (2019). Majority of U.S. public supports high-skilled immigration. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://​www​.pewresearch​.org/​global/​2019/​01/​22/​majority​-of​-u​-s​ -public​-supports​-high​-skilled​-immigration/​. Council of Europe (CE) (2015). Criminalisation of irregular migrants: A crime without a victim. Resolution 205. Retrieved from https://​www​.refworld​.org/​pdfid/​55b20ef34​.pdf. Crawley, H., & Skleparis, D. (2018). Refugees, migrants, neither, both: Categorical fetishism and the politics of bounding in Europe’s ‘migration crisis’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(1), 48–64. Cvajner, M., & Sciortino, G. (2010). Theorizing irregular migration: The control of spatial mobility in differentiated societies. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 389–404. Dahinden, J., Fischer, C., & Menet, J. (2021). Knowledge production, reflexivity, and the use of categories in migration studies: Tackling challenges in the field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(4), 535–554. Dempster, H., & Hargrave, K. (2017). Understanding public attitudes towards refugees and migrants. www​ .refugee​ -economies​ .org/​ assets/​ Chatham House Working Paper 512. Retrieved from https://​ downloads/​Paper​_Dempster​_and​_Hargrave​.pdf. Düvell, F. (2011). Paths into irregularity: The legal and political construction of irregular migration. European Journal of Migration and Law, 13(3), 275–295. Erdal, M. B., & Oeppen, C. (2018). Forced to leave? The discursive and analytical significance of describing migration as forced and voluntary. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 981–998. European Commission (EC) (2020). Inform #3 – Maintaining labour migration in essential sectors in times of pandemic. Retrieved from https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​migrant​-integration/​librarydoc/​inform​-3​ -maintaining​-labour​-migration​-in​-essential​-sectors​-in​-times​-of​-pandemic​-covid​-19. European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) (2017). 2017-II. Asylum Information Database. Retrieved from http://​asylumineurope​.org/​2017​-ii/​. Geddes, A., Hadj Abdou, L., & Brumat, L. (2020). Migration and mobility in the European Union. London: Palgrave/Red Globe Press. Hadj Abdou, L. (2019). Immigrant integration: The governance of ethno-cultural differences. Comparative Migration Studies, 7(15), 1–9. Hamlin, R. (2021). Crossing. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. International Labour Organization (ILO) (2020). Skills partnership on migration. Retrieved from https://​ www​.ilo​.org/​skills/​projects/​skill​-up/​WCMS​_745860/​lang​-​-en/​index​.htm. International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2018). A framework for assisted voluntary return and reintegration. Retrieved from https://​www​.iom​.int/​sites/​default/​files/​our​_work/​DMM/​AVRR/​ a​_framework​_for​_avrr​_online​_pdf​_optimized​_20181112​.pdf. International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2019). Glossary on migration. Retrieved from https://​ www​.iom​.int/​glossary​-migration​-20. Katwala, S., Rutter, J., & Ballinger, S. (2017). Time to get it right: Finding consensus on Britain’s future immigration policy. London: British Future. Retrieved from https://​www​.sciencecampaign​.org​.uk/​ static/​uploaded/​7ad905b8​-2dde​-4b88​-ae1c56c58f9e7867​.pdf. Kumar, C. (2021). A year on, migrants’ vital contributions to the Covid 19 response must drive lasting reforms. Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved from https://​odi​.org/​en/​insights/​a​-year​-on​ -migrants​-vital​-contributions​-to​-the​-covid​-19​-response​-must​-drive​-lasting​-reforms/​.

Migration categories and the politics of labeling  45 Malone, B. (2015). Why Al Jazeera will not say Mediterranean ‘migrants’. Al Jazeera. Retrieved from https://​www​.aljazeera​.com/​features/​2015/​8/​20/​why​-al​-jazeera​-will​-not​-say​-mediterranean​-migrants. Menz, G. (2011). The political economy of managed migration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Merolla, J., Ramakrishnan, S., & Haynes, C. (2013). ‘Illegal’, ‘undocumented’, or ‘unauthorized’: Equivalency frames, issue frames, and public opinion on immigration. Perspectives on Politics, 11(3), 789–807. Moliner, C. (2020). Vulnerable masculinities? Gender identity construction among young undocumented Sikh migrants in Paris. Religions, 11(12), 680. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2018). Migrants in vulnerable situations. Retrieved from https://​www​.ohchr​.org/​en/​migration/​migrants​-vulnerable​-situations. Olsaretti, S. (1998). Freedom, force and choice: Against the rights-based definition of voluntariness. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(1), 53–78. Öner, S. G. I. (2020). Mixed migration flows and the changing dynamics of migration research. PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs, 25(1), 1–10. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011). International mobility of the highly skilled. Paris: OECD. Ottonelli, V., & Torresi, T. (2013). When is migration voluntary? International Migration Review, 47(4), 783–813. Peroni, L., & Timmer, A. (2013). Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(4), 1056–1085. Pijnenburg, A., & Rijken, C. (2021). Moving beyond refugees and migrants: Reconceptualising the rights of people on the move. Interventions, 23(2), 273–293. Rasmussen, R., & Poushter, J. (2019). People around the world express more support for taking in refugees than immigrants. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://​www​.pewresearch​.org/​fact​-tank/​ 2019/​08/​09/​people​-around​-the​-world​-express​-more​-support​-for​-taking​-in​-refugees​-than​-immigrants/​. Ribeiro, J. (2018). Being called ‘skilled’: A multi-scalar approach of migrant doctors’ recognition. Migration Letters, 15(4), 477–490. Schinkel, W. (2018). Against ‘immigrant integration’: For an end to neocolonial knowledge production. Comparative Migration Studies, 6(1), 1–17. Sharma, N. (2003). Travel agency: A critique of anti-trafficking campaigns. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 21(3), 53–65. Tinsley, M., & Begum, N. (2020). Clap for our heroes: ‘Good’ migrants, wartime rhetoric, and Covid-19. Retrieved from https://​archive​.discoversociety​.org/​2020/​05/​21/​clap​-for​-our​-heroes​-good​-migrants​ -wartime​-rhetoric​-and​-covid​-19/​. Turner, L. (2021). The politics of labeling refugee men as ‘vulnerable’. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 28(1), 1–23. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2006). UNHCR Master Glossary of Terms. Retrieved from https://​www​.refworld​.org/​docid/​42ce7d444​.html. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2016). UNHCR viewpoint: ‘Refugee’ or ‘migrant’ – Which is right? Retrieved from https://​www​.unhcr​.org/​. Van Hear, N., Brubaker, R., & Bessa, T. (2009). Managing mobility for human development: The growing salience of mixed migration. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Retrieved from http://​hdr​.undp​.org/​en/​content/​managing​-mobility​-human​-development. Verkuyten, M., Mepham, K., & Kros, M. (2018). Public attitudes towards support for migrants: The importance of perceived voluntary and involuntary migration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(5), 901–918. Weijnar, A., & Koppenfels, A. (2020). Highly-skilled migration: Between settlement and mobility. London: Springer. Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2003). Methodological nationalism, the social sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology 1. International Migration Review, 37(3), 576–610.

4. Gender Johanna Leinonen

INTRODUCTION In this chapter, I trace the origins of the study of gender and migration to the birth of interdisciplinary women’s studies and ethnic studies in the 1970s, detailing the trajectory of the field, from women-centered analyses to intersectional approaches to migration at various spaces and scales. I also highlight critical perspectives on the study of gender and migration, particularly those offered by scholars in postcolonial and decolonial feminist studies and in queer and queer-of-color studies. The chapter proceeds as follows. First, I discuss two novels in which different aspects of gendered and racialized migration experiences become visible. In the second section, I outline how scholarship on gender and migration has developed, since the 1970s in particular, and in the third section, I present a few exemplary works produced in the field. The chapter concludes with an estimation of the state of the field of gender and migration, with some concluding thoughts about future directions for research. As a caveat, the discussion necessarily reflects my training in US and European migration history; however, I also present examples of studies on migration from other areas of the world whenever possible.

GENDERED POSTCOLONIAL MIGRATIONS IN AMERICANAH AND THE OTHER HAND The novels that I am discussing here, Americanah (2014), by Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, and The Other Hand (2009), by British writer Chris Cleave, illustrate different aspects of gendered migrations. Both are situated in the context of postcolonial migrations from Nigeria to the United States and/or the United Kingdom. They show how the intersectional position of the main characters crucially influences their experiences of migration and settlement, and how migration governance molds the protagonists’ gendered, racialized, and classed subjectivities. Simultaneously, the books point to the origins of the contemporary migrations to Europe within the history of colonialism and the continuing global economic disparity. Americanah tells the story of two young people from Nigeria, Ifemelu and Obinze, who aspire to move to the United States. They are not ‘fleeing from war, from the kind of poverty that crushed human souls’—Ifemelu and Obinze are ‘merely hungry for choice and certainty’ (Adichie, 2014, p. 276; see also Radwan, 2019). The main protagonist, Ifemelu, aspires to higher education, but the unrest in Nigeria makes it difficult for her to pursue her studies. Eventually Ifemelu moves to the United States on a student visa. Americanah highlights the middle/upper class background of Ifemelu and Obinze, but at the same time, their stories depict a post-migration loss of social status due to the ‘racial order’ in the United States and the United Kingdom (Omi & Winant, 1994). In the United States, Ifemelu quickly discovers that she is unable to earn a living legally because of the visa 46

Gender  47 restrictions. She faces racism and financial difficulties. ‘When you make the choice to come to America, you become black’ (Adichie, 2014, p. 220), Ifemelu points out in her blog post addressed to ‘fellow non-American Blacks’, highlighting that race was not an issue for her in Nigeria. Her gender, race, and status as a nonresident alien force her to support herself in ways that she did not anticipate when leaving Nigeria. In the end, Ifemelu manages to become a successful blogger in the United States, but still decides to return to Nigeria—a counter-narrative to the popular idea depicting the United States as the ultimate migrant destination. Obinze is unable to move to the United States because of ‘the terrorism fears … The Americans are now averse to foreign young men’ (Adichie, 2014, p. 233), as his mother explains. In the post-9/11 atmosphere, racialized migrant men from the Global South are treated as potentially dangerous and, thus, as inadmissible foreigners. Obinze’s mother—a university professor—sponsors his visa to the United Kingdom, but the visa is only for half a year. Subsequently, Obinze remains in the country undocumented, forced to engage in menial labor. Obinze’s situation is crucially influenced by the heated debates surrounding the arrival of asylum seekers in Europe: ‘The wind blowing across the British Isles was odorous with fear of asylum seekers, infecting everybody with the panic of impending doom’ (Adichie, 2014, p. 258). Scholars have noted how representations regarding migrant men have become more sinister, and these racialized and gendered images can, in turn, be used as justifications for migration restrictions (Charsley & Wray, 2015). Following his friends’ guidance, Obinze plans to become married to obtain residency in the United Kingdom, but is arrested and deported back to Nigeria at the advent of his marriage. Obinze’s story, thus, shows how migration debates in Europe, and the accompanying tightening migration control, produce a gendered, racialized, classed, and sexualized position for Obinze, one that labels him as a threat and a less-than-a-human object that can be removed from the territory of the United Kingdom (Bonvillain, 2016). The Other Hand tells the story of Nigerian asylum seeker, Little Bee, who flees to the United Kingdom as a 14-year-old girl on a cargo ship, after her family is killed and her home village in the Niger Delta region is destroyed during Nigeria’s oil wars. She ends up spending two years at a detention center for asylum seekers. The novel describes how Europe’s migration regime, bent on keeping racialized ‘others’ outside of ‘Fortress Europe’, produces vulnerability for Little Bee as a racialized, adolescent, and female asylum seeker. At the same time, the book also brings out Little Bee’s ‘small agency’ (Hiitola, Turtiainen, & Vuori, 2020; Honkasalo, 2009), and by doing so, it challenges the widespread imagery of refugee women and girls as passive victims (see also Jain, 2020). Little Bee is finally able to leave the detention center as an undocumented migrant, but eventually she is discovered by the police and deported back to Nigeria. Both Obinze’s and Little Bee’s stories thus portray how Fortress Europe labels certain groups of migrants as undesirable and forces them to seek irregular ways to migrate to Europe. The current migration regime is primarily concerned with keeping the ‘South’ out of Europe, and migrations from former colonies to the former colonial centers—such as from Nigeria to the United Kingdom—are severely restricted. These restrictions follow a racialized, gendered, and classed logic (Charsley & Wray, 2015; Griffiths, 2015). Obinze’s and Little Bee’s stories emphasize the importance of engaging with histories of colonialism in migration studies (Mayblin & Turner, 2021), reminding scholars about the need to remain attuned to processes of racialization when studying gender and migration (Keskinen & Andreassen, 2017).

48  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

GENDER AND MIGRATION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIELD For most of the twentieth-century scholarship on international migration, the international migrant was assumed to be a man, more specifically, a working-class, white man. This portrayal was evident, for example, in Oscar Handlin’s pathbreaking work on US migration history, The Uprooted (1951). When he famously opened his book with the line ‘Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history’, he was not writing about migrants as men and women, but as European-origin men whose lives were ‘uprooted’ as they headed to the ‘new world’. Women’s roles were discussed only in a few pages of the book (Weinberg, 1992). Handlin was not alone in his omission of women. Until the 1970s, migration scholars beyond the US context also presented men’s migratory experiences as the norm, or the history of migration was assumed to be ‘gender neutral’ (Weinberg, 1992, p. 26; Morokvasic, 1984). This elision of gender differences, of course, reflects academic writing of the period more broadly speaking. However, the marginalization of women’s experiences is also related to the gendered histories of the disciplines studying migration (Donato, Gabaccia, Holdaway, Manalansan, & Pessar, 2006). As Katharine Donato and Donna Gabaccia (2015) explain, female scholars have examined questions related to sex and gender for over a century, but gender relations in academia have crucially influenced knowledge production about migration. Handlin, for example, was strongly influenced by the male-dominated Chicago School of Sociology, whose scholars have been celebrated as the ‘founders of U.S. immigration studies’ (Donato & Gabaccia, 2015, p. 24). However, women researchers, unable to find tenure in US universities, documented and analyzed both migrant women’s and men’s everyday lives but were dismissed by male sociologists as ‘politically biased naïve reformers or mere social workers’ (Donato & Gabaccia, 2015, p. 25). Furthermore, the theoretical frameworks of the mid-1900s explaining migration were based on assumptions about men as ‘risk takers and achievers’ and women as tradition-keepers who preferred to stay put (Pessar, 2003). For example, in 1966, Everett Lee’s push-pull theory of migration postulated that ‘children are carried along by their parents, willy-nilly, and wives accompany their husbands though it tears them away from the environment they love’ (quoted in Pessar, 2003, p. 21). In the 1960s and 1970s, powerful societal changes occurred that influenced the field of migration research. For most of the century, following the dominant assimilation paradigm, ethnicity was prognosed to disappear—scholars widely considered it archaic and assumed that its importance would diminish over generations. However, the strength of ethnicity as a source of identity formation and political mobilization became apparent in the 1960s and 1970s because of ethnopolitical and decolonial struggles around the world. Moreover, this period saw the spread of the feminist and civil rights movements and the birth of an ‘ethnic revival’, which in the United States referred to the resurgent interest of European-origin migrants’ descendants in their ethnic background. The effects of these societal changes were also felt in academia. The movements of the 1960s and 1970s gave rise to new fields of study, such as interdisciplinary women’s studies and ethnic studies. In this context, scholars begun to pay more attention to histories and experiences of migrant women. The increasing interest in the study of both women and ethnicity reverberated the traditional association of ethnicity with women and the family (di Leonardo, 1984). In Europe, the increasing scholarly interest in women’s migration was related to the changes in international migration patterns after the financial crisis of the 1970s. As labor migration

Gender  49 was severely curtailed in many Western and Northern European countries, while family reunification was still allowed, the visibility of female migrants rose in societal and academic discussions (Catarino & Morokvasic, 2013). Early studies on migrant women focused, indeed, on women—not gender. Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo pointed out in 2003 (pp. 5–6) that the initial step in migration scholarship was to ‘add women and stir’. Occasionally, scholars compared men’s and women’s achievements, for example, in education or the labor market, but comparative studies failed to recognize that gender was ‘fundamentally about power’ (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2003, p. 6). Feminist research on gender roles and differences started to influence migration scholarship in the 1980s, although only in a limited circle of female researchers. These scholars examined women in more active roles, for instance, as workers or economic actors (Morokvasic, 1984). The household economy was an important research site. Towards the end of the 1980s and in the 1990s, scholars debated the potential of migration to mold gender relations and normative gender roles (Herrera, 2013; see, e.g., Pedraza, 1991). Importantly, these works brought forward that migrant families were not necessarily harmonious units but characterized by hierarchical and contentious gendered and generational relationships (Grasmuck & Pessar, 1991; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). An outlier in the increasing interest in the role of women in migration was the study of forced migration that became an established field in the 1980s (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2014). In research on refugees and other forced migrants, as well as in international debates and policies on refugee protection, women were ‘the forgotten majority’ (Hajdukowski-Ahmed, Khanlou, & Moussa, 2008, p. 2). However, female activists and civil society actors increasingly advocated for refugee women’s rights, for example, at world conferences of the United Nations. This mobilization notwithstanding, the primarily descriptive studies of the era tended to portray refugee women as vulnerable victims (Hajdukowski-Ahmed et al., 2008). In the 1990s, migration scholarship continued to focus on women’s experiences and gender relations in families, households, or communities—at ‘mesolevel social institutions’ (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2003, p. 8). In other words, gender was associated with women, and men remained ‘genderless’ actors. During this decade, scholars of forced migration started to apply gender analysis to the experiences of refugees, which, in turn, allowed an examination of the factors and circumstances that produced vulnerability for women (as opposed to seeing vulnerability as women’s ‘property’) (Hajdukowski-Ahmed et al., 2008; Penttinen & Kynsilehto, 2017). However, as Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (2014) has pointed out (referring to the works of Liisa Malkki and Cynthia Enloe), research still typically depicted refugee women as ‘apolitical and non-agentic victims, either as madonnalike figures … or as weakened, dependent, and vulnerable “womenandchildren”’ (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2014, p. 398). While it was necessary to bring out the experiences of refugee women to correct the dismissals of the past, the tendency to present women as ‘special cases’ needing ‘special protection’ contributed to the idea that other issues surrounding forced migration were ‘genderless’ and the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention was gender neutral (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2014; Indra, 1999).1 Despite these advances in various disciplines studying both forced and voluntary migrations, the study of migrant women remained at the margins of migration scholarship in the 1990s. Writing about the field of US history, Donna Gabaccia argued in 1991 that migrant women were ‘nowhere at home’—the increasing scholarship on migrant women had little impact on either migration history or women’s history. Doreen Indra characterized the state of research on gender and forced migration as being ‘in its infancy’ in 1999. In 1999, Pierrette

50  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Hondagneu-Sotelo and Cynthia Cranford called for ending the ‘ghettoizing’ of gender in migration research through analyses extending beyond the conventional spheres of the family and household. Since the 2000s, researchers have responded to this call through examining gender as structuring power in the entire migration process (Donato et al., 2006). In 2003, Hondagneu-Sotelo described the expansion of the field as follows (p. 7): Prompted in part by the disruption of the universal category ‘women’ in feminist scholarship, by heightened awareness of the intersectionality of race, class, and gender relations, by the observation that men possess, display, and enact a variety of masculinities, and by the recognition of the fluidity of gender relations, … research focused on … the gendering of migration patterns and how migration reconfigures new systems of gender inequality for women and men.

In the past two decades, the scholarship on gender and migration has expanded enormously. Even though the bulk of scholarship still focuses on the reproductive role of migrant women (e.g., as family members, caregivers, domestic workers, or sex workers) in the context of globalization, gender and migration are now examined across different scales from the familial and local to the global (Donato et al., 2006; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2013). Scholars have critically studied, for example, the state and governance of migration, political participation, citizenship, and political economy. In forced migration research, researchers have examined in detail how causes of forced migration are gendered, and how forced migration, in turn, influences gender roles and identities as well as gender and family relations. Moreover, feminist scholars have continued the critique of the ‘gendered scripts’ of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Scholars have emphasized how the seemingly gender neutral, but, in reality, androcentric and heteronormative, Convention fails to recognize the situations and protection needs of women, children, and LGBTQ+ people (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2014; Penttinen & Kynsilehto, 2017). In addition, scholars have criticized how academics, practitioners, international organizations, decision-makers, and the media alike circulate imagery of refugees that ‘infantilizes’ and feminizes them and expects them to remain passive, in need of assistance. The ‘deservingness’ of protection for those who actively seek to improve their lives is questioned—as is evident in discourses surrounding asylum seekers, routinely masculinized as a threat in public discourses (Charsley & Wray, 2015; Hyndman, 2010; Penttinen & Kynsilehto, 2017). Scholars have also incorporated a gender perspective into the dominant frameworks in the study of migration, such as transnationalism. Research on transnationalism, gaining wide popularity in the 1990s and 2000s, initially largely neglected gender (Mahler & Pessar, 2001; for a review, see Leinonen, 2021). An important contribution to the study of gender and transnational migration was Sarah Mahler and Patricia Pessar’s (2001) model of gendered geographies of power. This model provided tools for analyzing how individuals’ social location within power hierarchies and institutional structures affected their (im)mobility. Mahler and Pessar highlighted the importance of examining these social locations across geographic and analytical scales and accounting for the historical, political, and other factors that shaped people’s social location and agency. Gioconda Herrera (2013, p. 475) argues that Mahler and Pessar’s model ‘paved the way for an intersectional approach’ in migration scholarship. Scholars have employed an intersectional approach primarily to women migrants, but studies on men are increasing (Charsley & Wray, 2015). Most scholars studying gender and migration today acknowledge that gender intersects with other axes of difference and power,

Gender  51 such as race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, and age, to produce varying experiences of migration and settlement. The origin of the intersectional approach lies in black feminist studies of the 1980s (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989), in which scholars highlighted the overlapping forms of oppression experienced by black women and, later on, queer women of color (Hill Collins, 2004). Migration scholars such as Martin Manalansan IV (2006; see also Mayblin & Turner, 2021) have also called attention to the importance of ‘Third World’ and postcolonial and decolonial feminists in questioning any universalized notions regarding women, gender, or sexuality. Feminist writers and scholars such as Audre Lorde and Chandra Mohanty have brought forward the coloniality of the concept of gender itself (Lugones, 2007). They criticize the complicity of Western, white feminists in colonial projects and point to the historical, political, social, and cultural forces that produced differences in the experiences of women. Postcolonial critiques argue that Western feminists often ‘whitewash’ intersectionalism by treating the categories of gender, race, class, and sexuality as equally contributing to one’s social location (Lewis, 2013). Instead, postcolonial scholars highlight how Western notions of gender and sexuality were integral for colonial projects (McClintock, 1995; Stoler, 2002), and, therefore, intersectional analyses can ‘erase the global working of race and coloniality’ (Mayblin & Turner, 2021, p. 172). Gloria Wekker (2016) has employed the concept of ‘white innocence’ to describe the logic through which many European societies detach themselves from the histories of colonialism. Central to the logic of white innocence is the denial of the importance of race and racism in contemporary Europe (Keskinen, 2019; Lewis, 2013), visible also in migration scholarship (Mayblin & Turner, 2021; for a debate on this issue, see, e.g., Rabo & Andreassen, 2014). Furthermore, postcolonial and decolonial perspectives have inspired research that explores how global hierarchies based on gender, sexuality, and race continue to impact migration patterns. Scholars have shown how transnational, gendered ideas about the ‘West’, rooted in colonial hierarchies, can contribute to South–North migrations (Constable, 2005). For example, scholarship on transnational intimate relationships has brought forward how they seem to follow ‘cartographies of desire’, where these relationships ‘both reflect and are propelled by fantasies and imaginings about gender, sexuality, tradition, and modernity’ (Constable, 2005, p. 7; see also Leinonen, 2017). Karen Kelsky (2001), for example, has shown how Japanese women seeking an ‘international life-style’ idealize Western men, in particular, white men from the United States, who can provide access to the modern, international, and white West. Moreover, queer studies scholars have questioned the heteronormative understandings regarding gender and sexuality that have characterized the study of gender and migration (Luibhéid, 2005; Manalansan, 2006). Their research has revealed how notions regarding sexuality and gender produce racialized positions for migrants (Cantú, 2009; Lewis, 2014; Luibhéid, 2002; Manalansan, 2003). More recently, scholars employing queer-of-color critique in their work have challenged queer studies for largely disregarding the study of race and coloniality (Ferguson, 2018; Mayblin & Turner, 2021; for an early intervention within the queer-of-color critique, see Ferguson, 2004). Queer-of-color scholarship brings out how belonging in liberal nation-states through formal citizenship is based on white and heteronormative ideals. Mayblin and Turner (2021, p. 191) note that migration and naturalization laws in liberal states produce sexualized and racialized subjects by regulating ‘the movement and treatment of people based on heteronormative and western ideals of value and worth’. At the same time, queer studies scholars have also shown how liberal nation-states co-opt and use the LGBTQ+ rights discourse for their own purposes. On the one hand, in order to gain full rights,

52  Research handbook on the sociology of migration queer subjects are required to follow the normative ideals regarding sexuality, for example, through entering marriage or other socially accepted forms of monogamy (Mayblin & Turner, 2021, p. 190). On the other hand, in homonationalist discourses, LGBTQ+ rights are used to justify migration restrictions through a racist vocabulary that labels certain groups of migrants and their origin countries as homophobic and backward, in contradistinction with the supposedly egalitarian liberal societies (Puar, 2007).

EXAMPLES OF KEY WORKS IN GENDER AND MIGRATION In this section, I discuss a few studies that exemplify the development of the research field of gender and migration, as outlined above. Because this field has expanded tremendously over the past decades, my discussion is bound to be a limited one—many works that certainly deserve to be mentioned are necessarily left out. Thus, this section should be read only as offering a few glimpses of the rich literature that researchers of gender and migration have produced since the 1980s. One of the pioneering works of the 1980s that paved the way for future gendered analyses of international migration is Mirjana Morokvasic’s 1984 article ‘Birds of passage are also women …’. The article played a key role in bringing out women’s active role in migration and in the labor market globally, pointing also to the ways in which migration affects gender roles and family patterns. Furthermore, in the North American context, scholars in Chicano/a studies explored women’s situations and perspectives in the 1980s. Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/ La Frontera: The New Mestiza (1987) is a seminal study of women in the context of the US– Mexico border. She conceptualizes borderlands as a site of shifting identities and a transitional space where a new mestiza consciousness and hybridity can be formed. Her work was ahead of its time in at least two ways. It was an early study on ‘transnational consciousness’ before the term ‘transnational’ was introduced to migration studies. Additionally, her work has been important for the development of queer studies. As Kaisa Ilmonen and Tuula Juvonen write (2015, p. vii), in Anzaldúa’s texts, ‘both multicultural border-identities and the queer become entangled, catalyzing the emergence of mestiza/queer consciousness’. Since the 1990s, feminist scholars have importantly questioned the idea of a harmonious migrant household, prevalent in migration studies for the bulk of the twentieth century. One of the key works in this genre is Hondagneu-Sotelo’s (1994) Gendered Transitions. Since the 1970s, several US industries, such as electronics, automobile, and garment industries, have recruited female workers from Mexico. In addition, Mexican women are employed in large numbers as domestic servants. Hondagneu-Sotelo examines migration as a ‘household strategy’ and reveals how migration and transnational family life can challenge patriarchal family relations and create gendered and generational conflicts within households. Not only women working in the United States but also women ‘left behind’ in Mexico may acquire a sense of independence as a consequence of migration. Hondagneu-Sotelo’s (1994) study was published during the ‘sea change’ in migration studies, namely, the introduction of transnational approaches. Scholars of Italian migration around the world have contributed significantly to the study of gender, migration, and transnationalism. Their studies have focused, for example, on Italian worker activism, the impact of migration on gender, class, and ethnic identities, migration and nation-building, and marriage, sexuality, and transnational family economies (e.g., Baldassar & Gabaccia, 2011; Guglielmo,

Gender  53 2010; Zanoni, 2018). In Women, Gender, and Transnational Lives, edited by Donna Gabaccia and Franca Iacovetta (2002), scholars of Italian migration analyze women in several continents and in various roles, as peasants, workers, and militants. Thus, the book challenges earlier accounts of Italian women as passive, bound to the family sphere, and extends the gender analysis beyond the conventional focus on households. Migrant women’s labor has been an important field of study for several decades already. In this scholarship, most studies have focused on women’s work in the reproductive sphere. The Global South increasingly produces expendable labor for the Global North, and women actively participate in these migration circuits. As Rhacel Parreñas’s (2001) groundbreaking study on Filipina domestic workers in Italy and the United States highlights, neoliberal economic policies and the international migration regime have been integral in creating an ‘international division of reproductive labor’ (see also Hochschild, 2000). As women in Western industrialized nations, and increasingly also in quickly developing economies in the ‘Global South’, engage in paid labor, ‘global care chains’ are born out of the need for a flexible workforce (Ehrenreich & Hochschild, 2002).2 Research on the globalization of care work exemplifies how disparities between nations, originating from the colonial times, affect the global economy because of continuing economic exploitation and military-political dependency. Labor mobility patterns follow the logics of (neo)colonialism, capitalism, and the liberalization of trade (Ehrenreich & Hochschild, 2002), as exemplified by several notable studies on migration within and from Asia. In Empire of Care, Catherine Ceniza Choy (2003) examines migration of Filipino nurses to the United States in the post-Second World War period, revealing how it is rooted in the history of US colonial rule in the Philippines. While economic factors and the liberalization of US immigration policy after the war contributed to this migration, Choy accentuates how US imperialism created powerful transnational imaginings about a better life that created ‘individual and collective desire’ among Filipino nurses ‘for a unique form of social, cultural, and economic success obtainable only outside the national borders of the Philippines’ (Choy, 2003, p. 7). One of the most comprehensive studies of gendered labor migrations within Asia is Nana Oishi’s (2005) Women in Motion, in which she introduces an ‘integrative approach’ to investigate factors promoting or inhibiting women’s migration in migrant sending, receiving, and non-sending countries alike. She reveals how female migration is influenced by the globalization of women’s employment, gendered policies of immigration and emigration, women’s decision-making power within households, and social norms regarding women’s mobility and employment. The rise of women’s mobility in Asia has played an important role in the discourses on the ‘feminization’ of migration, circulating widely, especially since the 1990s. According to this discourse, men had dominated the migrations of the past, but the end of the twentieth century has witnessed increasing female mobility. Donato and Gabaccia (2015) provide an important contribution to the global study of migration in Gender and International Migration, in which they show that women have been migrating globally for more than four centuries. By studying both voluntary and forced migrations, they show that ‘it is the discovery and naming of feminization that are new’ (p. 2), not women’s global mobility. Indeed, women have formed a significant proportion of several past migrations (e.g., among settler colonizers). Lucy Mayblin and Joe Turner (2021, pp. 169–170) have recently divided the current scholarship on gender and migration into two strands of study, ‘gender and sexuality as identity’ and ‘gender and sexuality as power’. While studies in the first strand explore how the migration

54  Research handbook on the sociology of migration experience varies, depending on migrants’ gender and sexual identity, those in the second analyze how ‘borders, policies, institutions, economic systems and states themselves are gendered and sexualized’ and how these ‘structures work to subject people to systems of categorization and in turn make people into gendered and sexualized subjects’ (Mayblin & Turner, 2021, pp. 169–170, italics in the original text). There is important work on migration control, for example, on family reunification and asylum policies, which shows how these policies and the political and public debates surrounding them attach racialized and gendered attributes to people on the move. For instance, Katharine Charsley and Helena Wray (2015) observe the tendency in research and public debates to portray racialized migrant men in a negative light, as a gendered and sexualized threat, while their affective lives, vulnerabilities, and gender identities are ignored. The special issue edited by Charsley and Wray (2015) analyzes how masculinity, just as well as femininity, needs to be understood as fluid and contextual. Indeed, in the past two decades, scholars have increasingly incorporated the study of sexuality in analyses of gender and migration, also in the wide scholarship on migration governance. For example, with its careful analysis of sexuality as a category used in migration control, Eithne Luibhéid’s Entry Denied (2002) is an important contribution to the earlier research that examined how gender, race, and class have intersected in the inclusion and exclusion of migrants at the border. Focusing on the United States, the book analyzes how women’s sexuality has been policed since the late nineteenth century through admitting wives of migrants but excluding lesbians, prostitutes, women pregnant outside of marriage, and other women deemed as ‘immoral’. Through these policing practices, migration control played a crucial role in the maintenance of ‘patriarchal heterosexuality as the nation’s official gender and sexual order’ (Luibhéid, 2002, p. xviii). Finally, queer studies scholars have importantly questioned the heteronormative tendencies that have long characterized research on gender and migration. For example, in Pathways of Desire, a study of the migration of gay and bisexual men from Mexico to the United States, Héctor Carrillo (2018) points to the dominance of heteronormative approaches in research on migration from Mexico, as scholars have primarily focused on (heterosexual) men moving for economic reasons and/or women because of family networks. Carrillo proposes the concept of ‘sexual migration’ to study migration processes ‘motivated, fully or partially, by the sexuality of those who migrate’ (2018, p. 4). He also shows how the migration of gay and bisexual men from Mexico is propelled not only because of ideas relating to sexual freedom but also because of cultural and structural factors, as well as family reasons—to protect families from the ‘social stigma’ related to the men’s belonging to a sexual minority. At the same time, Carrillo questions the stereotypical notions regarding migrant-sending and receiving countries as ‘sexually oppressive places in the global South’ and ‘the more sexually enlightened global North’ (2018, p. 5). As such, Carrillo’s study can also be seen as contributing to the recent critiques of homonationalism, as outlined in the previous section (see also Cantú, 2009; Manalansan, 2003).

CONCLUSION The study of gender and migration is an expansive field, and scholars examine migrants as gendered actors in all stages of the migration process. Despite these advances, it is worth asking how ‘mainstream’ a gender analysis is in migration studies. In 2017, Katharine Donato,

Gender  55 Laura Enriquez, and Cheryl Llewellyn diagnosed the field of gender and migration as being ‘frozen and stalled’. Hondagneu-Sotelo, who characterized the study of gender in migration research as being ‘ghettoized’ in 2013, found that in 2006–2009, the flagship journal of the field, the International Migration Review (IMR), published only seven articles (plus the 2006 special issue by Donato et al.) with the words ‘gender’ or ‘women’ in the title. I went through a similar exercise to see whether research highlighting gender has become more popular since Hondagneu-Sotelo’s review. It seems that it has not. In the issues published in the IMR in 2010–2021, only 25 articles had the words ‘gender’, ‘women/woman’, or ‘female’ in the title or among keywords, amounting to about 5 percent of the published articles.3 In another significant journal in the field, the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (JEMS), these words appeared in the title or as subject terms in 144 articles in 2010–2021. Due to the much more frequent publishing cycle of the JEMS, these articles still represent only about 7 percent of all published articles.4 As rudimentary as my analysis is, it still suggests that the study of gender is not at the core of migration research. Donato et al. (2017) associate the ‘stagnant’ status of the field with the predominance of other analytical frameworks, for example that of illegality, and with the politics of academia, in which women continue to conduct most research on gender. In recent years, several migration scholars have challenged some of the premises of the entire field of study. For instance, Janine Dahinden (2016, p. 2211) criticizes migration research for being a product of nation-states’ migration apparatuses that produce ‘a worldview according to which migration- and ethnicity-related differences’ are the ones that really count. Anna Korteweg (2017, p. 430) argues that migrant integration research perpetuates ‘an us/ them categorization that keeps immigrants on one side and “native” born on the other even as it purports to work towards the erasure of that boundary’. This boundary maintenance creates gendered and racialized subjectivities for migrants, which, in turn, become associated with social problems in research and public debates. Further, the field’s persistent scholarly focus on ‘inter-national’ migration, as opposed to mobilities occurring across various spatial scales (cf. Cresswell, 2010), follows the logic of the nation-state (Dahinden, 2016). As migration scholars (hopefully) take heed of these critiques and develop strategies to mold knowledge production in the field, feminist approaches may provide fruitful in moving forward. The intersectional approach already gives us tools to think beyond ‘migration- and ethnicity-related differences’, but only a fraction of migration studies currently applies an intersectional approach (Lutz & Amelina, 2021). It is to be hoped that the politics of academia (in particular, when considering how right-wing politicians are questioning the whole foundation of gender studies in many countries) will not prevent the broader application of an intersectional approach, as it would help scholars move beyond the ‘ethnic lens’ in migration research (Fox & Jones, 2013). Further, Dahinden (2016) proposes that scholars ought to change the object of study from migrant or ethnic groups to the overall population. Indeed, comparative approaches could bring out intergroup solidarities and mobilization across social groups, and an intersectional perspective is crucial for understanding these social dynamics. Taking inspiration from research on mobilities, scholars could also increasingly blur the division between the study of internal and international migration and examine what kinds of mobilities matter most for different groups of people. They could ask how gender, along with race, class, sexuality, and other factors, shape mobile lives locally and globally, helping researchers avoid the pitfalls of methodological nationalism.

56  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

NOTES 1. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the key legal documents that define the term ‘refugee’ and spell out refugee rights as well as state obligations to provide them protection. 2. For a queer studies critique on care work scholarship, see Manalansan (2006). 3. The IMR publishes four issues per year. Thus, during the study period (January 2010–December 2021), 48 issues were published, and each had an average of ten research articles, amounting to about 480 articles. Of course, my simple approach excludes articles that discuss gender/women without having these words in the title/keywords. I excluded book reviews, editorials, and other texts that were not full research articles. 4. From January 2010–December 2021, JEMS published 144 articles with the words ‘women/woman’, ‘female/females’, or ‘gender’ in the article title and/or subject words. Altogether, during this period, the journal published 171 issues, 10–21 issues per year, amounting to 2,043 articles.

REFERENCES Adichie, C. N. (2014). Americanah. London: HarperCollins (Fourth Estate). Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute Books. Baldassar, L., & Gabaccia, D. R. (Eds.) (2011). Intimacy and Italian migration: Gender and domestic lives in a mobile world. New York: Fordham University Press. Bonvillain, M. M. (2016). Shifting intersections: Fluidity of gender and race in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Americanah. MA thesis, Iowa State University. Cantú, L. Jr. (2009). The sexuality of migration: Border crossings and Mexican immigrant men. Edited by N. A. Naples & S. Vidal-Ortiz. New York: New York University Press. Carrillo, H. (2018). Pathways of desire: The sexual migration of Mexican gay men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Catarino, C., & Morokvasic, M. (2013). Women, gender, transnational migrations and mobility: Focus on research in France. In L. Oso & N. Ribas-Mateos (Eds.) The international handbook on gender, migration and transnationalism: Global and development perspectives (pp. 246–267). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Charsley, K., & Wray, H. (2015). Introduction: The invisible (migrant) man. Men and Masculinities, 18(4), 403–423. Choy, C. C. (2003). Empire of care: Nursing and migration in Filipino American history. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Cleave, C. (2009). The other hand. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Constable, N. (2005). Cross-border marriages: Gender and mobility in transnational Asia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), Article 8, 139–167. Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 17–31. Dahinden, J. (2016). A plea for the ‘de-migranticization’ of research on migration and integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(13), 2207–2225. di Leonardo, M. (1984). The varieties of ethnic experience: Kinship, class, and gender among California Italian-Americans. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Donato, K. M., Enriquez, L. E., & Llewellyn, C. (2017). Frozen and stalled? Gender and migration scholarship in the 21st century. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(10), 1079–1085. Donato, K. M., & Gabaccia, D. R. (2015). Gender and international migration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Donato, K. M., Gabaccia, D. R., Holdaway, J., Manalansan, M., & Pessar, P. R. (2006). A glass half full? Gender in migration studies. International Migration Review, 40(1), 3–24.

Gender  57 Ehrenreich, B., & Hochschild, A. R. (Eds.) (2002). Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Ferguson, R. A. (2004). Aberrations in black: Toward a queer of color critique. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ferguson, R. A. (2018). Queer of color critique. In Oxford research encyclopedia of literature. Retrieved from https://​oxfordre​.com/​literature/​view/​10​.1093/​acrefore/​9780190201098​.001​.0001/​acrefore​ -9780190201098​-e​-33. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2014). Gender and forced migration. In E. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, G. Loescher, K. Long, & N. Sigona (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of refugee and forced migration studies (pp. 395–408). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fox, J. E., & Jones, D. (2013). Migration, everyday life and the ethnicity bias. Ethnicities, 13(4), 385–400. Gabaccia, D. R. (1991). Immigrant women: Nowhere at home? Journal of American Ethnic History, 10(4), 61–87. Gabaccia, D. R., & Iacovetta, F. (Eds.) (2002). Women, gender, and transnational lives: Italian workers of the world. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Grasmuck, S., & Pessar, P. R. (1991). Between two islands: Dominican international migration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Griffiths, M. (2015). ‘Here, man is nothing!’ Gender and policy in an asylum context. Men and Masculinities, 18(4), 468–488. Guglielmo, J. (2010). Living the revolution: Italian women’s resistance and radicalism in New York City, 1880–1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Hajdukowski-Ahmed, M., Khanlou, N., & Moussa, H. (2008). Introduction. In M. Hajdukowski-Ahmed, N. Khanlou, & H. Moussa (Eds.) Not born a refugee woman: Contesting identities, rethinking practices (pp. 1–23). New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Handlin, O. (1951). The uprooted: The epic story of the great migrations that made the American people. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Herrera, G. (2013). Gender and international migration: Contributions and cross-fertilizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 39(1), 471–489. Hiitola, J., Turtiainen, K., & Vuori, J. (2020). Small agency and precarious residency in Afghan refugee families. In J. Hiitola, K. Turtiainen, S. Gruber, & M. Tiilikainen (Eds.) Family life in transition: Borders, transnational mobility, and welfare society in Nordic countries (pp. 177–188). London & New York: Routledge. Hill Collins, P. (2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. New York: Routledge. Hochschild, A. R. (2000). The nanny chain. The American Prospect, 3, 32–36. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994). Gendered transitions: Mexican experiences of immigration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2003). Gender and immigration: A retrospective and introduction. In P. Hondagneu-Sotelo (Ed.) Gender and U.S. immigration: Contemporary trends (pp. 3–19). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2013). New directions in gender and immigration research. In L. Oso & N. Ribas-Mateos (Eds.) The international handbook on gender, migration and transnationalism: Global and development perspectives (pp. 233–245). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., & Cranford, C. (1999). Gender and migration. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.) Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 105–126). New York: Kluwer. Honkasalo, M. L. (2009). Grips and ties: Agency, uncertainty, and the problem of suffering in North Karelia. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 23(1), 51–69. Hyndman, J. (2010). Introduction: The feminist politics of refugee migration. Gender, Place & Culture, 17(4), 453–459. Ilmonen, K., & Juvonen, T. (2015). Queer cultures as sites of becoming. SQS – Journal of Queer Studies in Finland, 9(1–2), v–viii. Indra, D. (Ed.) (1999). Engendering forced migration: Theory and practice. New York: Berghahn Books.

58  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Jain, B. (2020). Detention camp and state of exception in Chris Cleave’s The Other Hand. Commonwealth Essays and Studies, 43(1). Retrieved from http://​journals​.openedition​.org/​ces/​4377. Kelsky, K. (2001). Women on the verge: Japanese women, Western dreams. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Keskinen, S. (2019). Intra-Nordic differences, colonial/racial histories and national narratives: Rewriting Finnish history. Scandinavian Studies, 91(1–2), 163–181. Keskinen, S., & Andreassen, R. (2017). Developing theoretical perspectives on racialisation and migration. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 7(2), 64–69. Korteweg, A. C. (2017). The failures of ‘immigrant integration’: The gendered racialized production of non-belonging. Migration Studies, 5(3), 428–444. Leinonen, J. (2017). Hierarchies of desirability: Racialized cartographies in media discourses on relationships between Finns and foreigners (1982–1992). Scandinavian Studies, 89(2), 217–239. Leinonen, J. (2021). Gendering transnationalism: Migration and mobility in longue durée. In C. Mora & N. Piper (Eds.) Palgrave handbook of gender and migration (pp. 37–52). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Lewis, G. (2013). Unsafe travel: Experiencing intersectionality and feminist displacements. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 38(4), 869–892. Lewis, R. A. (2014). ‘Gay? Prove it’: The politics of queer anti-deportation activism. Sexualities, 17(8), 958–975. Lugones, M. (2007). Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia, 22(1), 186–219. Luibhéid, E. (2002). Entry denied: Controlling sexuality at the border. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Luibhéid, E. (2005). Heteronormativity and immigration scholarship: A call for change. GLQ – A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10(2), 227–235. Lutz, H., & Amelina, A. (2021). Intersectionality and transnationality as key tools for gender-sensitive migration research. In C. Mora & N. Piper (Eds.) Palgrave handbook of gender and migration (pp. 55–72). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Mahler, S. J., & Pessar, P. R. (2001). Gendered geographies of power: Analyzing gender across transnational spaces. Identities, 7(4), 441–459. Manalansan IV, M. F. (2003). Global divas: Filipino gay men in the diaspora. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Manalansan IV, M. F. (2006). Queer intersections: Sexuality and gender in migration studies. International Migration Review, 40(1), 224–249. Mayblin, L., & Turner, J. (2021). Migration studies and colonialism. Cambridge: Polity Press. McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial leather: Race, gender, and sexuality in the colonial contest. New York: Routledge. Morokvasic, M. (1984). ‘Birds of passage are also women …’. International Migration Review, 18(4), 886–907. Oishi, N. (2005). Women in motion: Globalization, state policies, and labor migration in Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge. Parreñas, R. S. (2001). Servants of globalization: Women, migration, and domestic work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Pedraza, S. (1991). Women and migration: The social consequences of gender. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 303–325. Penttinen, E., & Kynsilehto, A. (2017). Gender and mobility: A critical introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Pessar, P. R. (2003). Engendering migration studies: The case of new immigrants in the United States. In P. Hondagneu-Sotelo (Ed.) Gender and U.S. immigration: Contemporary trends (pp. 20–42). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Puar, J. K. (2007). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Rabo, A., & Andreassen, R. (2014). Debate. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 4(1), 40–44. Radwan, M. (2019). Countering cultural deracination: An analytical reading of Adichie’s Americanah. Herms, 8(2), 71–109.

Gender  59 Stoler, A. L. (2002). Carnal knowledge and imperial power: Race and the intimate in colonial rule. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Weinberg, S. S. (1992). The treatment of women in immigration history: A call for change. Journal of American Ethnic History, 11(4), 25–46. Wekker, G. (2016). White innocence: Paradoxes of colonialism and race. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Zanoni, E. (2018). Migrant marketplaces: Food and Italians in North and South America. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

5. Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process Remus Gabriel Anghel1

INTRODUCTION March, 2020. European lockdown. A Romanian care worker in Italy posts an SOS message on Facebook that she has no place to stay after losing her work contract. The message, displaying the vulnerability of temporary workers, went viral. Before the lockdown, a wide array of options were available to migrants aiming to go home, including cheap flights, buses, trains, or microbuses, or occasional travel with other migrants. During the lockdown, as Europe’s borders were closing down in an unprecedented manner, many migrants felt unsafe. Hundreds of thousands of Romanians who worked and lived in Western Europe rushed back home, afraid to remain during the first pandemic wave. The rush raised a series of concerns for Romanian authorities, not knowing what to do with such a large number of people returning home from regions with higher infection rates. After all, even in crisis contexts, such large and unexpected return migration rarely occurs. The Romanian state was taken by surprise by this sudden move, unable to anticipate and adapt to the large-scale return migration of Romanians. Moreover, the return migration fostered by the pandemic has also led to much surprise among Western European governments, who face labor shortages in the fields of agriculture and care work. The lockdown has thus highlighted migration as a social process with states ultimately having limited control over it. It has also revealed the fluid character of Romanian migration, offering us the opportunity to assess and interrogate the theories and research perspectives used in migration scholarship. In researching migration as a social process, some of the most prominent theories concern migration networks. Such theories help us to understand the high mobility among Eastern Europeans and to answer some of the questions raised by the Romanian case. The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. In the next section, I introduce the theories used in understanding the role of migration networks in the evolution of contemporary labor migration. I then discuss some of the ways in which migration networks have been addressed in scholarship on intra-European migration, assessing the ways in which theories have been employed. Given the centrality of migration networks in the wider literature on international migration and transnationalism, I do not provide a comprehensive review of such research, which lies beyond the scope of this chapter. Instead, I focus on the literature concerning intra-European migration, including the case of Romanian migration, which provides a fresh look at the role of migration networks in broader migration systems.

60

Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process  61

MIGRATION CHAINS AND MIGRATION NETWORKS: FOUNDATIONAL APPROACHES Migration scholars have developed a series of theories to understand international migration, many of them coming from the discipline of economics. From these, neoclassic economics (Harris & Todaro, 1970; Todaro, 1969) argues that migration decisions are the result of rational choice made by individual actors who tend to maximize their benefits (Elrick, 2009; Haug, 2008, p. 587). Large migration flows are the aggregate results of individual behavior, and people migrate until the returns accrued through migration are balanced by migration costs. Structural theories, in contrast, have focused on macro perspectives in explaining international migration. Labor migration is driven by economic differences between countries of origin and destination, including differences in unemployment and wages, facilitated by the linkages between these countries, including investments and trade, and flows of goods, money, and information (Boyd, 1989). Both these approaches have been highly influential in the field of migration studies. Over time, they have been refined, but they have been also criticized for remaining within the same structure-agency dichotomy: one focusing on the rational decision-making of individual social actors, and the other focusing on macro-economic factors. In the 1990s, a series of attempts redefined migration scholarship in two ways: (1) scholars aimed at elucidating the links between the micro and the macro dimensions of analysis (Goss & Lindquist, 1995; Morawska, 2001); and (2) others posited an integrated theory of migration able to capture the initiation and perpetuation of migration (Morawska, 2001). In that context, a theoretical model emerged that became dominant in migration studies, which explained the initiation and continuity of international migration over time based on migration networks. It was elaborated by a series of authors, integrated and applied by Massey and his collaborators in the analysis of Mexico–US migration. The model acknowledged that international migration may originate in a context of income differences between countries, from existing links, and through the demand for labor in destination countries. However, this model alone does not explain why and how migration develops and continues, why and how people make decisions to migrate or to stay put (Faist, 2000). The social networks model favors a meso-level approach, focusing on households, communities, and migration networks, which play a primary role in the continuation of migration (Faist, 2000; Massey, 1987; Massey, Goldring, & Durand, 1994). It builds upon three conceptual pillars: (1) the new economics of labor migration theory (NELM); (2) cumulative causation; and (3) migration networks. NELM assumes that migration decisions occur at the level of households (Stark, 1991), not individuals. When migrants decide to move, it is within their households that they decide to migrate or not, what resources to use, and what risks to take. For households, migration is a risk-diversification strategy. As Gurak and Caces (1992, p. 139) argue, markets in the developing world are incomplete and uncertain and in this context, the prevention of risks is the main push for outmigration. Further, there are multiple obstacles to migration, such as lack of information on the destination, lack of access to jobs and housing, and lack of funds for migration. When available, loans have very high interest rates (Gurak & Caces, 1992, p. 139). In such contexts, migration usually originates in households with a middle level of financial resources (Boyd, 1989; Massey et al., 1994) and with adult members. Households send members abroad, who, in turn, will send back money and enable the migration of others from their households and communities.

62  Research handbook on the sociology of migration The theory of relative deprivation (Stark, 1991) seeks to explain why larger parts of the population are increasingly motivated to migrate. The theory argues that migration does not originate in deprivation alone, but in how people perceive deprivation in comparative terms. As migrant households receive remittances, other households in the home country feel deprived and become motivated to migrate as well. Through this mechanism, migration tends to propagate in entire communities. The theory of cumulative causation adds a contextual perspective. It argues that migration alters contexts of origin in such a way that makes further migration likely (Massey, 1990). Among such changes, for instance, cultures of migration emerge. Migration produces cultural changes, becoming a form of desirable social conduct and a sign of success, including the goods and remittances sent to the home country, which further motivate migration. Once such changes emerge, they contribute to the perpetuation of migration. This theory integrates micro- and meso-level perspectives (Elrick, 2009), providing a context for the maintenance and self-feeding character of migration (Massey et al., 1993). Finally, migration networks make migration less risky and less costly. Networks act as propellers of migration: they enable migrants to send remittances, to finance the migration of others, to pass on information on migration, and to mediate between prospective employers and potential migrant employees. As a result, migration gains momentum and self-propagates over time. The notion of migration chains builds on the fact that migration is often a self-perpetuating social process and that migration propagates through social ties and migration networks from one place of origin to other places of origin and from one place of destination to other places of destination. Migration chains can continue to exist over longer periods of time. They build on migrants’ intentions to return and connect to their places of origin, as well as on their decision to reunite with their families (Haug, 2008, p. 591). Migration chains may emerge through the recruitment of labor, but can continue through family reunification and through other legal or irregular flows. The first definition of migration chains was elaborated by MacDonald and MacDonald (1964), referring to the movement of prospective migrants, who may benefit from information, accommodation, support, transportation, and employment ‘by means of primary social relations with previous migrants’ (MacDonald & MacDonald, 1964, p. 82). They examine the case of Italian migration flows to the United States, in which padroni, older Italian migrants, compel the migration of newcomers, often providing essential services, such as lending money, offering accommodation, and serving as interpreters. The serial migration of breadwinners, usually lone male migrants, is later followed by other male migrants who, in turn, are assisted by others. At a later stage, delayed family migration occurs (Haug, 2015; MacDonald & MacDonald, 1964, p. 85). Boyd (1989) discusses migration chains in relation to family reunification, arguing for the role of immigration policies towards family reunification as one of the most important factors influencing these migration chains. Finally, MacDonald and MacDonald posit a clear distinction between migration chains and ‘impersonally organized migration’ and assistance (MacDonald & MacDonald, 1964, p. 85), migration facilitated by formal organization and recruitment. Very often, though, formal mechanisms are combined with informal social ties. Some migrants may first use formal channels but are then followed by the irregular migration of their followers, or those that enter legally may fall into an irregular status. Migration chains can be seen as diffusion processes following an S-shaped curve (Faist, 1997; Haug, 2015, p. 86). With each immigrant, the stock of social capital grows at the destination and decreases at the origin, increasing the potential for further migration. From

Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process  63 a functionalist point of view, social capital refers to a variety of features in the social structure that enable individuals to achieve their goals (Lin, 1999, p. 471), and relate them to networks, groups, and organizations (Faist, 2000). For example, trust is a form of social capital. When individuals have common goals, such as aligning with NGO activities, they trust other individuals with whom they aim to cooperate. The collaboration in such cases is premised on the fact that people trust each other and can work together. Similarly, migrant networks and social ties are forms of social capital (Massey, 1993, p. 428), which individuals deploy when they aim at achieving their goals. The difference between networks and ties is that ties are set up between single individuals, whereas networks are sets of social ties. Explaining the S-shaped curve, with each individual arriving at their destination, entails looking at the migration chains that develop as more individuals in the home country have connections to more individuals abroad and, thus, enjoy more opportunities to migrate. In the incipient phase, the number of migrants is small; migration has a tendency to grow slowly at the beginning. It then follows a period of steep growth in which the number of ties and networks multiply and, increasingly, more people are able to migrate, the migration gains momentum, and often becomes mass migration. As migration ties reach all levels of the origin society, the numbers of potential migrants decreases and there are fewer people willing to migrate. As a consequence, there is a quick decrease in migration. People continue migrating, albeit at a reduced pace, and migration slowly decreases (Haug, 2008, pp. 591–592). Research has been conducted on migration chains among people with low incomes (Boyd, 1989; MacDonald & MacDonald, 1964), and on the relationship between migration chains and ethnic enclaves in cities of destination (Johnston, Trlin, Henderson, & North, 2006, p. 1228). The role of migration chains for the highly skilled or those with higher incomes (Csedö, 2010) is less straightforward, as they may be more able to access information from ‘impersonal sources’ (Csedö, 2010). As Johnston et al. suggest, among skilled migrants, migration chains are not the norm; however, they may play a certain role ‘even among skilled, affluent migrants’ (Johnston et al., 2006, p. 1247). The literature does not make a clear distinction between migration chains and migration networks, not least because there is an intimate relationship between them. A restrictive understanding of migration chains (Boyd, 1989), referring only to the family reunification of formally-recruited labor migrants, may not presuppose that such a relationship necessarily exists. The same may occur in the case of highly qualified individuals employing migration strategies. In reality, though, the continuation of migration and the establishment of migration chains relies on migrants’ use of their social relations (including networks) for some or all stages of their migration projects (see, for instance, Faist, 2000). Migration networks are thus social institutions that play a central role in the development of migration chains (Light & Von Scheven, 2008); as Dekker and Engbersen (2014, p. 402) put it, ‘the effective units of migration were (and are) neither individuals nor households but sets of people linked by acquaintance, kinship, and work experience’. I use the notion of an ‘institution’ expressed by Goss and Lindquist (1995, p. 332), as an entity consisting of sets of norms and ‘practices that are … sedimented in time-space’, enabling the use of resources for members’ goals. Within their social networks, migrants follow some established ‘rules’; they often enable the migration of others, help them with information on migration, and offer support throughout the process. Such rules and resources are maintained over time, since migration is a temporally evolving process. Migrants can mobilize resources within migration networks, either financial resources that they can use while crossing borders irregularly or purchasing fake visas, or social ties that they can use during migration and in the process of

64  Research handbook on the sociology of migration incorporation. The nature of these ties vary and can be based on various forms of social capital, including obligation, solidarity, trust, or reciprocal exchanges (Dahinden, 2005, p. 192; Haug, 2008, p. 588; Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993). Migration networks play a role not only in sustaining migration, but also for migrant incorporation in destination societies and/or for sustaining transnationalism (Bilecen, Gamper, & Lubbers, 2018). One can also make a distinction between migration networks and migrant social networks used for their incorporation in destination countries (Elrick, 2009). Migration networks have been extensively analyzed since the 1960s and 1970s (Boyd, 1989) and the literature is vast. In this chapter, I elaborate some of the main characteristics of migration networks and hypothesize on their role in the dynamics of transnational migration. Migration networks usually originate with the migration of pioneers, innovators who discover opportunities but face the risks and costs associated with migration (Massey et al., 1994). Eventually, they are able to overcome difficulties and bring along members of their families and communities. Migration networks span from sending to receiving areas and make the migration of prospective migrants easier (Massey, 1987), by facilitating information transfer and support. Thus, they act as an internal feedback mechanism (de Haas, 2010). They can help explain why and how migration becomes a self-sustaining process, even after the conditions that initiated migration cease to exist. Migration networks may incorporate many or few migrants, and they can enable intense or weak transfers of knowledge and resources. They can be gender balanced or can incorporate more women or more men (Haug, 2008). As labor markets in countries of destination often lack workers, networks have a functional role, helping to fill labor demands. Operating at the meso-level, migration networks link social structure to individual decision-making processes (Faist, 1997; Haug, 2008, p. 588). They influence the selection of destination and origin sites (Gurak & Caces, 1992, p. 153), who migrates from communities and households, shaping the size and momentum of migration. They thus have not just adaptive, but also selective functions (Gurak & Caces, 1992, p. 153). Debates on migration networks critique their role in individual decision-making. In order to accommodate a wide variety of situations, scholars have proposed a set of hypotheses to be tested in various cases, rather than adopting a general model (Elrick, 2009; Guilmoto & Sandron, 2001; Gurak & Caces, 1992; Haug, 2008). These hypotheses center on contexts of origin and of destination in explaining migration. In the origin country, in line with NELM theory, the encouraging hypothesis argues that families encourage family members to migrate to improve household income and reduce economic risks (Gurak & Caces, 1992; Stark, 1991). The conflict hypothesis, in contrast, focuses on intra-family or intra-community conflicts as a potential cause of migration (Hugo, 1981). In addressing causes of immobility, the affinity hypothesis suggests that the existence of relatives and friends in the home country reduces the probability to out-migrate (Ritchey, 1976). In destination contexts, the information hypothesis posits a scenario in which relatives and friends at the destination influence further migration as they provide information on migration and living conditions abroad (Ritchey, 1976). Similarly, the facilitating hypothesis states that migration networks can facilitate migration by offering resources and support (Ritchey, 1976). Putting migration networks at the center of a research agenda on migration requires expanding these hypotheses through a series of research questions emerging from different cases. In the remainder of the chapter, I cover three highly relevant topics: (1) the composition of migration networks; (2) state policies and other institutions supporting migration; and (3) the dispersion of migration in relation to migration networks.

Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process  65

DEBATING MIGRATION NETWORKS To explain the behavior of individuals involved in migration networks, research has focused not only on the attributes of the people in the network, but also on the characteristics of their ties (Dahinden, 2005, p. 194). This focus on social ties came at a later stage than the initial debates on migration networks. It refined the scholarship and put more emphasis on migrant agency. Such a perspective acknowledges that migration networks do not simply consist of similar ties; there is a need to examine the differentiated power positions and inequalities within them, including the role of helpers (Carling, 2016). Migration networks are formed by sets of strong and weak ties. While strong ties refer to ties among kin, family members, and close friends, weak ties comprise relations among acquaintances, in which social norms cannot be closely observed (Coleman, 1988) or enforced (Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993). While strong ties lead to the creation of bonding social capital, with information and resources being used among a small number of individuals, weak ties can pull together more information and resources, and may be more effective for job searches (Granovetter, 1973). Bridging social capital connects individuals to wider social groups, offering greater access to information and resources, whereas bonding social capital stresses the value of migration networks among homogeneous groups (Dekker & Engbersen, 2014, p. 403). While ‘migration scholars understand [migration networks] as consisting of a set of “strong ties” based on kinship, friendship, and a shared community of origin’ (Dekker & Engbersen, 2014, p. 403), there are also many cases of loose, changing networks in which ties are weak and people move in and out with ease (Wellman, 1999). Among higher-income or highly skilled migrants, networks may be weak or they do not emerge at all (Boyd, 1989, p. 655; Csedö, 2010). In the end, theories concerning migration networks show that migration propagates through the use of social capital and that migration is, above all, a social process (Boyd, 1989, p. 642). One critique of migration network theory points out that they do not act alone (Krissman, 2005). They function in the context of broader structures of opportunities, including those offered by larger economic and political institutions, such as states and other institutions facilitating or restricting migration. The recruitment of new labor migrants is conducted by institutions that interact with migrant networks, such as brokers and human resources companies, recruitment agencies, and governmental institutions involved in the management of migration, as well as by institutions that are part of the infrastructure of migration, such as transportation companies, remittance transfer companies, and so on. This interaction creates complex and diverse contexts in which migration networks operate. Even when migration networks tend to become autonomous from such institutions, and from the conditions that created them (Massey et al., 1993), restrictive or tolerant policies can have an influence (Krissman, 2005); for example, in a context of restrictive measures, migration may continue by irregular means (Elrick & Ciobanu, 2009). Further, the role of intermediaries is important (Belloni, 2020). The concept of an ‘intermediary trap’ (Xiang, 2013) describes their pivotal role in large-scale migration. In such cases, even when intermediaries are licensed by states, states and migrants are both dependent upon them. The notion of a ‘trap’ describes contexts in which there exists voluntary association between migrants and intermediaries, as opposed to a situation of ‘capture’, when ‘elite groups subjugate the interest of others to their own’ (Xiang, 2013, p. 4). The fees charged by intermediaries can depend on a variety of factors as well, including formal

66  Research handbook on the sociology of migration recruiting processes (McKenzie & Rapoport, 2010, p. 811), government red tape (Xiang, 2013, p. 3), or increased costs for irregular border crossings. Existing institutions can have effects on migration in two other ways: the structuration of migration networks over time, and the choice of destination. The structuration thesis stresses that migration attains certain levels of self-organization, becoming a system with rules and norms, thus, having some organizing principles and mobilizing resources within it (Goss & Lindquist, 1995; Gurak & Caces, 1992, p. 153). Gurak and Caces (1992) argue that migration networks are spontaneous, quite diverse in form and function, and vary over time; they need not be highly institutionalized, but tend to be more hierarchical with the growing risks of migration (Gurak & Cases, 1992, p. 151). Moreover, migration networks do not necessarily provide the most favorable settings for migrants, but they are relatively efficient over longer periods of time. Finally, networks adapt, and activities within networks are coordinated with other activities (Gurak & Caces, 1992, p. 156; Johnston et al., 2006, p. 1228). Networks also are able to explain in a wide variety of situations why migrants move from certain places of origin and arrive in certain places of destination (Light & Von Scheven, 2008, p. 705) and occupy certain sectors of activity (Faist, 1997; Gurak & Caces, 1992). The theory of cumulative causation in destination contexts stresses that migration expands migrant opportunities, and as employers continue hiring incoming migrant workers, networks become ‘locked in’ at certain locations (Guilmoto & Sandron, 2001, p. 156; Light & Von Scheven, 2008, p. 706). At the same time, the network saturation approach argues for the opposite, that increased migration puts pressure on housing and employment, pushing wages down and rent prices up (Light, 2008). Further, as Light (2008) argues, city policies influence the arrival of new immigrants. For instance, restrictive policies towards poor newcomers in Los Angeles, including the shutting down of sweatshops and the reduction of slums, may result in ‘deflected immigration’ towards other destinations in the United States. In such cases, a ‘dispersion effect’ emerges, driving migration networks from older to newer settlement locations (Light & Von Scheven, 2008, p. 706). In the remainder of this chapter, I review and discuss research conducted in Europe regarding the uses, limits, and critiques of the theoretical perspectives on migration networks that have emerged from different case studies of East–West migration within Europe.

MIGRATION NETWORKS IN EAST–WEST EUROPEAN MIGRATION The current image of Eastern European migrants often portrays highly dynamic individuals involved in fluid mobilities, as suggested in the vignette at the beginning of the chapter. But previously, during state socialism, international mobility was highly restricted, even though there existed different forms of international mobility, such as tourism and petty trade, especially among communist countries (Morokvasic-Muller, 1999). Communist states, however, were by no means controlling the populations within their boundaries; for example, informal economic practices were widespread (Chelcea & Mateescu, 2005; Verdery, 1996). With the opening of borders after 1989, people further developed informal practices across borders— trade tourism boomed and irregular migration started to develop. Thirty years of post-socialist transition have resulted in a strong, complex, and dynamic intra-European migration that has seen millions of people on the move. The forms of this

Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process  67 migration have varied greatly, fueling a wide body of scholarship debating its patterns and effects in countries of origin and destination. Migration motivations were found to be diverse, from those growing out of the dramatic changes produced by post-socialist transitions (Anghel, Botezat, Coșciug, Manafi, & Roman, 2016; Burrell, 2009, p. 9), accompanied by insecurity, poverty, and unemployment (White, 2009), to those among the highly skilled, who aimed at working in lucrative jobs in West European cities (Csedö, 2010). Vulnerable individuals were often hit harder by economic changes, especially single (and, sometimes, married) women in their forties and fifties, who had to migrate and become live-in care workers in order to take care of their children left behind (Cvajner, 2019; Moschitz, 2011; White, 2009, p. 73). Thus, in many cases, the motivations underlying migration emerged as a result of the negative experiences of economic transitions, coupled with the opening of Western European markets to Eastern Europeans (Black, Engbersen, Okólski, & Panțîru, 2010). East–West migration has often been described in terms of circulation between countries of origin and destination, with migrants keeping their feet in both societies (Morawska, 2002; Okolski, 2001), rather than one-way immigration (Favell & Nebe, 2009, p. 221). Researchers use notions such as ‘floating populations’ (Meeus, 2012), ‘transnational commuting’ (Glorius, Grabowska-Lusinska, & Kuvik, 2013), or ‘liquid migration’ (Engbersen & Snel, 2013) in order to describe these migratory movements. Given that the literature emphasizes the mobility of Eastern Europeans, including different attachments to different places, one could ask several questions. What is the role of migration networks in Eastern European migrant practices of mobility? What is their role in the dispersion effect, namely, settling into certain destinations and matching the supply and demand of their labor markets? Are migrants ‘footloose’, with their migration ‘liquid’, or are there forms of social support on the ground foregrounding their mobility? Liquid migration is premised on migrants having easy access to multiple European destinations. As many Eastern European migrants are EU citizens, they are entitled to free passage among all EU countries and labor markets. They can use networks to access jobs, as well as human resources companies, making official applications and employing individual job-seeking strategies. In such cases, migration networks are less important, different from cases of irregular migration, in which those on the move rely more on social networks (Bommes & Sciortino, 2011). At the same time, access to Western European labor markets is often facilitated by friends, relatives, and acquaintances residing in destination countries. ‘Knowing somebody’ is valuable not only for those experiencing difficult access to the labor market, but also for EU citizens seeking jobs (Csedö, 2010; Snel, Engbersen, & Faber, 2016). In this context, the literature is illustrative on how Eastern Europeans have made use of migration networks and how these networks are still relevant in explaining the dynamics of contemporary migration. Over the years, migration networks have been addressed in various ways in the literature on Eastern European migration. Networks are often mentioned, but their use tends to be rather metaphoric (Ryan & Dahinden, 2021); less attention is devoted to the ways in which they are structured and operate (Bakewell, Kubal, & Pereira, 2016). A series of studies on the irregular migration of Romanians and Moldovans to Italy and Spain shows that networks facilitate migration, jobs, and housing for new migrants (Elrick & Ciobanu, 2009; Moschitz, 2011; Potot, 2003; Stan, 2005). Networks have also been important in some cases of Polish or Ukrainian migration (Banfi & Boccagni, 2009; Elrick & Lewandowska, 2009). As Cvajner

68  Research handbook on the sociology of migration and Sciortino show (2010), volume-based migration is first precipitated by ‘pioneers’, followed by larger numbers of migrants. Although few studies detail the actual structure of such networks, some do highlight their role in facilitating migration and lowering risks, elaborating the practices and costs of border-crossing (Anghel, 2013; Bleahu, 2004). Such studies reveal that the role of migration networks has changed with the enlargement of the EU and the extension of visa-free admission for citizens of Eastern Europe. Social support and networks are used for helping to locate a place to stay and obtaining a job (Favell & Nebe, 2009, p. 209). Case studies on precarious migration among Roma, including people performing different types of street work (Anghel, 2016; Pantea, 2013) demonstrate the ease of intra-European migration and the role of social ties and helping institutions, such as NGOs and churches, in facilitating the migration and adaptation of highly mobile and precarious people in the new contexts of reception. The role of networks must be examined in the context of bilateral treaties between countries (Engbersen, Leerkes, Grabowska-Lusinska, Snel, & Burgers, 2013), and the great diversity and multiplicity of formal and informal labor intermediaries. There is no clear agreement on whether informal agents are a part of migration networks (Elrick & Lewandowska, 2009); however, they may assist in migration and the creation of networks. Many migrants tend to rely on intermediaries if they do not have access to pioneers or knowledge about informal jobs, such as care work (Elrick & Lewandowska, 2008, p. 728). Moreover, when they are prevalent, legal recruitment mechanisms may overshadow informal practices (Elrick & Lewandowska, 2009, p. 64), especially in sectors such as construction (Napierala & Trevena, 2010), or in agriculture and the food industry, as in the case of Germany (Cosma, Ban, & Gabor, 2020). Finally, migrants may access latent social ties via internet platforms, through unknown individuals who can provide information on migration, especially ‘streetwise knowledge’ (Dekker, Engbersen, & Faber, 2016). Sometimes, social support and help can be offered based on solidarity. Facebook migrant groups in Western Europe, such as Romanian groups in Germany,2 offer free support and information to newcomers looking for employment, facing legal issues, and needing daily support. In short, migrants’ various practices of mobility may be sustained by the multiplicity of job opportunities and structures of social support, as well as formal and informal labor intermediaries. Criticism on the existing body of work on migration networks has pointed to gaps when it comes to accounting for migrant agency, and the role of helping actors within networks, the value and cost of their help, and their geographical location (Carling, 2016). Furthermore, migration networks provide few answers to the question of why migration patterns ‘change as they do’ (Bakewell et al., 2016, p. 6), why and how migration chains tend to continue or stop developing (de Haas, 2010). Some scholars have thus pointed to ‘feedback mechanisms’, such as the information, resources, and support provided to newcomers. While in most cases, such mechanisms act as facilitators of migration, with older migrants acting as gatekeepers for newcomers, in other cases, they may act as ‘gate closers’ (Snel et al., 2016, p. 140), hampering the migration of others (Bakewell et al., 2016). The concept of gate closing calls attention to the importance of contexts of reception, and whether they are supportive or obstructive to newcomers. Snel et al. (2016), for instance, show that the EU enlargement process has brought more Eastern Europeans to the Dutch labor market, able to arrive and depart with ease and compete against Moroccans on the low-skilled labor market. As a result, Moroccan migrants are less eager or less able to offer support and encouragement for prospective Moroccan migrants, even providing negative feedback to newcomers, including friends or

Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process  69 family members. This ‘negative cumulative migration’ (Engbersen, Snel, & Esteves, 2016) occurs within contexts of reception with stricter immigration policies, reduced labor market opportunities, and unfriendly societal reception of immigrants. DiMaggio and Garip (2012) differentiate between three feedback mechanisms. The first is social learning or facilitation, in which migrants send back information and offer support (see also Garip & Asad, 2016). In studies on Eastern European migration, networks have proven very effective as mediums of information transfer concerning the most efficient strategies for crossing borders and adaptation to the destination context (Anghel, 2013; Moschitz, 2011). A second mechanism refers to the normative pressure or influence that propagates through networks. Migrants’ frequent home visits and engagement in transnational communication spread information about the benefits of migration and contribute to the rise of a certain normativity, which can be realized either by direct contact or messages in the form of personal network feedback (Bakewell & Jolivet, 2016). Empirical case studies have revealed the strong normative pressure associated with emerging cultures of migration in areas of origin and the new ideas emerging among migrants and their families (Horváth, 2008). The third mechanism refers to the role of network externalities in migration, in which the migratory behaviors of potential migrants are positively influenced by the previous migration of others, including acquaintances, relatives, or friends. If some individuals migrate, more people will be inclined to migrate as well. In a study of Romanian migration to Italy, migration has become ‘fashionable’ in a small town in the northern part of the country (Anghel, 2008). It is not only the role of migration networks that convinces people to migrate, but also the behavior of many local residents. Migration also generates a pool of resources and a migration industry (including smuggler gangs, human resources companies, migrant support groups, associations, and so on) that influence the migratory behaviors of potential migrants (Bakewell et al., 2016, p. 7; Garapich, 2008). To sum up, while much scholarship has focused on the role of migration networks in propagating migration chains by capturing migrant agency within networks, feedback mechanisms come to the fore with a wider variety of cases, including those in which migration is a more fragmented, even individualized process.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Migration scholars have long debated the role of migration chains and networks in the emergence and development of migration, offering a panoply of theories and concepts. Many have examined the role of social networks in sustaining migratory flows, not just in cases when states support migrants, but also when they are restrictive or simply are too weak to control international movements, as in many parts of the developing world. In this chapter, I have first reviewed and discussed the main theories and debates concerning migration chains and migration networks. I have situated these debates within the theoretical perspective of NELM theory and theories of cumulative causation, assessing the centrality of migration networks within migration chains. Focusing further on migration networks, I have addressed some of the main criticisms of network theories and their usefulness. Because I endeavor to unpack the role of migration networks in explaining migration flows, I do not address the literature on social network analysis (SNA) (Ryan & Dahinden, 2021), or the use of networks for migrant incorporation and transnationalism (Bilecen et al., 2018).

70  Research handbook on the sociology of migration In the second part of the chapter, I have examined the mobile and flexible flows of intra-European migration. Among critiques of theories on migrant networks in this contest, I have pointed to the gaps concerning migrant agency. The structure of migrant networks and the types of social capital within them are also important. In asking how networks help to sustain migration, one may look at different forms of social capital, and whether networks are maintained by solidarity among members, obligations (including kinship obligations), reciprocity transactions (thus different forms of exchange), or trust. It is further relevant to ask if networks are based on weak or strong ties. Much of the existing literature does not actually detail such structures, instead using the concept of migration networks in a more metaphorical sense and not in a systematic way (Ryan & Dahinden, 2021). Besides facilitating migration, networks are mediums through which migration mechanisms operate. One may ask about migrant agency and network functions in relation to macro- and meso-level institutions, including states, markets, and intermediaries. Thus, the relevance of migration networks in propagating contemporary migration is significant. Following a network logic in migration research remains one of the most promising explanations for how migratory flows occur, and it further affords the possibility to interrogate the meanings of social capital and migrant agency in contexts of lesser state control over cross-border mobility, unpacking the mechanisms and motivations facilitating migration.

NOTES 1.

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2020-0338, within PNCDI III. 2. In this respect, I have examined Facebook groups in the Nuremberg and Bielefeld areas.

REFERENCES Anghel, R. G. (2008). Changing statuses: Freedom of movement, locality and transnationality of irregular Romanian migrants in Milan. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(5), 787–802. Anghel, R. G. (2013). Romanians in Western Europe: Migration, status dilemmas, and transnational connections. Vol. 29. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Anghel, R. G. (2016). Migration in differentiated localities: Changing statuses and ethnic relations in a multi‐ethnic locality in Transylvania, Romania. Population, Space and Place, 22(4), 356–366. Anghel, R. G., Botezat, A., Coșciug, A., Manafi, I., & Roman, M. (2016). International migration, return migration, and their effects: A comprehensive review on the Romanian case. IZA Discussion Paper No. 10445. Retrieved from http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.2139/​ssrn​.2895293. Bakewell, O., & Jolivet, D. (2016). Broadcasting migration outcomes. In O. Bakewell, G. Engbersen, M. L. Fonseca, & C. Horst (Eds.) Beyond networks: Feedback in migration processes (pp. 183–204). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Bakewell, O., Kubal, A., & Pereira, S. (2016). Introduction: Feedback in migration processes. In O. Bakewell, G. Engbersen, M. L. Fonseca, & C. Horst (Eds.) Beyond networks: Feedback in migration processes (pp. 1–17). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Banfi, L., & Boccagni, P. (2009). Transnational family life: One pattern or many, and why? A comparative study on female migration. In A. Kraler, E. Kofman, & M. Kohli (Eds.) Gender, generations and the family in international migration (pp. 287–312). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Belloni, M. (2020). The big gamble: The migration of Eritreans to Europe. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process  71 Bilecen, B., Gamper, M., & Lubbers, M. J. (2018). The missing link: Social network analysis in migration and transnationalism. Social Networks, 53, 1–3. Black, R., Engbersen, G., Okólski, M., & Panțîru, C. (Eds.) (2010). A continent moving west? EU enlargement and labour migration from Central and Eastern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Bleahu, A. (2004). Romanian migration to Spain: Motivations, networks and strategies. CENPO Working Papers, Public Policy Centre, Romania. Bommes, M., & Sciortino, G. (Eds.) (2011). Foggy social structures: Irregular migration, European labour markets and the welfare state. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Boyd, M. (1989). Family and personal networks in international migration: Recent developments and new agendas. International Migration Review, 23(3), 638–670. Burrell, K. (2009). Introduction. Migration to the UK from Poland: Continuity and change in East–West European mobility. In K. Burrell (Ed.) Polish migration to the UK in the ‘new’ European Union (pp. 1–20). Farnham: Ashgate. Carling, J. (2016). Making and breaking a chain: Migrants’ decisions about helping others migrate. In O. Bakewell, G. Engbersen, M. L. Fonseca, & C. Horst (Eds.) Beyond networks: Feedback in migration processes (pp. 156–182). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Chelcea, L., & Mateescu, O. (2005). Economia informală după 1989: Pieţe, practici sociale şi transformări ale statului. Bucharest: Paideia. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. Cosma, V. S., Ban, C., & Gabor, D. (2020). The human cost of fresh food: Romanian workers and Germany’s food supply chains. Review of Agrarian Studies, 10(2), 7–27. Csedö, K. (2010). Markets and networks: Channels towards the employment of Eastern European professionals and graduates in London. In R. Black, G. Engbersen, M. Okolski, & C. Panțîru (Eds.) A continent moving west? EU enlargement and labour migration from Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 89–114). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Cvajner, M. (2019). Soviet signoras: Personal and collective transformations in Eastern European migration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cvajner, M., & Sciortino, G. (2010). A tale of networks and policies: Prolegomena to an analysis of irregular migration careers and their developmental paths. Population, Space and Place, 16(3), 213–225. Dahinden, J. (2005). Contesting transnationalism? Lessons from the study of Albanian migration networks from former Yugoslavia. Global Networks, 5(2), 191–208. de Haas, H. (2010). The internal dynamics of migration processes: A theoretical inquiry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1587–1617. Dekker, R., & Engbersen, G. (2014). How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate migration. Global Networks, 14(4), 401–418. Dekker, R., Engbersen, G., & Faber, M. (2016). The use of online media in migration networks. Population, Space and Place, 22(6), 539–551. DiMaggio, P., & Garip, F. (2012). Network effects and social inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 93–118. Elrick, T. (2009). Transnational networks of Eastern European labour migrants. Doctoral dissertation, Freie Universität, Berlin. Elrick, T., & Ciobanu, O. (2009). Migration networks and policy impacts: Insights from Romanian– Spanish migrations. Global Networks, 9(1), 100–116. Elrick, T., & Lewandowska, E. (2008). Matching and making labour demand and supply: Agents in Polish migrant networks of domestic elderly care in Germany and Italy. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(5), 717–734. Elrick, T., & Lewandowska, E. (2009). Changing patterns of Polish labour migration after the UK’s opening of the labour market? Insights from rural case studies in the Opolskie and Świętokrzyskie Voivodships. In K. Burrell (Ed.) Polish migration to the UK in the ‘new’ European Union (pp. 49–66). Farnham: Ashgate. Engbersen, G., Leerkes, A., Grabowska-Lusinska, I., Snel, E., & Burgers, J. (2013). On the differential attachments of migrants from Central and Eastern Europe: A typology of labour migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6), 959–981.

72  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Engbersen, G., & Snel, E. (2013). Liquid migration: Dynamic and fluid patterns of post-accession migration flows. In B. Glorius, I. Grabowska-Lusinska, & A. Kuvik (Eds.) Mobility in transition: Migration patterns of EU enlargement (pp. 21–40). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Engbersen, G., Snel, E., & Esteves, A. (2016). Migration mechanisms of the middle range: On the concept of reverse cumulative causation. In O. Bakewell, G. Engbersen, M. L. Fonseca, & C. Horst (Eds.) Beyond networks: Feedback in international migration (pp. 231–246). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Faist, T. (1997). The crucial meso-level. In T. Hammar, G. Brochmann, K. Tamas, & T. Faist (Eds.) International migration, immobility and development (pp. 187–217). London: Routledge. Faist, T. (2000). The volume and dynamics of transnational social spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Favell, A., & Nebe, T. (2009). Internal and external movers: East–West migration and the impact of EU enlargement. In E. Recchi & A. Favell (Eds.) Pioneers of European integration: Citizenship and mobility within the EU (pp. 205–223). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Garapich, M. P. (2008). The migration industry and civil society: Polish immigrants in the United Kingdom before and after EU enlargement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(5), 735–752. Garip, F., & Asad, A. L. (2016). Network effects in Mexico–US migration: Disentangling the underlying social mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(10), 1168–1193. Glorius, B., Grabowska-Lusinska, I., & Kuvik, A. (Eds.) (2013). Mobility in transition: Migration patterns of EU enlargement. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Goss, J., & Lindquist, B. (1995). Conceptualizing international labor migration: A structuration perspective. International Migration Review, 29(2), 317–351. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Guilmoto, C. Z., & Sandron, F. (2001). The internal dynamics of migration networks in developing countries. Population: An English Selection, 13(2), 135–164. Gurak, D. T., & Caces, F. (1992). Migration networks and the shaping of migration systems. In M. Kritz, L. L. Lim, & Z. Hania (Eds.) International migration systems: A global approach (pp. 150–176). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Harris, J. R., & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: A two-sector analysis. The American Economic Review, 60(1), 126–142. Haug, S. (2008). Migration networks and migration decision-making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(4), 585–605. Haug, S. (2015). New migration from Italy to Germany. In I. Gjergji (Ed.) La nuova emigrazione italiana: Cause, mete e figure sociali (pp. 83–110). Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari. Horváth, I. (2008). The culture of migration of rural Romanian youth. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(5), 771–786. Hugo, G. (1981). Village-community ties, village norms, and ethnic and social networks: A review of evidence from the Third World. In G. F. de Jong & R. W. Gardner (Eds.) Migration decision making: Multidisciplinary approaches to microlevel studies in developed and developing countries (pp. 186–224). Oxford: Pergamon. Johnston, R., Trlin, A., Henderson, A., & North, N. (2006). Sustaining and creating migration chains among skilled immigrant groups: Chinese, Indians and South Africans in New Zealand. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(7), 1227–1250. Krissman, F. (2005). Sin coyote ni patron: Why the ‘migrant network’ fails to explain international migration. International Migration Review, 39(1), 4–44. Light, I. (2008). Deflecting immigration: Networks, markets and regulations in Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Light, I., & Von Scheven, E. (2008). Mexican migration networks in the United States, 1980–2000. International Migration Review, 42(3), 704–728. Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 467–487. MacDonald, J. S., & MacDonald, L. D. (1964). Chain migration ethnic neighborhood formation and social networks. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 42(1), 82–97. Massey, D. S. (1987). Understanding Mexican migration to the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1372–1403.

Migration chains and migration networks: researching migration as a social process  73 Massey, D. S. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 56(1), 3–26. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19(3), 431–466. Massey, D. S., Goldring, L., & Durand, J. (1994). Continuities in transnational migration: An analysis of nineteen Mexican communities. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1492–1533. McKenzie, D., & Rapoport, H. (2010). Self-selection patterns in Mexico–US migration: The role of migration networks. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(4), 811–821. Meeus, B. (2012). How to ‘catch’ floating populations? Research and the fixing of migration in space and time. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(10), 1775–1793. Morawska, E. (2001). Structuring migration: The case of Polish income-seeking travelers to the West. Theory and Society, 30(1), 47–80. Morawska, E. (2002). Transnational migration in the enlarged European Union: A perspective from East and Central Europe. In J. Sielonka (Ed.) Europe unbound (pp. 161–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morokvasic-Muller, M. (1999). La mobilité transnationale comme ressource: Le cas des migrants de l’Europe de l’Est. Cultures & Conflits, 33–34, 105–122. Moschitz, E. (Director) & Seeber, M., & Riahi, A. T. (Producers) (2011). Mama illegal [Film]. Austria: Golden Girls Filmproduktion & Filmservices GmbH. Napierala, J., & Trevena, P. (2010). Patterns and determinants of sub-regional migration: A case study of Polish construction workers in Norway. In R. Black, G. Engbersen, M. Okolski, & C. Panțîru (Eds.) A continent moving west? EU enlargement and labour migration from Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 51–72). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Okolski, M. (2001). Incomplete migration: A new form of mobility in Central and Eastern Europe. The case of Polish and Ukrainian migrants. In C. Wallace & D. Stola (Eds.) Patterns of migration in Central Europe (pp. 105–128). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pantea, M.-C. (2013). Social ties at work: Roma migrants and the community dynamics. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(11), 1726–1744. Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1320–1350. Potot, S. (2003). Circulation et réseaux de migrants roumains: Une contribution à l’étude des nouvelles mobilités en Europe. Doctoral dissertation, Université Nice Sophia Antipolis. Ritchey, P. N. (1976). Explanation of migration. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 363–404. Ryan, L., & Dahinden, J. (2021). Qualitative network analysis for migration studies: Beyond metaphors and epistemological pitfalls. Global Networks, 21(3), 459–469. Snel, E., Engbersen, G., & Faber, M. (2016). From bridgeheads to gate closers: How migrant networks contribute to declining migration from Morocco to the Netherlands. In O. Bakewell, G. Engbersen, M. L. Fonseca, & C. Horst (Eds.) Beyond networks: Feedback in migration processes (pp. 134–155). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Stan, R. (2005). Patterns and socio-economic consequences of international labour migration on Catholic and Orthodox villages from Eastern Romania (Neamt county). A Tarkaság Dicsérete. Az Erasmus Kollégium Diákjainak Tanulmányai. Budapest: Erasmus Kollégium Alapítvány, 379–393. Stark, O. (1991). The migration of labour. Oxford: Blackwell. Todaro, M. P. (1969). A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries. The American Economic Review, 59(1), 138–148. Verdery, K. (1996). What was socialism and what comes next? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wellman, B. (1999). Networks in the global village. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. White, A. (2009). Family migration from small-town Poland: A livelihood strategy approach. In K. Burrell (Ed.) Polish migration to the UK in the ‘new’ European Union (pp. 67–86). Farnham: Ashgate. Xiang, B. (2013). The intermediary trap: International labour recruitment, transnational governance and state–citizen relations in China. Asia Colloquia Papers, 3(1), 1–36.

6. Sequences and transitions in migration Russell King and Ronald Skeldon

INTRODUCTION Erhan is a second-generation ‘German Turk’ (or ‘Turkish German’) whose parents went to Germany as ‘guestworkers’ in the early 1970s. His parents, Ali and Asya, originally came from a village in central Turkey but had internally migrated to Istanbul prior to their departure to Germany. First, Ali moved on a temporary work contract. Soon, his wife was able to join him and they settled in Duisburg, a city in the heart of the Rhine-Ruhr industrial district, where Erhan was born and grew up. Erhan struggled with his early life in Germany: although bright and energetic, he did not do well in the German school system, which tended to stream ‘immigrant children’ away from the academic Gymnasium towards vocational schooling. Upon leaving school, he had difficulty in accessing stable and remunerative employment and felt discriminated against. He had some minor brushes with the law, and never felt he ‘belonged’ in Germany—not least because, at that time, and reflecting Germany’s ius sanguinis policy, he was not entitled to German citizenship even though he was born there. When he was in his early twenties, Erhan decided to relocate to Turkey. Having been taken to Turkey on regular summer holidays by his parents, he felt he ‘knew’ the country. The visits had a powerful impact on Erhan, reinforcing his Turkish identity and suggesting to him a different way of life in a country in which the climate was warmer and the people were more friendly and hospitable. He initially tried to settle in his parents’ village, where he had cousins and other relatives, but finding a job was difficult and he grew tired of the closed, gossipy atmosphere of the village. In the meantime, one of his co-ethnic friends from Duisburg had moved to the seaside town of Antalya, on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast, and told Erhan that this was a great place to live and earn good money in the tourist industry. Erhan moved to Antalya, liked its relaxed, cosmopolitan atmosphere, and soon found work in a restaurant that mainly catered to German tourists and settled retirees, where his language fluencies (German, Turkish, and some English) were put to good use. The above vignette is drawn from research by King and Kılınç on the ‘return’ migration of second-generation Turkish-Germans to Turkey (see Kılınç & King, 2017; King & Kılınç, 2014). The account is, in one sense, fictitious, in that Erhan’s story is a composite drawn from around 80 persons interviewed; it is a concocted, yet typical case-history of one family’s migration sequences. Our purpose in using it as an opening to this chapter is that it offers an instructive example of the complex migratory trajectories of mobile individuals over space (both transnational space and, internally, within countries) and through time—time that is not only chronological but also relational and generational. Let us spell out in simple terms the migration sequences described above. First, Ali and Asya, Erhan’s parents, move internally within Turkey, through typical rural–urban migration. Then, they migrate to Germany, first Ali on his own, then Asya in a follow-on family reunification move. Ali and Asya do not return-migrate to Turkey (one logical migration sequence) because they see themselves better off in Germany, where their other two adult children live 74

Sequences and transitions in migration  75 together with their children (Ali and Asya’s grandchildren). Instead, the ‘return’ sequence is inherited and activated by Erhan—except this is not a ‘true’ statistical return migration since Erhan was born in Germany and his move would be recorded as a Germany to Turkey migration in most international databases. Following his relocation to Turkey, Erhan engages in an internal migration there, from his ancestral village to Antalya. Whereas Ali and Asya exemplify the internal, then international, migration sequence, for Erhan the sequence is reversed—first international, then internal. These sequences—from internal to international migration, from international to internal migration, and from emigration to return migration—by no means exhaust the possibilities of how migration sequences, transitions, and trajectories occur and are reproduced or transformed over time. The theme of migration sequences reflects the fundamental circumstance that migration is rarely a simple, one-off event in the form of a move from one place or country A to another place or country B. Rather, the migration is temporally embedded in a sequence of moves which may both precede and succeed the A–B move just described, and indeed may continue with further moves in the future. The key objective of this chapter is to explore the linked notions of migration sequences and transitions, which manifest themselves at different scales from the migration and mobility trajectories of individuals to aggregated waves of mass migration. Before we do this, several key background points need to be made explicit, since they underpin our subsequent analysis.

KEY CONCEPTS Central to migration sequences is the idea of migration as a process that evolves through time and diffuses across space. Migration builds upon itself, with initial migration giving rise to further migration, forming the basis for the idea of ‘cumulative causation’ in migration processes and the reproduction of movement over time (Massey, 1990). The question remains as to how the migration begins in the first place: whether it is the result of an endogenous push that leads to a few pioneers setting out from a country or community; or whether it is the result of an exogenous force that links that country or community with an outside world and draws, or pulls, migrants out. The evidence, some of which is provided below, suggests that in most instances, both forces operate, although their relative importance varies and exogenous forces may be the more dominant. Second, the exploration of migration sequences brings out the inherent spatiality of migration. Geographers have made fundamental contributions to the study of migration, including its theorization and research on the spatial complexities of sequences that manifest themselves in the ‘real world’ (King, 2012). Several migration and mobility scholars (e.g. Falzon, 2009, pp. 4–6; Favell, 2008, p. 262) have noted the ‘spatial turn’ in the social sciences, which occurred in the 1990s and is ongoing (Massey, 2005). This recognition of the crucial importance of space, place, distance, and routes is arguably relevant to the study of migration, and especially to sequences and trajectories.1 Moreover, the process of migration is not simply a numerical expansion in numbers of migrants, from a few pioneers to mass followers; rather, it evolves in its composition with regard to gender, family structure, education, and skill. In any country, region, or system, migration stands at different phases of development, generating, in turn, distinct patterns and trajectories of human movement from place to place. Whether this process evolves in any

76  Research handbook on the sociology of migration systematic way is at the root of research on sequences of migration and so-called migration transitions. Third, the concept of mobility must be introduced into the discussion as a critical and integral facet of the form and duration of human movement across space. No hard and fast distinction exists between migration and mobility: they are two concepts and practices which overlap but are not the same. Ultimately, migration, which requires a certain threshold duration of residence at a destination (for instance, six months or one year), leads to a redistribution of population, while mobility involves recurrent behavior, usually over a much shorter time-scale. But mobility is also a broader concept that includes all spatial movement, including migration, as well as those spatio-temporal forms that would not normally be considered migration, such as commuting, visiting, and tourism (Urry, 2007). Mobility can also be a substitute for migration, just as digital technology can be a substitute for mobility—as the recent COVID-19 experience has taught us. Migration, despite its obvious connotations of movement from one place to another, tends to be ‘sticky’ and heavily dependent on the nature of employment and housing markets, or on the binding co-presence of marriage and family. Mobility, in its various forms, is observable across all societies at all levels of development, whereas migration, both historically and in terms of people’s life courses, tends to be episodic, linked to transitions from one social, economic, or political state to another—rural to urban, agricultural to industrial, poor region/ country to a wealthier one, or from authoritarian to liberal state. Given the spatio-temporal variability of migration and mobility regimes across the globe (Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013), both migration and mobility must be incorporated into our unpacking of migration sequences and transitions. To give a concrete example, studies of older Italians in British cities reveal that, rather than contemplating a sequence of return migration to Italy, they prefer to pursue a regime of transnational mobility, dividing their time between their British residence and their ‘home’ villages in the South of Italy (Ganga, 2006; Zontini, 2015). Lastly, the requirement to keep mobility in our terminological toolbox when thinking about migration sequences is reinforced in the title of one of the fundamental papers pertinent to our analysis in this chapter: Zelinsky’s (1971) ‘hypothesis of the mobility transition’. Our final background point is that we must distinguish two scales of analysis, which we can crudely label micro and macro; or a focus on migrants as opposed to migration. The micro-scale analysis of migration sequences is the most straightforward; this involves tracing individuals and family members through their migratory trajectories, as our opening example of Erhan and his parents illustrates. Again, as our example shows, these sequences can extend across generations and be tied to other family members who may follow different trajectories or be non-mobile. The concepts of migration networks, chain migration, and ‘linked lives’ are highly relevant here as more meso-level drivers of individual migration and mobility pathways (Findlay, McCollum, Coulter, & Gayle, 2015). On a macro scale, migration sequences, perhaps better described as transitions, comprise aggregates of people who constitute a migration ‘wave’ or ‘flow’ inscribed in space-time, whereby the different waves are somehow linked to one another in a logical fashion, such as migration and return, or the transition from net emigration to net immigration, or onward migration from a first to a second destination as shown below. The rest of this chapter is devoted to an analysis of migration stages at these two scales. Obviously, they are connected, because aggregate flows and phases of migration are made up of individual moves; but in terms of their own migratory trajectories, each individual may have

Sequences and transitions in migration  77 a different sequence to reveal, accessed through a biographical approach. Two key papers are used as starting points for our analysis: Zelinsky’s (1971) comprehensive model of migration/ mobility transitions, portrayed as a series of historical evolutionary stages; and our own paper (King & Skeldon, 2010) which teases out sequences of the inter-phasing of internal and international migration.

MIGRATION TRANSITIONS We start at the macro scale of recognizably large migratory waves, using Zelinsky’s (1971) seminal article, upon which we have commented at length in previous writings (see King & Skeldon, 2010, pp. 1629–1631; Skeldon, 1990, 2012, 2019, 2021, pp. 40–43). Unlike some population and migration scholars, who see Zelinsky’s paper as outdated, ‘tending towards the trivial’ (Boyle, Halfacree, & Robinson, 1998, p. 61) and ‘a child of its times’ (Woods, 1993, p. 214), we opt for a more sympathetic evaluation, recognizing both its pioneering nature and its shortcomings, as well as the way it speaks directly to the topic of this chapter. The foundational principle of Zelinsky’s model, which he put in italics for emphasis, states that ‘there are definite, patterned regularities in the growth of personal mobility through space-time during recent history, and that these regularities comprise an essential component of the modernization process’ (1971, pp. 221–222). For Zelinsky’s ‘modernization’, we would propose the arguably more neutral term ‘development’, so that the model can be considered a historical rationalization between different combinations of migration and mobility forms on the one hand, and evolutionary ‘stages of development’ on the other.2 The other obvious reference-point of Zelinsky’s mobility transition hypothesis is the demographic transition, in the way that the changing mix of migration and mobility types is related to how a society moves through the transition from a high fertility, high mortality state to one of low fertility combined with low mortality. However, the precise nature of the links between the demographic transition and the mobility transition was never explained by Zelinsky (Skeldon, 2021, p. 41). Zelinsky’s mobility transition model contains five historically sequenced phases, which can be summarily outlined as follows: 1. Pre-modern traditional society: limited migration, only movements related to ‘traditional’ practices such as agriculture and commerce, including seasonal harvesting and travel to markets. 2. Early transitional society: massive rural–urban migration; movements of rural population to ‘colonization frontiers’, if such areas exist within a country; emigration to economically attractive foreign destinations; growth in various kinds of circulation linked to temporary labor regimes. 3. Late transitional society: continuing but diminishing rural–urban migration; decline in colonizing movements; emigration fades; growth in circulation regimes, which also become more complex. 4. Advanced society: rural–urban replaced by inter-urban migration; immigration of low-skilled workers from less developed countries; international circulation of skilled and professional workers; continued growth in various forms of circulation, driven by economic and leisure-related factors.

78  Research handbook on the sociology of migration 5. Future super-advanced society: better communication and delivery systems may reduce migration and circulation; internal migration is inter- and intra-urban; continuing immigration of low-skilled labor from less developed countries; strict political control over immigration may be imposed. The first three of these phases of migration initially rose, peaked, and then fell over the course of the mobility transition: subsequently, inter-urban and intra-urban migration and circulation rose and persisted at high levels through the remaining stages of the transition. Also, in the two latter, advanced stages of the transition, Zelinsky (1971) interlinked two further sequences based upon improved transportation and communication systems with changing migration. In these, he first envisaged potential migration to be absorbed by circulation, as improved road and rail links would allow people to commute rather than to migrate; secondly, he proposed a sequence in which circulation itself would be reduced through the substitution of telecommunication, a remarkably prescient vision considering the time his paper was published (1971). This idea of a mobility transition has been criticized for the reasons given above, but also because it was based on the US experience and would not apply to most of the rest of the world. The model has been modified by Zelinsky himself (1979, 1983) as well as by others (Skeldon, 1990) to demonstrate that systematic shifts in the patterns of mobility do take place more widely at both macro and micro levels during the transition from a primarily rural society to a predominantly urban one. Zelinsky’s 1971 paper was essentially the first attempt to map out sequences and combinations of types of migration and mobility, in his case, through a series of historical transitions, coterminous with the stages of modernization or development in a society. More recent analyses of migration transitions focus on the key transition of a country from net emigration to net immigration, likewise linked to a country’s passage from a less developed to a more developed state (de Haas, Castles, & Miller, 2020, pp. 56–62). Many countries have experienced this transition, notably, the Southern EU countries (Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal) and Ireland. These countries were sources of large-scale emigration during the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, but then shifted to net immigration, initially under the influence of return migration during the late 1970s and 1980s, and then as receivers of immigrants from poorer countries, especially after the collapse of the Iron Curtain around 1990 and the EU’s eastern enlargements after 2004 (see King, 2000, 2002; King & Okólski, 2019). More recently, several countries in Central and Eastern Europe are witnessing the same migration transition, notably Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, which, having been sources of large-scale outmigration following their accession to the EU, have attracted back returnees (especially from ‘Brexit’ Britain) as well as immigrants from countries further east such as Russia and Ukraine (Górny, 2017; Janská, Cermák, & Wright, 2014; King & Okólski, 2019; Okólski, 2012). It is important to stress that the above-described migration transition is not just a simple switch from an emigration to an immigration country: many different flows are involved, which overlap in different phases and may act as counterpoints. The intermediary role of return migration is crucial here and many countries are simultaneously sources of emigrants and destinations for immigrants; sometimes the immigrants act as replacement migration for the departing emigrants. A good illustration of this is Portugal, which, over the past 60–70 years, has seen emigration to France and other European countries in the 1950s–1970s, immigration from Brazil and the Portuguese (ex-) colonies in Africa, and renewed emigration to

Sequences and transitions in migration  79 the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Angola since the 2008 economic crisis (Pereira & Azevedo, 2019).

SEQUENCES IN TIME AND SPACE The example of Erhan in the introduction shows how internal and international migration are linked into an integrated trajectory of individual and family movements. Central to an understanding of migration are two questions: how typical this pattern might be in any population; and how individual and group trajectories of movement change over time. Rarely are data readily available to answer these questions because surveys tend to be taken at one point in time, and provide a composite picture of information aggregated across space from communities or areas that may be at different stages of a migration or mobility transition. Ideally, the experiences of different cohorts across time and space, combined with information on gender, class and ethnicity, would need to be gathered but we are a long way from achieving any such ideal. Historical analyses of movements in any given area or repeat surveys to generate longitudinal data would be required. Nevertheless, existing micro-level studies and aggregate data from other sources do provide hints towards the formulation of hypotheses to suggest how sequences of mobility develop over time and across space (King & Skeldon, 2010; Skeldon, 1990). The example of the pattern of internal migration leading to international migration by Erhan’s parents provides an illustration. Internal migration over time gives rise to a redistribution of the population towards urban centers, particularly large cities, which provide a pool of potential migrants moving to international destinations. Once the rural-to-urban migrant has made the onward journey to another country, a direct link between the rural origin and the international destination, usually another large city, has been created. This means that the intervening large city can be circumvented and subsequent migration from the rural origin can be direct to the international destination. This does not mean that all subsequent migration will necessarily be international migration. However, over time, the migration is likely to tilt towards the destination with the greatest income-earning, educational, and other opportunities, which, for many developing countries, is likely to be in the more developed parts of the world. At this point, we bring in explicit reference to our 2010 paper, which mapped out a series of sequences pertaining to the interfaces between internal and international migration (King & Skeldon, 2010). Internal leading to international migration is the most frequently noted pattern; but also common is the case in which international migration to a ‘gateway’ or arrival city (such as New York or Los Angeles) is a first step prior to a relocation to another place, where, perhaps, housing is cheaper and employment opportunities are also widely available. When return migration is factored in, it may occur to a range of locations in the country of origin, especially if the migrant had moved internally before emigrating, like Ali and Asya, the parents of Erhan. So, the returning emigrant has the choice of returning to the place of birth and upbringing, or to the place of departure when s/he left for abroad, or to a different place that holds particular attractions, such as the capital city or a seaside town. Another angle on how migration is sequenced at the individual level involves examining changes in the choice of destinations. How the range of destinations evolves over time involves two possible scenarios. In the first, which we might label a diaspora or ‘scattering’ model, the number and geographic spread of destinations increases, as the migrants from a given origin

80  Research handbook on the sociology of migration (who might be refugees or other categories of forced migrants) constantly seek out new and accommodating destinations. The destination geography of Bangladeshi migrants, for example, has evolved and expanded to include: neighboring India and the Gulf States, mainly for low-wage, male workers in agriculture and construction; former colonial Britain where the main concentration of the Bangladeshi diaspora is found, especially in London; and other countries in Europe and in North America. Some of the expansion of the destination field proceeds via onward migration, stimulated by perceived better opportunities for income and future family wellbeing (Della Puppa & King, 2019). The literature on onward migration bears a strong relationship to the theme of this chapter and is a growing subfield within the sociology and geography of migration studies (for overviews and other examples, see Ahrens, Kelly, & van Liempt, 2016; Jolivet, 2020; Paul, 2017; van Liempt, 2011). In the second scenario, the number of destinations can be expected to decline as flows tend to concentrate on fewer places and others are bypassed or surpassed. That is, migration fields from any specific origin can be forecast to diminish towards greater simplicity as the number of migrants from that community starts to decline and the particular migration system contracts (de Haas, 2010). Initially, rates of return are high but these begin to taper off as migrants become established in destinations with children who see themselves as part of the host society rather than the origin society. Thus, over time, migration can deplete the productive and reproductive capacity of a rural origin, leading to depopulation. This trend is tempered initially by return and by immigration to the community attracted by the local labor vacuum or brought in by remaining residents who require labor to maintain their activities. Labor shortages brought about through emigration drive up the cost of labor, making the origins attractive for migrants from neighboring areas that have not been involved in international migration. Such cases have been widely observed in South and East Asia in areas of pronounced international outmigration, such as: from Kerela in South India to the Middle East, where migrants from neighboring Tamil Nadu have come in to replace the lost labor; from Sylhet in Bangladesh, where an exodus to Britain attracted a replacement inflow of landless people from poorer villages in surrounding areas; from Mirpur in Pakistan, where again marked migration to Britain generated a local demand for agricultural workers, who included migrants from Afghanistan; and from the New Territories of Hong Kong, where locals lost to jobs in industry in the city were replaced by farmers from Mainland China who maintained an agricultural economy supplying vegetables to the urban sector.3 These examples illustrate a generalization that dates from the very early studies of migration and Ravenstein’s famous ‘laws’, the second of which argued for migration proceeding step by step (Ravenstein, 1885, 1889). In association with the first law, namely, that a majority of migrants travel only short distances, he implied that people moved up a settlement hierarchy in a series of steps from hamlets to villages, to small towns and then cities, and, by implication, to international destinations. However, missing from this simple model is the time dimension and how prior migration affects later migration sequences. Once direct links are established between the hamlet and the city, for example, the intermediate steps are likely to fall away. Equally important, however, is how the links are established in the first place. The discussion above implicitly assumes that these emerge from the origins, whereas in reality they are as, if not more, likely to emerge from the destinations through direct recruitment of labor organized by and for urban-based industry, or military recruitment as part of nation-building. Thus, the evolution of these institutional forms of incorporating populations into broader entities is as fundamental to the understanding of the development of migration sequences as

Sequences and transitions in migration  81 any decisions of individuals to move or stay. The penetration of colonial systems of extraction could initially create direct linkages between relatively isolated communities and metropolitan areas, as in the cases of Sylhet, Mirpur, and the New Territories of Hong Kong raised above, which saw the recruitment of laborers onto British ships who, upon jumping ship after reaching ports, established the nuclei of what would become substantial immigrant communities. The migration from these areas mainly occurred directly to distant destinations rather than to more local or regional alternatives. Thus, the particular sequences of migration will vary by area based primarily upon how and when the movements begin. Yet, the overall result is a concentration of the population in cities and a depopulation of rural areas, as seen across much of the developed world. Moreover, analyses of internal migration across much of the developed world have shown a long-term decline in the volume of movements, as short-term mobility and technologies of communication have reduced the need to move. This decline is envisaged in the final stages of Zelinsky’s mobility transition (for empirical evidence of this, see the essays in Champion, Cooke, & Shuttleworth, 2018). The reasons for the decline, however, are not to be explained solely in the decline in fertility but also in the deep-rooted changes in the nature of the economy and society, or ‘development’ itself in its broadest sense. A critical question remains concerning whether sequences of migration can be changed through policy intervention. If, for example, a gateway towards German citizenship had existed for Erhan, would he have felt the compulsion to ‘return’ to Turkey? Such a hypothetical question is impossible to answer. Nevertheless, the nature of any destination area, whether rural or urban, in terms of policies targeted at the integration of migrant populations would seem to have important implications for the retention or return of certain groups. Likewise, a hardening of rules and policy measures towards refugees and asylum-seekers has the potential to affect their settlement or expulsion: contrast the ‘refugees welcome’ stance of Germany during the ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015 with the minimalist response of the UK government and its ‘hostile environment’ towards immigration. However, migrants are not simply acted upon by external institutions. They also have agency and, during their trajectories, individual migrants have been shown to react to the opportunities that emerge along the way. Recent studies on students, especially from Africa, who come to Europe to study or make a longer-term livelihood for themselves are illustrative of that point (see Ahrens, 2017; Alves, 2021; Bonfiglio, 2020; Wissink, 2019). Some of them switch status from asylum-seekers to students, or from students to workers, or engage in simultaneous status combinations that incorporate two or more roles—student, worker, asylum-seeker, family-joiner, etc. For a typical African (or other) student studying abroad in Europe, North America, or Australia, the sequential options after graduating are essentially threefold: return to the home country (some may be obligated to do that as a condition of their scholarship), stay on in the country of study (depending on the host-country rules), or move on to a ‘third’ country, where their qualification is recognized and perhaps better rewarded. A similar threefold sequence option is theoretically available with regard to ‘durable solutions’ for refugees: stay in the country of refuge, return to the country of origin when it is deemed safe to do so, or resettlement to a third country. The majority of the migration sequences discussed thus far have been part of the universal transition to an urban society. Yet, many governments have introduced policies to slow, or even stop, that transition, seeking to keep populations in their place or to re-direct them to new destinations. Perhaps the most successful of these programs was the system based around the

82  Research handbook on the sociology of migration household registration system, hukou, in China, which markedly reduced the rate of urbanization during the 1960s and 1970s. Yet, following the implementation of the post-1979 reforms, China embarked on an urbanization strategy that involved one of the greatest peacetime movements of people in history (Murphy, 2002, p. 1). A mass migration of more than 100 million people has occurred from the interior, rural regions of China to the fast-growing, coastal mega-cities and their associated industrial zones. Other countries, too, have pursued policies to divert populations away from the largest cities towards more sparsely populated areas such as the transmigrasi program, to move people away from Jakarta and Java-Bali towards the outer islands in Indonesia, or programs to colonize parts of the Amazon basin in Latin America. While initially perhaps successful in establishing new, settled communities, questions remain about the long-term sustainability, as the cohorts of the next generations look to the large cities as desirable destinations. Policies can limit or even stop the development of sequences, or can introduce deviations over the relatively short term, but rarely can they significantly reverse the transition towards urban societies.

CONCLUSION This chapter has examined how migration patterns change across space and through time. It has used the seminal work of Zelinsky on temporal change at the macro level, and our own identification of spatial patterns of migration, internal and international, to argue for specific sequences of migration that can be conceptualized as systems of interaction. We have examined how feedback within the system affects migration and mobility flows once they have begun to emerge, evolve, and interact. Like the model of the demographic transition, different pathways through the system exist in terms of timing and patterns. The idea of migration or mobility sequences as making up some form of systematic transition from rural to urban and to a transnational society provides a framework in which to locate not just our empirical studies of population movement but of other social, economic, and political phenomena. Migration sequences are but one of numerous transitions that can be identified as economies are transformed from primary through secondary to tertiary modes of production. Sequential shifts in education, family formation, gender roles, and political systems can also be identified, although these do not operate neatly in tandem: discontinuities, even reversals exist. The sequences developed for any place or group will depend upon its location in space and time and can only be fully understood within these contexts. The identification and construction of sequences of migration and mobility provide a useful heuristic tool for the analysis of the whole process of development.

NOTES 1. The spatial turn was not the only new development which inflected geographical and social scientific studies of migration in the latter decades of the last century. Also prominent was the ‘cultural turn’ embraced by cultural sociologists, cultural geographers, and anthropologists who researched migration (see Hardwick, 2008; King, 2012). Many of these studies of migration risked a somewhat myopic cultural relativism that distanced itself from the grand narratives of sequences and transitions, hence, our effort to reassert their importance in this contribution, as well as briefly drawing attention here to another kind of sequence—the ‘sequences of thought’ in how migration is studied.

Sequences and transitions in migration  83 2. The implicit parallel drawn by Zelinsky between the stages of migration/mobility and stages of modernization/development recalls Rostow’s (1960) ‘stages of economic growth’ model, also now largely discredited as a global developmental theory. 3. These case studies are summarized in Skeldon (2006); for details, see Ballard (2005), Gardner (1995), Nair (1989), and Watson (1983).

REFERENCES Ahrens, J. (2017). Imagined futures: The onward migration of Nigerians in Europe. PhD dissertation, University of Sussex. Ahrens, J., Kelly, M., & van Liempt, I. (2016). Free movement? The onward migration of EU citizens born in Somalia, Iran and Nigeria. Population, Space and Place, 22(1), 84–98. Alves, E. da P. (2021). Angolan and Cape Verdean students in Portuguese higher education: Motivations and mobility strategies. PhD dissertation, University of Lisbon. Ballard, R. (2005). Migration, remittances, economic growth and poverty reduction: Reflections on some South Asian developments. In T. Siddiqui (Ed.) Migration and development: Pro-poor policy choices (pp. 333–358). Dhaka: The University Press. Bonfiglio, A. E. (2020). Student migrant, refugee or both? Exploring refugee agency and mobility through tertiary education in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda. PhD dissertation, Maastricht University. Boyle, P., Halfacree, K., & Robinson, V. (1998). Exploring contemporary migration. Harlow: Longman. Champion, T., Cooke, T., & Shuttleworth, I. (Eds.) (2018). Internal migration in the developed world: Are we becoming less mobile? London: Routledge. de Haas, H. (2010). The internal dynamics of migration processes: A theoretical enquiry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1587–1618. de Haas, H., Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2020). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world, 6th edition. London: Red Globe Press. Della Puppa, F., & King, R. (2019). The new ‘twice migrants’: Motivations, experiences and disillusionments of Italian-Bangladeshis relocating to London. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(11), 1936–1952. Falzon, M.-A. (Ed.) (2009). Multi-sited ethnography: Theory, praxis and locality in contemporary research. Farnham: Ashgate. Favell, A. (2008). Rebooting migration theory: Interdisciplinarity, globality, and postdisciplinarity in migration studies. In C. B. Brettell & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.) Migration theory: Talking across disciplines, 2nd edition (pp. 259–278). New York: Routledge. Findlay, A. M., McCollum, D., Coulter, R., & Gayle, V. (2015). New mobilities across the life course: A framework for analysing demographically linked drivers of migration. Population, Space and Place, 21(4), 390–402. Ganga, D. (2006). From potential returnees into settlers: Nottingham’s older Italians. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(8), 1395–1413. Gardner, K. (1995). Global migrants, local lives: Travel and transformation in rural Bangladesh. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Glick Schiller, N., & Salazar, N. (2013). Regimes of mobility across the globe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(2), 183–200. Górny, A. (2017). Eastwards EU enlargements and migration transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Geografie, 122(4), 476–499. Hardwick, S. (2008). Place, space, and pattern: Geographical theories in international migration. In C. B. Brettell & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.) Migration theory: Talking across disciplines, 2nd edition (pp. 161–182). New York: Routledge. Janská, E., Cermák, Z., & Wright, R. (2014). New immigrant destination in a new country of immigration: Settlement patterns of non-natives in the Czech Republic. Population, Space and Place, 20(8), 680–693.

84  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Jolivet, D. (2020). Post-2008 multi-sited household practices: Between Morocco, Spain and Norway. International Migration, 58(1), 45–60. Kılınç, N., & King, R. (2017). The quest for a better life: Second-generation Turkish-Germans ‘return’ to ‘paradise’. Demographic Research, 36(49), 1491–1514. King, R. (2000). Southern Europe in the changing global map of migration. In R. King, G. Lazaridis, & C. Tsardanidis (Eds.) Eldorado or fortress? Migration in Southern Europe (pp. 1–26). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. King, R. (2002). Towards a new map of European migration. Population, Space and Place, 8(2), 89–106. King, R. (2012). Geography and migration studies: Retrospect and prospect. Population, Space and Place, 18(2), 134–153. King, R., & Kılınç, N. (2014). Routes to roots: Second-generation Turks from Germany ‘return’ to Turkey. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 4(3), 126–133. King, R., & Okólski, M. (2019). Diverse, fragile and fragmented: The new map of European migration. Central and Eastern European Migration Review, 8(1), 9–32. King, R., & Skeldon, R. (2010). ‘Mind the gap’: Integrating approaches to internal and international migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1619–1646. Massey, D. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 56(1), 3–36. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage. Murphy, R. (2002). How migrant labor is changing rural China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nair, P. R. G. (1989). Incidence, impact and implications of migration to the Middle East from Kerela (India). In R. Amjad (Ed.) To the Gulf and back: Studies on the economic impact of Asian labour migration (pp. 344–364). New Delhi: International Labour Organization. Okólski, M. (2012). Transition from emigration to immigration: Is it the destiny of modern European societies? In M. Okólski (Ed.) European immigrations: Trends, structures and policy implications (pp. 23–44). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Paul, A. M. (2017). Multinational maids: Stepwise migration in a global labor market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pereira, C., & Azevedo, J. (Eds.) (2019). New and old routes of Portuguese emigration: Uncertain futures at the periphery of Europe. Cham: Springer. Ravenstein, E. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society, 48, 167–227. Ravenstein, E. (1889). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society, 52, 214–301. Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skeldon, R. (1990). Population mobility in developing countries: A reinterpretation. London: Belhaven. Skeldon, R. (2006). Interlinkages between internal and international migration and development in the Asian region. Population, Space and Place, 12(1), 15–30. Skeldon, R. (2012). Migration transitions revisited: Their continued relevance for the development of migration theory. Population, Space and Place, 18(2), 154–166. Skeldon, R. (2019). A classic re-examined: Zelinsky’s hypothesis of the mobility transition. Migration Studies, 7(3), 394–403. Skeldon, R. (2021). Advanced introduction to migration studies. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Van Liempt, I. (2011). And then one day they all moved to Leicester: The relocation of Somalis from the Netherlands to the UK explained. Population, Space and Place, 17(3), 254–266. Watson, J. L. (1983). Rural society: Hong Kong’s new territories. China Quarterly, 93, 480–490. Wissink, M. (2019). Migration and networks in transit: The co-evolution of migration trajectories and social networks of Sub-Saharan African migrants in Turkey and Greece. PhD dissertation, Maastricht University. Woods, R. (1993). Commentary on Zelinsky’s model. Progress in Human Geography, 17(2), 213–215. Zelinsky, W. (1971). The hypothesis of the mobility transition. Geographical Review, 61(2), 219–249. Zelinsky, W. (1979). The demographic transition: Changing patterns of migration. In Population in the service of mankind (pp. 165–189). Vienna: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.

Sequences and transitions in migration  85 Zelinsky, W. (1983). The impasse in migration theory: A sketch map for potential escapees. In P. A. Morrison (Ed.) Population movements: Their forms and functions in urbanization and development (pp. 19–46). Liege: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population. Zontini, E. (2015). Growing old in a transnational social field: Belonging, mobility and identity among Italian migrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(2), 326–341.

7. Migration systems Oliver Bakewell

INTRODUCTION I grew up in the boring (as seen by my young self) suburb of New Malden in south-west London in the 1970s. At the time, while it was certainly not completely monochrome, to my knowledge, it had no substantial non-white population. Over thirty years later, as a social scientist working on international migration, I was bemused to start seeing references to New Malden as ‘Little Korea’ with the largest concentration of Koreans in the world outside Korea itself. When I had left the area to go to university in the early 1980s, I had no awareness of Koreans in the town. Thirty years later, it was impossible to miss: Known as ‘Little Korea’, New Malden is said to have one of the most densely populated areas of Koreans outside of South Korea. The area boasts over 20 different Korean restaurants and cafes (many with shops signs featuring the Korean language), and even Korean-language churches and nursery schools. New Malden also hosts a Korean Food Festival every year, and you certainly won’t have to look very far to find a Korean-style karaoke bar either! (Strawberry Tours, 2020)

This has stimulated academic studies examining the dense network of social and business relationships within this community, enabling it to grow and thrive. What has intrigued me is why such a community has become established at all. Why did South Koreans start coming to New Malden and how did this become institutionalized to the extent that it should become a favored destination for any Korean migrants heading to the UK? For example, North Korean refugees seek out New Malden as a place where they may be able to find some community protection (Shin, 2018, 2019; Song & Denney, 2019). This personal example nicely illustrates the emergence of a migration system—an established pattern of sustained migration between two or more places. Other examples include the southern African labor migration system drawing workers to the mines of South Africa from neighboring countries across the region (McDonald, Zinyama, Gay, de Vlerter, & Marres, 2000), migration between Mexico and the United States (Durand & Massey, 2019; Massey, Alarcon, Durand, & González, 1987), and marriage migration from Russia towards Turkey, which has become an established and growing practice, despite changes in the economic and political conditions that underpinned its origins in the 1990s (Deniz & Özgür, 2021). This example also raises some important questions that we could ask about any migration system. Why did people first start moving between these destinations? Why has migration continued even after those initial conditions have changed? How has the migration of yesterday affected the way people move today? Before turning to such questions, we should first think more carefully about what we mean when we use the term migration system, which takes us back to the origins of the idea of the social system. The next section very briefly summarizes the development of systems analysis to show how it has been taken up by migration scholars and outlines some of the basic definitions of migration systems. The third section provides an overview of two broad strands of literature 86

Migration systems  87 that build on these foundations. First, there are studies based on micro-/meso-level empirical research that focuses on the inner dynamics of migration systems, in particular the operation of feedback, by which migration at one point in time influences subsequent movement. Second, there is a body of research that takes advantage of ever-improving sources of macro-level migration data to identify emerging migration systems and analyze their mechanics. The chapter concludes by summarizing the contribution of migration systems to the analysis of changing patterns of migration and its potential to bring the somewhat isolated world of migration studies into closer connection with broader sociological theory.

BRINGING SYSTEMS THINKING INTO MIGRATION RESEARCH The term system is used in many different contexts and brings with it many connotations. This variation makes it difficult to pin down its meaning, but all the more important to do so. Its origins lie in the applied mathematics and physical sciences of past centuries, as scholars sought to define natural elements or mechanical components and understand the logic and patterns of their interactions: for example, in astronomy or the design of clockwork. With the rise of the biological sciences in the nineteenth century, the idea of the system moved beyond the rather rigid realm of mechanics into the living world; from the system as a machine to the system as an organism. Thinkers such as Herbert Spencer started to use biological analogies to look beyond individual organisms to understand their interconnections through forms of cooperation, which led in due course to the social world of humans (Bausch, 2002). By such ways, we move from the solar system to the social system, which is the focus of this chapter. En route, we find that the apparent clarity of precise, scientific definitions and readily replicable responses, gives way to a murkier world of rather hazy metaphors and indeterminate outcomes. Whether we are concerned with social, organic, or mechanical systems, the ideas share some common features. A system is some form of entity comprised of a set of elements that are interconnected by some flow or force among them that induces changes in the elements, which may, in turn, affect the interconnections. The set of elements and the forces among them are somewhat stable over time, and the extent of their interactions define the boundaries of the system, enabling it to be marked out from a wider universe. Hence, for example, if we consider a solar system, there are the orbiting bodies that are held together by the gravitational pull of a central star, whose movement is defined by the force of gravity. In biology, the circulatory system refers to the network of vessels that carries blood and nutrients between cells in different parts of the body. Moving to the social realm and migration, we can see these features echoed in the examples noted in the introduction above; there, we have interconnected movements between two or more places (South Korea, North Korea, New Malden), shaped by social, economic, and political links that help to sustain migration. The description and analysis of any system will be concerned with these basic common features: the system elements, its dynamics, and its boundary conditions. This may be abstract but by referring to these common features we can start to see links between systems in a variety of settings. The elements may be very different, but the underlying systemic structure works in the same way; that is, they are isomorphic (von Bertalanffy, 1950). It is this potential for generalization that makes the idea of a system beguiling as a basis for building social theory.

88  Research handbook on the sociology of migration These ideas were taken up by Parsons (1951) in his analysis of human societies as social systems composed of various members engaged in different areas of activity. The actions of the different members serve to reproduce the system over time, enabling it to maintain a stable state (homeostasis). It appears a rather conservative view that presents society as an objective entity that functions to maintain its equilibrium and resist change. Migration started to come into this idea of the broader social system as a mechanism to reproduce the underlying economic system and ensure its equilibrium. Hence, the labor migration systems of West and Southern Africa or the guest-worker system in Europe in the mid- to late twentieth centuries moved laborers between areas of supply and demand, with the expectation of their returning ‘home’ on retirement or when they became unemployed (Gutkind, 1962; Portes & Böröcz, 1989; Richards, 1973 [1952]). On a broader temporal scale, the changing patterns of global migration have reflected changes in the labor demand, culture, and the economic base in a world system (Simmons & Guengant, 1992). It was Nigerian geographer Akin Mabogunje who, inspired by the ideas of general systems theory, was one of the first to write of the migration system as a distinctive entity that could be the subject of research in its own right. He was looking to explain the emergence of rather stable patterns of migration between rural and urban areas in Africa even in the absence of clear coordinating mechanisms, such as those found in South Africa, where employers and the state attempted to control people’s movements. He defined a system as ‘a complex of interacting elements, together with their attributes and relationships’ (Mabogunje, 1970, p. 4). Identifying these elements and their interactions offered both a valuable way of representing the factors affecting people’s movements schematically and explaining their dynamics. Mabogunje’s notion of a migration system highlighted the role of system feedback in shaping migration patterns. For example, information about the migrants’ reception and progress at the destination is transmitted back to the place of origin. News of their success or easy access to jobs may encourage further migration; alternatively, information about difficulties facing migrants deters later arrivals. As a result, far from being a random process, this feedback gives rise to a sustained and seemingly organized movement of people between particular rural areas and towns (Mabogunje, 1970, pp. 13–14). This approach has subsequently been extended to the analysis of international migration systems: ‘a set of relatively stable exchanges of people between certain nations … yielding an identifiable geographic structure that persists across space and time’ (Massey et al., 1998, p. 61). These can be seen in the relatively large-scale and regular transfer of migrants back and forth between countries, along with feedback loops that link migration with flows of goods, capital, ideas, and information (Fawcett, 1989; Gurak & Caces, 1992, Kritz, Lim, & Zlotnik, 1992). Mabogunje refers to system elements, their attributes, and their relationships in his definition of a migration system, but these are primarily discussed in relation to the context of his research: rural–urban migration in Africa. In order to provide a more detailed definition that can more readily be applied in other settings, we can expand on these ideas to propose a more elaborate two-stage definition of a migration system. First, there is a set of interacting elements that are related to migration among localities. These include flows of people, ideas, and goods; institutions in the sense of discourses and associated practices (such as a ‘culture of migration’, social networks, smuggling, inequality); and strategies, or the plans for action by different parties (such as individual and household strategies; or the policies of governments, private businesses, and civil society organizations).

Migration systems  89 The second part of the definition of a system is to specify its dynamics, which govern the way in which the elements (flows, institutions, and strategies) change in relation to changes in both these system elements (feedback mechanisms) and in the wider environment (Bakewell, 2014; Leal, 2021, p. 1069). Alongside this literature on migration systems, there is a broader literature on how migration changes and transforms social systems. Instead of focusing on how and why these relatively stable patterns of migration emerge, this research focuses on understanding how migration responds to and affects the operation of the political, social, and economic systems. It provides a valuable critique of the huge body of research into migrant integration and inequality, asking about migrants’ educational success, their position in the labor market, or their political action and so forth (Bommes, 2012). Such research puts migration or migrants at the center of analysis, often casting them as a social problem for researchers to understand and propose appropriate policy responses. However, looking from a systems perspective, migration is an inevitable part of underlying social and economic systems. It plays its part in reproducing those systems. Social exclusion and differentiation between migrants (foreigners) and non-migrants (citizens) is a reflection of how the system operates. In particular, the study of (international) migration highlights the incongruity between social and economic systems that readily transcend the national boundaries and political systems that are bound to state territories (Bommes, 2012; Echeverría, 2020). This literature creates an avenue for migration studies to make an important contribution to the development of social theory. However, it opens up a much wider discussion which lies beyond the scope of this chapter, which has the narrower remit of focusing on migration systems. For those who want to read more on these links between migration and social systems, see the work of Bommes and Sciortino (2011), Boswell and D’Amato (2012), Echeverría (2020), and Sciortino (2000). In the rest of this chapter, we return specifically to migration systems.

TWO STRANDS OF MIGRATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH Scholars have taken research into migration systems in a variety of directions. This section will focus on two major complementary avenues of literature that draw on migration systems in order to understand how and why these relatively stable patterns of migration emerge. First, there is research that starts from a micro-level analysis in specific contexts, to explore the mechanisms through which migration pathways to particular destinations become established. A complementary approach begins with the analysis of aggregate data on migration flows, to identify and understand the systemic properties of emerging geographical networks of places connected by movements of people, along with goods and information. Understanding the role of feedback in the evolution of systems is at the core of many studies that seek to analyze how the movement of people at one moment affects the migration behavior of others at a later time. Massey’s work on migration from Mexico to the United States showed how initial migration created social networks linking origin and destination areas. These facilitated the flow of information and support that reduced the costs and risk of subsequent migration. This process of cumulative causation supported the establishment of a sustained migration system (Massey, 1990). Faist (2004) noted that this feedback could also operate to discourage further migration. Moreover, the changing patterns of migration may

90  Research handbook on the sociology of migration strengthen or weaken migrant’s social networks (Engbersen, Snel, & van Meeteren, 2013; Faist, 2004, p. 345). While the term cumulative causation suggests that social networks drive migration, how they influence people’s decisions depends on the particular setting. Research into the rural–urban labor migration system in Cambodia shows how the norms and hierarchies of rural society affect the creation of social networks spanning rural and urban areas. Trust across extended families and hierarchical relations of patronage provide migrants with some insurance against the risks of moving to town. At the same time, new connections made in town that facilitate migration provide a set of links that have the potential to challenge such traditional rural power structures (Parsons, Lawreniuk, & Pilgrim, 2014). Drilling down into the micro-level exchanges between areas of destination and origin helps to show how the underlying cultural context is a critical element in the system. There is abundant evidence to show that the social networks of migrants play a central role in the development of migration systems, but feedback also operates through many other channels (Bakewell, Engbersen, Fonseca, & Horst, 2016). This is demonstrated through the attempts by European states to control migration from North Africa, where legislation and development programming is put in place in response to the past arrival of migrants in an attempt to influence future moves. There is little doubt these efforts have some effect, but often it is far from that intended. Routes are changed and migration becomes more expensive and dangerous, but it does little to undermine the system (Andersson, 2016). Information about migration in the form of narratives, images, and imaginations are transferred to potential migrants who may have no clear connection with those abroad, especially with the rise of social media. Hence, rather than an existing social network of relatives and friends abroad increasing someone’s desire and ability, potential migrants may reach out to strangers to link into new networks that can enable their planned movement (Bakewell & Jolivet, 2016; Dekker & Engbersen, 2014). There may also be ‘contextual’ feedback that operates through the wider environment (de Haas, 2010). This mechanism can be seen, for example, where migration has an impact on the wider labor market in origin or destination that feeds through into changing the incentive structure for subsequent movement. While a few such changes in the environment may be attributable in some part to the impact of migration (and thus contribute to feedback), many more will be the result of factors unrelated to people’s movement. For example, the global economic crisis of 2008, the steady and disastrous impact of climate change, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have all had dramatic impacts on patterns of mobility. This scenario then raises two related sets of questions. First, what are the immediate impacts of these changes in the environment on the migration system: do they invigorate it by stimulating more movement, dampen things down, or transform the patterns of migration? Second, how far do such changes in the wider context become incorporated into the system by creating new feedback loops? For example, in many parts of Africa, the well-established rural–urban migration systems (the observation of which inspired Mabogunje’s seminal paper) are increasingly affected by climate change. This shift is seen most vividly in the more frequent incidence of droughts and floods that can severely reduce harvests and push up the price of food. There is a widespread assumption that the impact of climate change will be seen in the large-scale movement of people from land that is no longer productive; the unleashing of huge waves of climate change migration. However, a systems analysis suggests a more nuanced picture, as it examines the

Migration systems  91 interlinkages between rural and urban areas. In the case of the long-standing rural–urban migration systems operating in Malawi, the impacts of climate change can be felt most acutely by migrants in urban areas, many of whose livelihoods are based on selling rural produce that may be in short supply, and who face the higher prices of goods in towns. As a result, the economic pressure induced by climate change is likely to encourage current migrants to think about return to their rural villages. Moreover, as they reduce the scale of remittances and send back negative stories about their increasing struggles to survive in the city, a negative feedback loop may be established that discourages future potential rural–urban migration (Suckall, Fraser, Forster, & Mkwambisi, 2015). In terms of systems theory, we can see strong similarities between this example of how climate change affects a migration system and the negative feedback loops that took hold in some European migration systems in response to the global financial crisis of 2008 (Fonseca, Esteves, & McGarrigle, 2016). Another distinctive strand of research has looked more closely at how migration systems evolve in terms of the macro-level patterns of movement (DeWaard, Kim, & Raymer, 2009, 2012; DeWaard & Ha, 2019; DeWaard, Fussell, Curtis, & Ha, 2020; Leal, 2021; Leal & Harder, 2021). The starting point for these studies tends to be the observation of changing flows of people, finances, and goods between regions, often based on the analysis of large datasets. It builds on the earlier work of Fawcett (1989) and Zlotnik (1992), among others, to show how migration patterns become established as relatively stable geographical structures over time. The primary focus of this research is on migration networks; that is sets of geographical locations connected by the flow of people among them. It is important to note that this concept of a migration network is quite distinct from the social networks discussed above. This difference is a point of some confusion in the literature, as the interpersonal relationships in which migrants are enmeshed are often referred to as migrant networks (Bakewell et al., 2016), or even more confusingly migration networks (Haug, 2008). For the purpose of this chapter, the term migration network is only used to discuss places connected by migration. The dynamics of these migration networks—their evolution and change—is shaped by other linkages that connect the nodes. Fawcett (1989, p. 674) has identified three broad types of linkages that have the strongest influence on the size and direction of flows in migration networks. Regulatory linkages describe the extent which nodes are connected through geographical proximity and shared regional economic and political agreements. Hence, we can see strong regulatory linkages among the countries of the European Union or those of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Tangible linkages are seen in the flows of trade and capital between nodes and their relative levels of economic development. Large disparities in GDP per head are likely to increase incentives to move from lower to higher income nodes. Any such effect will be moderated by relational linkages. These refer to shared languages, cultures, and histories. At the global levels, these relational linkages are seen very clearly in the contemporary impact of colonialism on migration patterns. None of these linkages are determinants of migration but exploring their interaction with changes in migration flows shows how migration systems emerge as relatively stable geographical structures and, crucially, how they change over time (DeWaard et al., 2012; Leal, 2021). Rather than focusing on a particular origin and destination corridor, this migration systems approach examines how flows in any given corridor vary in relation to the flows among other nodes in the system. By analyzing both the changing diversity of migration corridors that connect countries to each other and also the intensity of the movement back and

92  Research handbook on the sociology of migration forth along those corridors, it is possible to observe the emergence of new migration systems. For example, data on migration flows in Europe over twenty-five years from 1990, shows a pattern of new migration destinations (increased diversity) being followed by the subsequent growth of flows of people towards those destinations (increasing intensity). This is consistent with pioneer migration establishing the pathways for others to follow, creating the conditions for the cumulative causation of migration (DeWaard & Ha, 2019). Other work has drawn on migration systems theory (MST) to explore what qualities of these migration networks help to sustain migration. Using estimates of global bilateral migration flow data, Leal and Harder (2021) examine changes in the diversity of migration ties between countries across the world, distinguishing between connections among countries in the Global North (N-N), those in the Global South (S-S) and those moving between north and south (N-S). They found that these three geographical groupings of migration networks responded differently to system linkages. Cultural (relational) links such as a common language play a bigger role in shaping N-N systems, whereas sharing a common border or being part of the same region (regulatory linkages) are more relevant for S-S and N-S systems. The relative level of economic development (tangible linkages) measured through gross domestic product had little influence on the N-N system. In S-S systems, lower levels of GDP were associated with a lower likelihood of extensive out-migration from countries in the network (Leal & Harder, 2021).

CONCLUSION In this brief overview of the literature, I have focused on work that might be positioned in migration systems theory (and some authors routinely refer to MST as a body of literature). This work is concerned with understanding the changing patterns of migration. Many other studies have drawn on these ideas of migration systems to frame their empirical analysis (for example, see Beauchemin, Flahaux, & Schoumaker, 2020; Valenta, 2017). The term migration system also appears in many other academic, policy, and general discussions without any attempt to engage with these theoretical foundations. In summary, invoking a migration system entails a more rounded, comprehensive, and complex analysis than might be required for many other approaches that tend to focus on exploring either the initiation or the continuation of migration (Massey et al., 1998). Systems thinking encourages scholars to look beyond the constituent parts. It reminds us that we cannot understand the changing patterns of migration by looking only at origins or destinations. Understanding why people want to move from an area, their changing aspirations, and the factors that may push them to leave, can only be part of the story. Likewise, it is not enough to analyze what draws migrants to a particular setting and how they manage to become part of a new society. Looking at migrations systems demands a wider analysis that looks at both origins and destinations, and the changing two-way relationships between them. It also draws attention to the wider environment, such as the institutional setting, and wider exchanges. Perhaps most importantly, it introduces a temporal dimension as it seeks to explain how migration in one period shapes subsequent movement through the operation of feedback. By exploring how the action of individual migrants and the operation of feedback processes and other meso-level changes work through to affect the broader patterns of migration, evident

Migration systems  93 in the emergence of macro-level migration networks, the systems approach helps to build links between different levels of social analysis. This is all very appealing but, as the foregoing discussion shows, a migration systems approach comes at the cost of added complexity. This begs the question of what we gain by investing our efforts in such complex theorizing (assuming academic hubris alone is insufficient cause to justify our time). That takes us back to the core purpose (to my mind) of social scientific reasoning. If we can articulate a reasonably clear and consistent idea of migration systems, it enables us to take the concepts that have been elaborated around one empirical context and use it to help understand what is happening in another. One of the tropes of those who are hostile to migration is the idea that letting a few people in will inevitably result in more following. As the opening example of New Malden shows, sometimes, this may occur. However, if we can understand how and why this migration system between Korea and New Malden became established, we can both see that there was nothing inevitable about it and identify the particular configuration of elements at origin, destination, and in the wider environment that make such an outcome more likely. So far, much of the work on migration systems remains largely confined to the analysis of individual systems. Perhaps, in order to see the full value of this social theory, it is important to be able to strengthen these theoretical foundations. Such a strategy may both help to bring migration research into closer dialogue with broader social theory and also shift the focus away from migration and migrants to the wider operation of social systems of modern society (Bommes, 2012).

REFERENCES Andersson, R. (2016). Europe’s failed ‘fight’ against irregular migration: Ethnographic notes on a counterproductive industry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(7), 1055–1075. Bakewell, O. (2014). Relaunching migration systems. Migration Studies, 2(3), 300–318. Bakewell, O., Engbersen, G., Fonseca, M. L., & Horst, C. (Eds.) (2016). Beyond networks: Feedback in international migration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bakewell, O., & Jolivet, D. (2016). Broadcasting migration outcomes. In O. Bakewell, G. Engbersen, M. L. Fonseca, & C. Horst (Eds.) Beyond networks: Feedback in international migration (pp. 183–204). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bausch, K. C. (2002). Roots and branches: A brief, picaresque, personal history of systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19(5), 417–428. Beauchemin, C., Flahaux, M. L., & Schoumaker, B. (2020). Three sub-Saharan migration systems in times of policy restriction. Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1), 1–27. Bommes, M. (2012). Migration in modern society. In C. Boswell & G. D’Amato (Eds.) Immigration and social systems: Collected essays of Michael Bommes (pp. 19–36). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Bommes, M., & Sciortino, G. (Eds.) (2011). Foggy social structures: Irregular migration, European labour markets and the welfare state. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Boswell, C., & D’Amato, G. (Eds.) (2012). Immigration and social systems: Collected essays of Michael Bommes. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. De Haas, H. (2010). The internal dynamics of migration processes: A theoretical inquiry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1587–1617. Dekker, R., & Engbersen, G. (2014). How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate migration. Global Networks, 14(4), 401–418. Deniz, A., & Özgür, E. M. (2021). Mixed marriage and transnational marriage migration in the grip of political economy: Russian-Turkish case. Turkish Studies, 22(3), 437–461.

94  Research handbook on the sociology of migration DeWaard, J., Fussell, E., Curtis, K. J., & Ha, J. T. (2020). Changing spatial interconnectivity during the ‘Great American Migration Slowdown’: A decomposition of intercounty migration rates, 1990–2010. Population, Space and Place, 26(1), e2274. DeWaard, J., & Ha, J. T. (2019). Resituating relaunched migration systems as emergent entities manifested in geographic structures. Migration Studies, 7(1), 39–58. DeWaard, J., Kim, K., & Raymer, J. (2009). International migration systems: Evidence from harmonized flow data. CDE Working Paper No. 2009-07. Madison: Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. DeWaard, J., Kim, K., & Raymer, J. (2012). Migration systems in Europe: Evidence from harmonized flow data. Demography, 49(4), 1307–1333. Durand, J., & Massey, D. S. (2019). Evolution of the Mexico-US migration system: Insights from the Mexican migration project. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 684(1), 21–42. Echeverría, G. (2020). Towards a systemic theory of irregular migration: Explaining Ecuadorian irregular migration in Amsterdam and Madrid. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Engbersen, G., Snel, E., & van Meeteren, M. (2013). Declining migration from Morocco to the Netherlands and the diminutive causation of migration. Vol. 73-2013. IMI Working Papers. Oxford: International Migration Institute. Faist, T. (2004). Towards a political sociology of transnationalization. The state of the art in migration research. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 45(3), 331–366. Fawcett, J. T. (1989). Networks, linkages, and migration systems. International Migration Review, 23(3), 671–680. Fonseca, M. L., Esteves, A., & McGarrigle, J. (2016). The economic crisis as a feedback-generating mechanism? Brazilian and Ukrainian migration to Portugal. In O. Bakewell, G. Engbersen, M. L. Fonseca, & C. Horst (Eds.) Beyond networks: Feedback in international migration (pp. 113–133). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gurak, D. T., & Caces, F. (1992). Migration networks and the shaping of migration systems. In M. M. Kritz, L. L. Lim, & H. Zlotnik (Eds.) International migration systems: A global approach (pp. 150–176). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gutkind, P. C. W. (1962). African urban family life: Comment on and analysis of some rural-urban differences. Cahiers d’Études Africaines, 3(10), 149–217. Haug, S. (2008). Migration networks and migration decision-making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(4), 585–605. Kritz, M. M., Lim, L. L., & Zlotnik, H. (Eds.) (1992). International migration systems: A global approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Leal, D. F. (2021). Network inequalities and international migration in the Americas. American Journal of Sociology, 126(5), 1067–1126. Leal, D. F., & Harder, N. L. (2021). Global dynamics of international migration systems across South– South, North–North, and North–South flows, 1990–2015. Applied Network Science, 6(1), 1–27. Mabogunje, A. L. (1970). Systems approach to a theory of rural‐urban migration. Geographical Analysis, 2(1), 1–18. Massey, D. S. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 56(1), 3–26. Massey, D. S., Alarcon, R., Durand, J., & González, H. (1987). Return to Aztlan: The social process of international migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1998). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. McDonald, D. A., Zinyama, L., Gay, J., de Vlerter, F., & Marres, R. (2000). Guess who’s coming to dinner: Migration from Lesotho, Mozambique and Zimbabwe to South Africa. International Migration Review, 34(3), 813–841. Parsons, L., Lawreniuk, S., & Pilgrim, J. (2014). Wheels within wheels: Poverty, power and patronage in the Cambodian migration system. The Journal of Development Studies, 50(10), 1362–1379. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Migration systems  95 Portes, A., & Böröcz, J. (1989). Contemporary immigration: Theoretical perspectives on its determinants and modes of incorporation. International Migration Review, 23(3), 606–630. Richards, A. I. (Ed.) (1973 [1952]). Economic development and tribal change: A study of immigrant labour in Buganda. Nairobi & London: Oxford University Press. Sciortino, G. (2000). Toward a political sociology of entry policies: conceptual problems and theoretical proposals. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 26(2), 213–228. Shin, H. (2018). The territoriality of ethnic enclaves: Dynamics of transnational practices and geopolitical relations within and beyond a Korean transnational enclave in New Malden, London. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(3), 756–772. Shin, H. (2019). Extra-territorial nation-building in flows and relations: North Korea in the global networks and an ethnic enclave. Political Geography, 74, 102048. Simmons, A. B., & Guengant, J. P. (1992). Caribbean exodus and the world system. In M. M. Kritz, L. L. Lim, & H. Zlotnik (Eds.) International migration systems: A global approach (pp. 94–114). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Song, J., & Denney, S. (2019). Studying North Korea through North Korean migrants: Lessons from the field. Critical Asian Studies, 51(3), 451–466. Strawberry Tours (2020). Exploring London’s neighbourhoods: The multicultural. Retrieved from https://​strawberrytours​.com/​london/​neighbourhoods/​the​-multicultural. Suckall, N., Fraser, E., Forster, P., & Mkwambisi, D. (2015). Using a migration systems approach to understand the link between climate change and urbanisation in Malawi. Applied Geography, 63, 244–252. Valenta, M. (2017). A comparative analysis of migration systems and migration policies in the European Union and in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Migration and Development, 6(3), 428–447. von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 134–165. Zlotnik, H. (1992). Empirical identification of international migration systems. In M. M. Kritz, L. L. Lim, & H. Zlotnik (Eds.) International migration systems: A global approach (pp. 19–40). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

8. Migration policies and politics Joaquín Arango

INTRODUCTION ‘Migration is a creature of policy’, wrote Kingsley Davis (1988) decades ago. Obviously, he would have no difficulty in admitting the exaggeration inherent in his dictum, and in recognizing a host of other drivers of migration. What he surely tried to convey is that policies were becoming a powerful force in shaping migration and its consequences, something that in his time was less recognized than it is today. At the time of Davis’ writing, migration policies were already prominent, but they hardly received the degree of attention they garner nowadays, an attention that has increased with the passage of time and captured much research interest among migration scholars. To corroborate this shift, consider that near the turn of the twentieth century, policies and politics were surprisingly absent in the major migration theories identified at that time (Arango, 2000; Massey et al., 1998). The pivotal role of states and of migration policies was overlooked in theoretical explanations of migration. Zolberg’s plea to ‘bring the state back in’, using Theda Skocpol’s famous expression, attested to this absence (Hollifield, 2000; Skocpol, Evans, & Rueschemeyer, 1985; Zolberg, 1989). The relative omission of the state and of policies in explanations of migration stemmed partly from the fact that migration theories mirrored the dominant model of migration in the mid-twentieth century, a model largely presided over by labor migration, crucial in still labor-intensive, Fordist-type economies (Arango, 2000; Massey, 1999, 2018). An additional explanation has to do with the fact that migration was generally more accepted at that time, de jure or de facto, than it is today, reducing the incentive of the state to intervene. Moreover, interest among political scientists in migration affairs was still limited (Meyers, 2000). Both scenarios have significantly shifted in recent decades. Few would deny today that both policies and politics deeply affect migration, as well as its outcomes, including processes of incorporation. Policies and politics figure prominently in the migration literature, in line with the growing and widespread concern among the public and among states with migration governance, management, and regulation. Migration policies have proliferated in recent decades, and they have been disaggregated in a growing number of policy areas. At the same time, they have become increasingly restrictive, controversial, and politicized. This chapter first sketches a concise overview of migration policies in historical perspective, underscoring both their relative recentness and their proliferation and diversification since the third quarter of the twentieth century. The focus is limited to North America and Europe, the regions that have been more active in the development of migration policies, both in the past and in the present, more affected by the current politicization of the issue, and accounting for a larger proportion of immigrants. Special attention is devoted to the evolution of control policies and policies of cooperation with origin and transit countries, especially in relation to the containment of irregular migration, which, contrary to what was the rule in previous times, has become an overriding policy concern. The analysis emphasizes the many difficulties and stark dilemmas facing policymaking, especially in liberal democracies, and the considerable 96

Migration policies and politics  97 limitations governments encounter in designing and enforcing policies. The final section is devoted to the politicization of migration occurring in the context of the current wave of populist politics, which intensifies the intervention of politics in the governance of migration and asylum. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the blurred boundaries that at times differentiate and at times confuse policies and politics.

MIGRATION POLICIES IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The trend towards increasing government intervention in and growing regulation of migration is a defining one in the history of migration policymaking. Since the mid-nineteenth century, the governance of migration has evolved from something close to a laissez-faire approach—a state of things characterized by a paucity of norms and limited state intervention—to intense state intervention and the multiplication of policies, as the phenomenon was becoming increasingly multidimensional and complex. The first trait of migration policies that calls for attention is their relative recentness. With some important exceptions in the interwar period, the majority date from the second half of the twentieth century. Prior to the Second World War, government intervention in the field of migration was scant, albeit not negligible. In a world in which, compared with the situation nowadays, the number of policy areas was limited, migration was seldom treated as one. Furthermore, immigration was considered a factor of nation-building and a crucial source of human resources in the labor-intensive economies of the settler states of North and South America, and Australasia (Hatton & Williamson, 1998, 2005; Moya & McKeown, 1998; Portes, 2020). Inasmuch as a positive view of migration tended to prevail, its regulation was hardly seen as necessary, aside from a few major laws in a few countries. With due caution, it can be said that something akin to free circulation was the norm, at least until the third decade of the twentieth century. Restrictive regulations in European sending nations had tended to disappear in previous decades, and destination countries were more active in developing campaigns and actions to recruit migrants at origin than in erecting obstacles to their entry. The fact that passports and visas were practically unknown, or seldom required, can be taken as an indicator of the prevalence of free circulation. An observer as highly qualified as Stefan Zweig (1943) celebrated this state of affairs on the eve of the Great War. That is not to say that government intervention in matters of migration did not exist before that time, but it had more to do with politics than with policies in the modern sense of the word. For many years, the regulation of migration took the form of a string of admission laws aiming to bar the arrival of certain categories of immigrants deemed ‘undesirable’. Some of these laws were racially inspired, starting with the US Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1875 and 1882, later extended to other Asians. Inadmissible classes also included prostitutes, felons, persons suffering from certain contagious diseases, the illiterate, or those likely to become a public charge (Martin, 2011). But the aim of these and similar early regulations was neither to improve the governance of migration nor to curtail its volume. Racial preferences and prejudices, openly expressed, also presided over the so-called White Canada and White Australia policies. But aside from the negative selection of some minority groups, borders were wide open for the great majority of immigrants, who came mostly from Europe. In fact, the ensuing lack of prerequisites for crossing borders overshadowed the variety of types and reasons for moving that are recognized today, and which result in different admission criteria.

98  Research handbook on the sociology of migration The portrait depicted above points to an important nuance: freedom of movement applied largely to whites (Acosta, 2018; Moya & McKeown, 1998). In the colonies and in other regions, on the contrary, the restrictive control of mobility was pervasive. The preponderance of the laissez-faire approach to immigration started to fade with the influential US Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, which coupled their primary goal of selecting the most desired immigrants with the aim of reducing the overall number of arrivals, thus ushering in an era of restriction. The acts did so by establishing a national-origin quota system that gave preference to immigrants from northwestern Europe (Bolter, 2022; Martin, 2011). Similar developments took place at the same time in Argentina. The paucity of migration policies would come gradually to an end in the mid-twentieth century, starting with a series of politically inspired macro-level laws that significantly modified the immigration regime in both traditional and relatively novel immigration-receiving countries in Europe. In the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, proclaimed by President Lyndon Johnson at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, reversed national-origin quotas, seen as out of tune with the moral and political climate generated by the Civil Rights Movement. A similar motivation spurred on systemic changes in migration policy in Canada and Australia, no longer defined as ‘white’, although strong national preferences remained until 1975 in Australia and 1987 in New Zealand. No less politically inspired, although very different in nature, was the guestworker model of temporary labor migration enacted by Germany and other northwestern European countries in the third quarter of the twentieth century (Werner, 1986).

CONTEMPORARY PROLIFERATION OF MIGRATION POLICIES Government intervention in matters of migration has intensified since the second half of the twentieth century. The contemporary multiplication of migration policies has taken place in the wider context of the global expansion of policymaking, attested by the vigorous growth of the discipline known as ‘policy analysis’. In the case of Europe, migration policymaking increased markedly around 1980, when governments realized that a large proportion of those who had come as temporary migrants under guestworker agreements, and who were bound to return home in due time, had decided to stay, creating an unexpected and undesired reality that led to new admission schemes, more stringent controls, and an array of integration policies. Two highly relevant areas of policymaking in matters related to human mobility came about in the second half of the twentieth century. The first stemmed from the international right of asylum established by the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 Protocol of New York. Asylum would not become an intense policy area until the 1970s; prior to that, international protection in the West was confined to a number of cases related to the heated political context of the Cold War. The consequences of forced migration stemming from the conflicts that affected countries involved in decolonization processes were left to the care of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The second new area of policymaking resulted from the construction of the common immigration and asylum policy of the European Union (EU). The growth of migration policies in recent decades has run parallel to their increasing disaggregation and diversification, as governments became interested in diverse facets of the phenomenon. Migration policies can be grouped in two main blocks: those addressed

Migration policies and politics  99 to persons susceptible of entering a destination country and those directed towards persons who are already in the host country and in the process of becoming incorporated into it. The former can be disaggregated into admission, control of entries and stays, cooperation with other states, mainly of origin and transit, and asylum policies. The inclusion of the latter in the list is justified by the combined factors that forced migration constitutes an important form of migration—albeit an idiosyncratic one—and that it is primarily regulated by international law. The second block, referred to as integration or incorporation, encompasses a large and diverse array of policy areas, mostly of a sectoral character, including preparation and access to the labor market, language, education, culture, housing, and health care, among many others. Strictly speaking, they can be seen as post-migration policies. Two additional policy areas, concerning the fight against discrimination and access to citizenship, can be included in this block, as they are of paramount importance for integration processes but their contents and possible beneficiaries are not restricted to the field of migration. The two migration policy blocks are tightly associated (Hammar, 1985), as interactions between them are frequent and intense, underlying the idea of a migration–integration nexus, a relationship that highlights the consequences and implications that entry and stay policies have for integration outcomes. Other, different, taxonomies are obviously possible. In both logical and chronological order, the starting point corresponds to admission policies, as they are the ones that define the relationship that a state intends to have with migrants and with foreigners at large. Through admission policies, the state stipulates who can enter its territory and stay, for how long, with which purposes and requirements, and so on. Admission policies can be seen as declarative in nature, expressed by means of legal norms, often including constitutional provisions. In the definition of its desired relationship with those that are not their nationals, liberal democratic states increasingly encounter factors that limit their degrees of freedom. Admission policies have become increasingly complex and disaggregated in many sub-areas, some of them as prominent and relevant as labor migration, family reunification, and humanitarian migration, the foremost entry channels. Democratic liberal states offer a large array of entry gates, but their very existence attests to the vanishing of free circulation, which made distinctions among migrants unnecessary. Nowadays, all countries control, select, and restrict the entry of migrants and refugees. The foremost exception is the so-called Schengen space of the European Union and four non-EU states, a substantial exception, albeit a spatially limited one. Other attempts at the establishment of free circulation, such as that of the Mercosur countries in South America and the Ecowas Protocol of Free Circulation in West Africa, are far less ambitious. The orientation and breadth of admission and control policies have evolved with the passage of time, especially in recent decades, generally towards greater restriction. Today, control policies command the highest political priority, and raise the greatest controversies. Their main object and raison d’être can be easily defined: to secure that admission policies are enforced and respected. Prevention policies can be included in the realm of control policies, as they constitute one of the three spaces in which control operates: origin and transit countries, borders, and the interior of the territory. Although admission gates allow the legal entry of large numbers of immigrants, many of those who do not meet those requirements try nevertheless to enter and stay irregularly, within a global context characterized by a huge mismatch between migration aspirations and legal possibilities. To prevent those entries, control policies have multiplied and hardened, and

100  Research handbook on the sociology of migration become preeminent. The sustained restrictive drive of recent decades has been characterized as a ‘modern assault on free circulation’ (Sassen, 1996). For large segments of the world population, the obstacles that stand in the way of international migration are so formidable that our time has been described as ‘the era of involuntary immobility’ (Carling, 2002). The growing perception of irregular migration as a major problem has also contributed to the contemporary prominence of control policies (Düvell, 2006), in stark contrast with the relative indifference that prevailed until the last quarter of the twentieth century. Evidence for this stance includes, among many others, the national policy of benign neglect applied in this case by the US Congress during the Bracero Program and the expeditious legalization often practiced by the Office National d’Immigration in France (Amar & Milza, 1990), or the frequent recourse to mass regularization processes in several countries, including the iconic one carried out in the United States in 1986, during the Reagan administration, probably the largest in history. Since then, the fight against irregular migration has gradually become the overriding concern of migration policy. Policies of cooperation with origin and transit countries have recently evolved in a similar vein, an evolution associated both with the difficulties that control policies face and with their less than satisfactory results. The main goal of this external dimension of migration policy used to be the promotion of development to remove the root causes that push people to migrate. Given the evidence of dismal results in this regard, and the limited funding devoted to them—usually inferior to remittances—the function they fulfilled was one of legitimation. In fact, rather than migration policies as such, they could be seen as policies of development cooperation with a migration component, clearly the case of the short-lived, highly rhetorical proposal known as ‘co-development’. Recently, the external dimension of migration policies has undergone significant change, ceasing to be a marginal line of policy and becoming a central one, especially in the EU and the United States. The predominant orientation now is to secure the cooperation of sending and transit states to curtail migration inflows. The externalization of border controls, readmission agreements, and even the possibility of processing asylum demands in situ or even extraterritorially, in exchange for financial compensations, receive a high priority, often disregarding legal considerations. This policy line has become paramount in the EU, especially with the agreements with Turkey and Libya following the 2015 ‘crisis’, and in the United States during the Trump administration, with the ‘Remain in Mexico’ program, coupled with strong pressures on Mexico and Central American countries to contain inflows heading towards the United States. This highly restrictive orientation has run parallel to the evolution of international protection policies towards something akin to a new asylum regime that provides governments with instruments to reduce the number of refugees and asylum seekers and to circumvent the strong provisions of the Geneva Convention (Crisp, 2003; Joly, 1996, 2001).

DIFFICULTIES AND DILEMMAS The efficacy of migration policies is not beyond doubt. The growing relevance accorded to such policies, and the increasing funding they command, are only partially translated into increased effectiveness. Surveys reveal that their performance is often seen as a failure, with a marked gap between goals and results. An influential article by Stephen Castles (2004) was

Migration policies and politics  101 tellingly titled ‘Why migration policies fail’. This failure is especially apparent with regard to border control policies, which face staggering practical and legal difficulties and stark dilemmas. In many countries, there is a widespread impression that governments are unable to control their borders, giving way to notions like ‘losing control’ or ‘borders beyond control’ (Bhagwati, 2003; Sassen, 1996), a skepticism that contributes to a besieged fortress syndrome and to a diffuse climate of dissatisfaction that erodes institutional confidence, fuels distrust, and contributes to the perception of immigration as unwanted. Certainly, controlling inflows is a difficult task, despite the multiplication of walls, the increasing use of technological devices for detection and interception of would-be migrants, and the deployment of large and increasing numbers of border guards. Control over large maritime frontiers is particularly difficult. Challenges include the widespread practice of overstaying, the use of forged documents, fake marriages, the permanence of refused asylum seekers, the growing numbers of smugglers and traffickers, and the size and opacity of the informal sector in which unauthorized migrants find employment, inter alia. Liberal democratic states also face obstacles in trying to enforce the ultima ratio constituted by the expulsion of migrants in an irregular condition who have received an order to leave the territory. The proportion of expulsion orders that result in effective deportation is usually small, mostly due to the fact that in many countries irregular migration is not punished as a crime, the inability of governments to identify the nationality of the migrant, and the lack of cooperation on the part of the supposed country of origin. All these factors bestow a high priority upon readmission agreements with origin and transit countries. Overall, control policies matter more for their latent function of dissuasion than for the manifest function of effectively curtailing unauthorized entries and stays. Admittedly, irregular migration is difficult to measure, given the intrinsically opaque nature of the phenomenon, but existing attempts at estimating the levels of irregular migration and their evolution point to persistently high numbers (Düvell, 2006; European Commission, 2009; Lopez, Passel, & Cohn, 2021). The number of migrants in an irregular condition and its evolution constitutes the foremost parameter for the evaluation of the effectiveness of control policies, but it is by no means the only one. Other parameters include the high and generally rising expenditure in logistics and personnel, and the host of unintended consequences they contribute to generating. When these two additional criteria are added to the picture, the balance sheet of control policies suffers. The sizeable numbers of unauthorized migrants that democratic receiving countries are unable or unwilling to expel entail variable degrees of tolerance, which result in grey areas between legality and illegality, and difficult to solve dilemmas and contradictions. The ensuing limited applicability of the rule of law in chronified facets of social life implies variable doses of legal insecurity and vulnerability for the migrants involved. The difficulties of border control policies become especially critical in situations of massive arrivals, such as the ones that precipitated the 2015–2016 ‘crisis’ in the Mediterranean basin, or the one that took place at the US–Mexico border slightly later. In the words of an experienced, high-ranking officer, these surges in arrivals reveal ‘a mismatch between the volume and nature of migration and the sovereign incapacity to constrain or manage it’ (Bersin, 2020, p. 2). In recent years, immigration policies have considerably hardened in Europe and the United States, a turn represented by the iconic, zero-tolerance policies imposed by the Trump administration, the policies implemented by European countries during and after the migration

102  Research handbook on the sociology of migration ‘crisis’ of 2015–2016, aiming to externalize border control at any cost, and the harsh stance of some European countries avowedly bent on making life miserable for irregular migrants and rejected asylum seekers, in order to provoke self-deportation.

RESTRICTING LEGAL MIGRATION? In governmental discourses, the acceptance of legal migration is often invoked to legitimize the severity of the fight against irregular migration. However, the latter is not always the only type of migration that governments want to reduce. Legal migration is also under pressure in many countries, although often in an undeclared way. In recent times, some governments, including the Trump administration in the United States and the context of Brexit in the United Kingdom, among others, have openly expressed their wish to reduce both legal immigration and asylum. Yet, doing so in a significant measure is far from easy, especially in liberal democratic states, for diverse reasons. One of these reasons, of a legal and moral nature, stems from the fact that those societies cannot disregard circumstances or conditions that entitle large numbers of foreigners to enter and to remain. Two of these entitlements, family reunification and humanitarian migration, are especially robust. Experience shows that governments are often able to condition and limit the exercise of these rights, but not to disregard them altogether. Many of the difficulties liberal democratic societies face when they try to implement highly restrictive policies have to do with their liberal democratic character (Freeman, 1995; Hollifield, 1992, 2000; Joppke, 1998). A version of this restrictive stance is a policy orientation that aims not so much to reduce overall legal immigration as to restrict or diminish the volume of some modalities of migration seen as less desired, such as family reunification, humanitarian migration, and low-skilled labor migration. A version of such orientation was openly promoted in the first decade of the twenty-first century by Nicholas Sarkozy, first as Minister of the Interior in charge of the migration portfolio, and later as president of France, when he advocated a policy to foster immigration choisie and to curtail immigration subie, or ‘chosen immigration’ versus ‘suffered immigration’ (Héran, 2017). His attempt to export such policy to the rest of the European Union failed, but the actual practice in some countries is not too different. Another current trend in migration policymaking is the gradual option for more temporary migration, to the detriment of permanent migration. This scenario is even found in settler countries that have traditionally favored permanent migration but which are nowadays increasing the volume and number of temporary migrant workers programs. This trend, less controversial than the former, as it does not impinge on internationally recognized rights, implies a reduction of rights, pointing towards a certain commodification of migration (Portes, 2020), not unrelated to broader contemporary trends. The design and implementation of migration policies are conditioned on the one hand by the practical difficulties they face, and, in the case of liberal democratic polities, by international law and moral constraints. On the other hand, the existence of contrasting interests that oppose the political sphere, concerned with public opinion and electoral results, to the business sector, oriented above all to advantageously satisfy human resource needs emerges, a contradiction that counterbalances the demand for foreign labor with restrictions to the entry of immigrants, and which has been synthesized in the literature with the expression markets versus states (Hollifield, 1992).

Migration policies and politics  103

THE INCREASING POLITICIZATION OF MIGRATION Since the 1980s (Baldwin-Edwards & Schain, 1994), and especially since the turn of the twenty-first century, migration has undergone an intense process of politicization that has brought it not only to the fore of public attention but also to the center of the political arena in Western Europe and North America. It is becoming an extremely divisive and highly controversial issue. In a heated political climate, the governance of migration is increasingly affected by politics, often overflowing into the realm of policies. More than as a sectoral policy area such as health care, education, or housing, immigration is seen and treated as a societal issue, which affects democracy and society at large. It has become a major political field in immigrant-receiving societies, as ‘every aspect of political life has been touched by the issue of immigration’ (Baldwin-Edwards & Schain, 1994, p. 1). If, in Hartwell’s words, politicization is the process of making ‘all questions political questions, all issues political issues, all values political values and all decisions political decisions’ (Hartwell, 1979, p. 14), migration is undergoing an intense process of politicization. The politics of migration had existed before, but it has never been as prominent as it is today. A high-ranking political figure in a major immigrant-receiving country has gone as far as saying that immigration ‘is the mother of all the political problems of the country’.1 The politicization of migration is primarily evidenced by the central place that the issue occupies in many electoral processes, especially in Europe and North America. In some countries, right-wing populist parties have threatened to win, and in others, electoral support has permitted such parties to enter the government and bring forward immigration as a main issue. In quite a few countries the emergence and growth of radical right populist parties that make the rejection of immigration their main platform has significantly altered the party system (Mudde, 2007, 2012). Hostility towards immigration has played a prominent role in the Brexit process and in the climate of acute polarization prevailing in the United States since the inception of the Trump administration. Current ‘anti-immigration’ drives in several countries run parallel to the rise of strident nationalist movements in both Western and Central Europe, and to the increase of radical nativism on the other side of the Atlantic. And largely because of its politicization and associated mediatization, migration issues figure prominently on the agendas of governments, international organizations, and civil society institutions. Particularly since the 2015 ‘crisis’, migration and asylum are permanently at the center of political debate in Europe and about Europe. All in all, the governance of migration is taking place in a politically turbulent setting. The politicization of migration is not explained by the fact that the costs and benefits associated with it yield a more negative balance sheet than in the past. Instead, it stems from exogeneous causes, above all, from a political context overtaken by the current wave of populist politics that finds in migration and asylum a fertile ground. The politicization of migration has been induced by non-state political actors. Decisive in its genesis and expansion has been the rise of radical right populist parties and movements in more than a dozen European countries, along with their rise in the United States, represented by large segments of the Republican Party previously self-defined as the ‘Tea Party’, together with an assortment of ‘English-only’ nativist groups. These parties and movements are to some extent diverse in their characteristics and defining traits, but they share common denominators that include large doses of populism and nationalism, distrust of globalization, Europhobia, and, above all, hostility towards

104  Research handbook on the sociology of migration immigration and asylum. These denominators tend to converge in shared slogans, including ‘America first’, ‘Bavaria first’, or the equivalent. In turn, the central place that ‘anti-immigration’ feelings play in the ideology of right-wing populist parties can be explained by a strongly exclusionist and identitarian nationalism and, in diverse mixes, in a series of ideological orientations related to migration: authoritarianism, populism, disaffection towards liberal democracy, fears generated by social change and by globalization, Islamophobia, and, in the case of Europe, Euroscepticism. All of this is made compatible with the search for electoral returns, based on the belief that migration is an issue that can be inflamed and politically capitalized. The politicization of migration stems from the fact that these populist parties have adopted its rejection as their foremost flag, in an increasingly heated political climate. It is, therefore, a negative and to a large extent spurious politicization, fed by a negative representation of migration and asylum and by its political utilization. When applied to migration and its consequences, politicization has, to a large extent, a negative connotation. The influence of populist right-wing parties and movements on migration policies varies from country to country and defies generalization. It tends to be greater in those countries in which a populist party has entered the government or the parliamentary majority supporting the government. But it is also prevalent in the case of some moderate government parties that adopt harsh stances towards migration, hoping to compete with the populists and to minimize their electoral support. The electoral return of these strategies, which entails the risk of contributing to the mainstreaming of ‘anti-immigration’ attitudes, often falls short of what is expected. A parallel process that has contributed to the politicization of immigration and asylum has been its increasing securitization. Securitization is the conversion into threats of everything associated with a certain phenomenon, in this case, the construction of immigration as a threat, especially to national identity. The process was already under way since the early days of the preparation of a common EU immigration and asylum policy, when migration was put in the unpleasant company of international crime and stolen works of art (Huysmans, 2000). It was reinforced by the impact of 9/11 and the string of terrorist attacks that followed, particularly in Europe. The arrival of large numbers of migrants in search of national protection to countries of the EU, especially in 2015 and 2016, has also contributed to the securitization of the issue. Yet, the politicization of migration does not only stem from exogeneous causes. Endogenous factors are also at play, and they are intensely debated in the literature. To start with, there is little doubt that, in varying degrees, the financial and economic crisis of 2008 contributed to fostering a series of fears and feelings of insecurity in large segments of society. The crisis expanded and deepened the extended malaise generated by processes of deindustrialization and the loss of working-class jobs in many countries and regions. It is highly plausible that the so-called losers of globalization and other victims of the crisis may experience acute feelings of insecurity and of political disaffection. Surveys have made clear that widespread feelings of insecurity are found in European societies, including among middle-class segments of society, and something similar can be found in the United States. In both cases, the 2008 crisis and its aftermath have contributed to dissatisfaction with the establishment, eroding trust in mainstream parties and political institutions. Some of these fears are linked, often spuriously, to immigration and asylum, and are construed as threats: to personal security—magnified by the terrorist attacks, to the sustainability of the welfare state, to social cohesion, and to national identity. Other insecurities concern

Migration policies and politics  105 housing, health care, employment, and competition in the labor market or the pension system. And, as research has repeatedly found, individuals who share these feelings of insecurity tend to be among those most prone to support ‘anti-immigrant’ parties and movements. Beyond the preceding considerations, in the long run, the politicization of migration finds a propitious ground in the fact that in large sectors of host societies several types of immigrants are seen as ‘unwanted’ and ‘reluctantly accepted’ by governments (Carling, 2007, p. 34), a characterization that points to the long-term decline of the social evaluation of migration. Although certain groups of immigrants have been despised and socially isolated in the past, it can be reckoned that the institution of migration was generally less questioned and more valued than today.

MIGRATION POLICIES AND POLITICS: BLURRED BOUNDARIES Not surprisingly, in the context of politicization and under its influence, the coexistence of policies and politics in the governance of migration attracts increasing attention in the migration literature. The boundary that separates policies and politics is often blurred, for a host of reasons, which start with semantic considerations. In the words of Emmers (2013, p. 133), ‘[T]he governance of immigration is already a politicized matter, as it is managed in the framework of the political system, is part of the public agenda, and requires government decisions and the attribution of public resources’. In practice, the distinction is often difficult, and the two words in English, and their equivalents in Roman languages, are often used indistinctly. The relation of politics and migration is two-fold, as it involves both the influence of migration on political life and the influence of politics upon migration and its governance. While politics increasingly intervenes in the governance of migration, ascertaining how politicization is affecting migration governance is not always clear. On the one hand, the number of examples that could be put forth to unequivocally illustrate the intervention of politics in the field of migration is unlimited. For instance, consider the dispute among EU member states in relation to the national quotas proposed by the European Commission to distribute a fraction of the refugees who entered the territory of the EU during the 2015 ‘crisis’. A more recent and telling example is the manipulation by certain governments of large numbers of migrants with the purpose of pressuring, or even destabilizing, another government, or even the entire EU, which occurred in 2020 and 2021, a strategy that has been characterized as the weaponization of migration. Other terms recently added to the lexicon of migration—such as pushbacks, geopolitical blackmail, or hybrid threat—clearly point to new realities related to the politicization of migration. Yet, examples also abound of government decisions and interventions that, regardless of their political content, belong more in the terrain of policies than in that of politics, despite the word used to describe them. It is the case, for instance, in the politics of negotiating readmission agreements between European countries and sending or transit countries, or even the political agreements of the EU with Turkey and Libya: they involve the use of political instruments and means at the service of policy goals, however controversial. A complex case—in which moral considerations supersede both politics and policy—would be the decision of the German government led by Angela Merkel to open the frontier to the thousands of migrants in search of international protection in 2015. A way out of this conundrum might be the notion

106  Research handbook on the sociology of migration of politically determined, or conditioned, policies, a hybrid tertium genus able to bound the two notions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Seen in historical perspective, the regulation of migration since the mid-nineteenth century has evolved from something close to laissez-faire to intense government intervention; from free circulation to widespread restrictions; from the practical absence of policies to their proliferation; from a handful of macro-level admission policies to a vast array of diversified policies at all levels of government. Over the same period, and in a related manner, migration has gradually gone from largely wanted to considerably unwanted, and from the preponderance of settlement and permanent migration to the preference for temporary migrants, in a scenario in which long-distance migration has ceased to be predominantly Atlantic and become global. Four distinct stages can be identified in this evolution. The first encompasses the central decades of the nineteenth century, until roughly 1880, characterized by open borders and free circulation in a measure unsurpassed before and after. In the second stage, between the 1880s and the 1920s, when long-distance migration flows reached the highest relative volume ever recorded, free circulation persisted, only marginally limited by a few racially motivated exceptions not directed to curtail migration but to exclude from it some undesired classes, in an exercise of negative selection. Migration in this period continued to be largely desired. Government intervention was scant and limited to a few admission criteria, and it was more a tributary of politics than of policies. This state of affairs started to shift in the following stage, between the 1920s and the 1960s, when major immigration countries passed a handful of macro-level, politically inspired laws directed to carry the selection of preferred immigrants a step further by establishing a preferential regime and, at the same time, aiming to reduce overall migration that had reached levels deemed excessive, thus ushering an era of restriction. These precedents drastically changed in the third quarter of the twentieth century. Migration policies multiplied in a context of intense state intervention in an increasing number of policy areas, and they were disaggregated in a panoply of fields superseding the previous primacy of admission norms. In the final decades of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century, a vast array of policies oriented towards improving the governance of migration at all levels of government saw the light. Large policy repositories developed in areas such as border control, asylum, cooperation with sending and transit countries, and social integration, and in the common policy on immigration and asylum of the European Union. The highest policy priority moved gradually from admission to control, as the fight against irregular migration became the overriding policy concern. Asylum policies have not been immune to the drive for restriction. Additionally, the boundaries that separate forced migration from other types of migration are becoming blurred, ushering in the notion of ‘mixed flows’. Furthermore, in recent years, the shared belief that border control is impossible without the cooperation of sending and transit countries is enhancing the strategic importance of these policies and leading towards the externalization of border control, often without due respect for international law and human rights. Underlying this scenario is an increasing view of migration as unwanted, which results in limitations on family migration and asylum, and in a reluctance to recognize the need of less-skilled migrant workers, despite increasing labor

Migration policies and politics  107 force shortages, while competing for the highly skilled and professionals, in an increasingly bifurcated international migration scenario. Nowadays, the governance of migration has become highly politicized and contentious, in a climate in which policies and politics are often inextricably mixed. This conflation contributes to explain the contemporary prominence of the migration issue, at the fore of public attention and in the center of the political arena. Migration has become a societal issue that affects democracy itself. Should its politicization simply reflect the social relevance of migration, it might contribute to a needed public debate about the policies that could improve its governance. Yet, the negative character of the current process of politicization, based on the negative representation of migration promoted by radical right parties and movements from both sides of the Atlantic, aiming at curtailing migration, demonizing diversity, and limiting migrant rights, implies a political manipulation of the migration issue not oriented to improve policies but to attain political goals.

NOTE 1. Horst Seehofer, Germany’s Interior Minister and head of the CSU, interviewed by the Rheinische Post, reproduced by Politico, September 6, 2018.

REFERENCES Acosta, D. (2018). The national versus the foreigner in South America: 200 years of migration and citizenship law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amar, M., & Milza, P. (1990). L’immigration en France au XXe siècle. Paris: Armand Colin. Arango, J. (2000). Explaining migration: A critical view. International Social Science Journal, 165, 285–296. Baldwin-Edwards, M., & Schain, M. A. (Eds.) (1994). The politics of immigration in Western Europe. London: Routledge. Bersin, A. D. (2020). Migration management and border security: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Bhagwati, J. (2003). Borders beyond control. Foreign Affairs, 82, 98–104. Bolter, J. (2022). Immigration has been a defining, often contentious, element throughout U.S. history. Migration Information Source, January 6. Retrieved from https://​www​.migrationpolicy​.org/​article/​ immigration​-shaped​-united​-states. Carling, J. R. (2002). Migration in the age of involuntary immobility: Theoretical reflections and Cape Verdean experiences. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(1), 5–42. Carling, J. (2007). Unauthorized migration from Africa to Spain. International Migration, 45(4), 3–37. Castles, S. (2004). Why migration policies fail. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(2), 205–227. Crisp, J. (2003). A new asylum paradigm? Globalization, migration and the uncertain future of the international refugee regime. UNHCR Working Paper No. 100. Retrieved from https://​www​.unhcr​ .org/​research/​working/​3fe16d835/​new​-asylum​-paradigm​-globalization​-migration​-uncertain​-future​ -international​.html. Davis, K. (1988). Social science approaches to international migration. Population and Development Review, 14, 245–261. Düvell, F. (2006). Illegal immigration in Europe: Beyond control? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Emmers, R. (2013). Securitization. In A. Collins (Ed.) Contemporary security studies, 3rd edition (pp. 131–146). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

108  Research handbook on the sociology of migration European Commission (2009). Clandestino Project final report. Undocumented migration: Counting the uncountable. Data and trends across Europe. Project Coordinator: Anna Triandafyllidou. November 23. Freeman, G. P. (1995). Modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic states. International Migration Review, 29(4), 881–902. Hammar, T. (Ed.) (1985). European immigration policy: A comparative study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hartwell, R. M. (1979). Introduction. In K. Templeton (Ed.) The politicization of society (pp. 7–26). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Hatton, T. J., & Williamson, J. G. (1998). The age of mass migration: Causes and economic impact. New York: Oxford University Press. Hatton, T. J., & Williamson, J. G. (2005). Global migration and the world economy: Two centuries of policy and performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Héran, F. (2017). Avec l’immigration. Mesurer, débattre, agir. Paris: La Découverte. Hollifield, J. F. (1992). Immigrants, markets, and states: The political economy of postwar Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hollifield, J. F. (2000). The politics of international migration: How we can bring the state back in. In C. B. Brettell & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.) Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (pp. 137–185). New York: Routledge. Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the securitization of migration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751–777. Joly, D. (1996). Heaven or hell: Asylum policies and refugees in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Joly, D. (2001). Convergence towards a single asylum regime. International Journal of Human Rights, 5(4), 1–17. Joppke, C. (1998). Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration. World Politics, 50(2), 266–293. Lopez, M. H., Passel, J. S., and Cohn, D. (2021). Key facts about the changing U.S. unauthorized population. Pew Research Center, April 13. Retrieved from https://​www​.pewresearch​.org/​fact​-tank/​2021/​ 04/​13/​key​-facts​-about​-the​-changing​-u​-s​-unauthorized​-immigrant​-population/​. Martin, S. F. (2011). A nation of immigrants. New York: Cambridge University Press. Massey, D. S. (1999). International migration at the dawn of the twenty‐first century: The role of the state. Population and Development Review, 25(2), 303–322. Massey, D. S. (2018). The perils of seeing twenty‐first century migration through a twentieth‐century lens. International Social Science Journal, 68(227–228), 101–104. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1998). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Meyers, E. (2000). Theories of international immigration policy: A comparative analysis. International Migration Review, 34(4), 1245–1282. Moya, J. C., & McKeown, A. (1998). World migration in the long twentieth century. In M. Adas (Ed.) Essays in twentieth-century history (pp. 9–52). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mudde, C. (2012). The relationship between immigration and nativism in Europe and North America. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Portes, A. (2020). Bifurcated immigration and the end of compassion. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(1), 2–17. Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization. New York: Columbia University Press. Skocpol, T., Evans, P., & Rueschemeyer, D. (1985). Bringing the state back in. New York: Cambridge University Press. Werner, H. (1986). Post-war labour migration in Western Europe: An overview. International Migration, 24(3), 543–557. Zolberg, A. R. (1989). The next waves: Migration theory for a changing world. International Migration Review, 23(3), 403–430. Zweig, S. (1943). The world of yesterday: Memories of a European. New York: Viking Press.

9. Migration and border regimes Bernd Kasparek

INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces and discusses the different notions, concepts, and theoretical underpinnings connected to the terms migration regime, border regime, or migration and border regime, as well as their historical development. Even though the concept of a regime in relation to migration studies has become increasingly popular, its origin, semantics, and definitions are far from clear. Rather, the term regime represents a variety of heterogeneous approaches to studying and conceptualizing migration, migration policy, and migration governance. This, however, warrants its own genealogical study of the term, which cannot be adequately accomplished within this chapter.1 Therefore, this chapter focuses on a particular and critical angle in migration studies that is strongly connected with the term border regime and the theoretical and methodological proposition of ethnographic border regime analysis. Developed in a German academic context just after the turn of the century, it posits a radically different perspective on migration and knowledge production about migration. Its development must be contextualized both in relation to the phenomena of globalization as well as Europeanization, namely, the emergence of a European border and migration policy field. The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows. It begins with a short examination of the European Union’s hotspot system of refugee camps close to its external border in order to offer a contemporary example that makes the notion of a European border and migration regime plausible. The next section then traces the origins of the concept of a regime as developed in international relations and adopted to migration studies as a migration regime. The third section introduces ethnographic border regime analysis, and discusses how it differs from more mainstream notions of migration regimes. A concluding section assesses its analytical value and offers examples of relevant works and further reading.

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S HOTSPOT CENTERS The violent destruction by fire of the refugee camp Moria, situated on the Greek island of Lesvos, in September 2020, sharply called back to public attention the system of the European Union’s hotspot centers. Situated in proximity to the EU’s external borders in Greece and Italy, their creation in the winter of 2015/16 constituted one of the main features of the European Union’s response to the extraordinary movements of migration towards Europe in what has often been labeled as the European refugee ‘crisis’, or the summer of migration. At the time of the fire, Moria superficially resembled many refugee camps around the world, with some administrative and housing units, accommodated in standard shipping containers, fenced off and guarded, and surrounded by tents and other makeshift accommodation in which the vast majority of refugees and asylum seekers had to live. Living conditions were appalling, 109

110  Research handbook on the sociology of migration with limited access to fresh water, food, and health care, while rains frequently drowned the camp in mud. Fires also occurred frequently, as people were cooking inside their tents or were trying to heat them with makeshift stoves. All this situates Moria squarely in the global landscape of refugee camps as they have proliferated over the last decades. Yet, the fire also destroyed the sealed-off section that functioned as a pre-deportation prison, as well as the state-of-the-art fingerprinting machines that had been purchased by the European Union, indicating that Moria was not merely a refugee camp constructed to contain asylum seekers: like a literal focal point, the hotspot center Moria bundled, focused, and concentrated a variety of rationalities, functions, and practices related to the government of migration at the edges of Europe. And in order to enact these practices, it assembled a multitude of different actors. The European Commission had originally proposed the so-called hotspot approach in May 2015, i.e. when the surprising movements of migration that year were not yet on the horizon. The Commission was much less preoccupied with the creation and running of large-scale infrastructures of detention. They rather addressed a sense of crisis and disintegration in relation to the common European border, migration and asylum policies that had lingered since the winter of 2010/11. The ‘crisis of Schengen’ was the result of many developments. Rising numbers of unauthorized border crossings, particularly in Greece, created doubt concerning whether the Schengen area, the EU zone in which internal border controls between member states had been abolished in favor of strict control and surveillance of the shared external borders, would be able to deal with intensified migration. These doubts were further exacerbated when, due to the uprisings of the Arab Spring in 2011, outsourced migration control in the Central Mediterranean abruptly ended and new patterns of migration towards Europe developed. The Schengen area, in which the integrity of the common external border would rest—pars pro toto—on each member state’s capacity to police its section of the border, was predicated on mutual trust. This trust, however, began to wane, resulting in the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls and demands for stricter procedures to enforce the Schengen standards. Mutual trust was also undermined in the related field of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The system largely rested on the so-called Dublin Regulation, an allocation mechanism that determined an EU member state’s responsibility to process an individual asylum request. According to the ‘rule of first entry’, the member state where an asylum seeker first set foot on European territory was responsible for handling the case. This led to an imbalance in the European Union, since countries such as Greece and Italy, situated at the intersections of Schengen borders and migration routes, were allocated most of the asylum cases. Political demands by these countries to introduce a more equitable distribution mechanism had for many years been rejected by the other member states of the EU. As a consequence, both Italy and Greece had begun to deliberately apply less strict standards of registration for newly arrived asylum seekers. Storing their fingerprints in the European asylum database, Eurodac, was the technical precondition for applying the rule of first entry. But missing or imperfect fingerprints meant that a different member state would be found responsible for processing the asylum application. At this point, the interests of southern and southeastern member states and those of arriving migrants often aligned, as the latter in most cases sought to move further north, thus forming a tacit alliance with the countries of first entry. Yet, such alliances and their underlying practices further created discontent in the European asylum system, as it was predicated on mutual trust.

Migration and border regimes  111 By and large, these were the main ingredients of the emerging ‘crisis of Schengen’. Additionally, European courts restricted certain policy options through high-level judgments,2 and the rising death toll in the Mediterranean, particularly after the double catastrophes at Lampedusa in October 2013, inscribed a humanitarian rationale into European policies that manifested itself both in state programs for the rescue of migrants at sea (such as the Italian military operation Mare Nostrum between 2013 and 2014) as well as in the creation of a civilian rescue fleet financed through NGOs and activists. Yet fundamentally, such actions only exacerbated the underlying issue that in the European Union, no political compromise could be found as to the further development of a common policy on migration, borders, and asylum as the movements of migration intensified in the second decade of the twenty-first century. With the hotspot approach, the Commission sought to break through this impasse. Far from being the competent political authority to decide about new policy in the governance system of the EU, the Commission proposed the hotspot approach as part of the European Agenda on Migration, i.e. a strategy to address the ‘crisis of Schengen’ and to initiate a new political dynamic in this European policy field. This new dynamic coincided with the momentous movements of migration in 2015, and thus the hotspot centers became the most visible symbols of the various, and heterogeneous efforts of the European Union to tackle the ‘crisis’. The Commission first of all sought to ensure the proper registration and fingerprinting of all arriving migrants and their rapid relocation across the continent. The European Council, however, preferred to have migration across the Aegean come to a standstill and with most migrants that had already arrived returned to Turkey, and, thus, negotiated the so-called EU–Turkey deal. The registration sites in Greece turned into deportation prisons, which, in turn, led to uprisings. Neither relocation nor deportation turned out to be practically feasible, and thus the hotspot centers transformed into the deplorable state outlined above. Their architecture combined elements of detention with the potential openness of registration and the appropriation of the centers by migrants. They were run by Greek and European agencies alike, bringing together asylum experts, border guards, criminal investigators, and also a vast array of NGOs, rendering humanitarian services such as health care or providing services, such as translation, to the official agencies. Legally, the practices of the hotspot centers were predicated on diverse legal norms, such as the Geneva Refugee Convention, European asylum legislation, and Greek laws. All these heterogeneous elements coalesced in the focal points of the hotspot centers. These centers are thus not merely new infrastructures of migration control or asylum governance. Rather, they are one concrete manifestation of a network of heterogeneous elements, connecting competing political rationalities, legal frameworks, policies, architectural considerations, discourses, practices, and actors. These connections and the elements of the network have grown over many decades, and are themselves connected in chains of contingency and, thus, outcomes of particular histories. Yet, most crucially, these histories are the histories of the European Union, as well as its member states being challenged, and often defeated, by the movements of migration that have never ceased to find pathways towards Europe. The example of the Moria hotspot and the intertwined histories leading up to it serve as a paradigmatic case in which diverse developments on different planes intersect to form an ever-changing landscape of migration and migration governance. How are we to make sense of these complexities? How can we grasp the various multiplicities analytically? And what does this mean methodologically for research? One approach to analyzing and studying these

112  Research handbook on the sociology of migration interconnected phenomena of migration governance are the concepts of migration regimes and border regimes, which themselves have a checkered history and heterogeneous meaning.

MIGRATION REGIME Complexity, multiple actors without strict hierarchical ordering, and the absence of a powerful, dominant center that, nevertheless, jointly produce temporary stability and coherence are not constellations unique to migration and border policies. Both Europeanization and globalization have made such political contexts much more common. Yet the term regime as a scientific concept to describe such constellations is older. As Christoph Rass and Frank Wolff (2018) have shown, its origin can be traced back to the 1920s, echoing precisely the state of international politics after the First World War that had not yet seen the emergence of a hegemonic power. Most discussions on the origin of the concept of migration regimes point to the (neo-) realist school of international relations, and particularly to Stephen Krasner’s (1982) work. He coined the still most commonly agreed upon definition of a regime: ‘sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge’ (Krasner, 1982, p. 185). An example to which this definition applies is the international human rights regime, or for a more institutionalized example, the regime of international trade that led to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Regimes, as defined by Krasner, therefore explain how periods of stability or coherence can emerge from good-faith cooperation of a multiplicity of actors. Throughout the 1980s, the regime concept became more popular. Its application to migration studies, especially after the end of the Cold War and the onset of globalization, was no surprise. Migration as one of the paradigmatic inter- and transnational global social phenomena precisely eluded control or governance by single nation states or other actors. At the same time, and due to the end of the confrontation of the blocs, international migration increased immensely, either as forced migration in the wake of entire economies collapsing, or as labor migration along the routes of ever-expanding globalized trade. Yet attempts to describe migration systems, i.e. theories that functionally explained migration as the effect of specific parameters such as—for example—push and pull factors, had failed (see Portes & Böröcz, 1989), and the perspective of migration regimes promised a better understanding of the interlinked actors, factors, and developments that made migration. Initial conceptualizations of migration regimes, however, were less preoccupied with shaping the term as an analytic tool. Rather, various attempts were made to explicitly construct a global migration regime akin to the regime of international trade. As Rass and Wolff (2018, p. 27) write, this ‘departed from the regime as a heuristic tool to explain complex relations and transformed it into a means of policy design to order complexity’. At the forefront of this effort stood scholars close to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) that sought to construct a global migration regime in the sense of having sending and receiving countries agree on quotas for migration. This scenario, the regime designers argued, would lead to orderly migration from which the different countries would benefit just as much as migrants themselves. However, this global migration regime never materialized. The concept of a migration regime continued to be useful in a different arena: the development of European migration policies. Starting in the 1980s, the European Community (EC)

Migration and border regimes  113 gradually began to move towards harmonization of the migration policies of its member states. The process itself was a long and tortuous road, with many culs-de-sac and false starts. Many member states felt that migration policies went to the heart of national sovereignty and thus could only be transformed into a European competence in a careful manner. Yet precisely these long-winding negotiations predicated on mutual trust made regime theory a fitting conceptual framework for the discussion of this communitarized European policy field. Communitarization, i.e. the act of turning a policy field into the competence of the European Community, also entailed the involvement of new actors, such as the European Commission, or intergovernmental think tanks such as the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) or the remnants of the Schengen bureaucracy that had been absorbed into the Council of the European Union. Soon, the notion of a European migration regime, or European migration regimes, was introduced (e.g. Koslowski, 1998). For the German context, two contributions to a critical reading of migration and border regimes are noteworthy. Already in the 1990s, the Forschungsgesellschaft Flucht und Migration (Research Society for Flight and Migration, FFM) had investigated the spread of the new border regime advanced by the European Union and particularly Germany towards the East, leading to research in Poland, Ukraine, and Romania (e.g. Forschungsgesellschaft Flucht und Migration, 1995). At the time, Poland and Romania were not yet EU member states but already in the accession stage. Therefore, decisive efforts could already be observed to implement EU rules on border management and migration control. However, while FFM explicitly used the terms migration regime and border regime, they did not contribute directly to their theorization. They preferred the terms since they implied continuities of despotism in the states of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union—thus referencing the distinct semantic of authoritarianism and dictatorship that the term regime also entails. Also, they used the term to hint at the emergence of the supranational governance of migration through Europeanization of migration and border policies. In the early 2000s, Frank Düvell (2002), among others, then began to describe the contours of this migration regime in the making, focusing in particular on new and powerful actors and their dynamics and involvement with regime formation. He thus advanced a critical engagement with migration regimes, highlighting their exclusionary tendencies in a global perspective. A later contribution raised the question in how far migration regimes were actually able to exert control over migration (Düvell, 2006). As will be detailed in the next section, this issue points to the heart of the profoundly different conceptualization of regime entailed in the ethnographic border regime analysis.

BORDER REGIME AND ETHNOGRAPHIC BORDER REGIME ANALYSIS The year 1999 constituted a pivotal turning point in many respects. For the European Union, the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force, thus accelerating the emergence of the European migration regime. Wholly unrelated, in November of the same year, the WTO Ministerial Conference in the US city of Seattle failed to progress on a new round of multilateral negotiations that were supposed to expand the international trade regime. Partially, this was due to the opposition of countries of the Global South to the concessions demanded of them. But to the public, the large-scale and, at times, militant protests against the meeting that came to

114  Research handbook on the sociology of migration be known as the Battle of Seattle were the most memorable aspect of the failing negotiations. A highly heterogeneous coalition of activists, NGOs, and other groups including trade unionists, environmentalists, anti-capitalists, anarchists, etc., that were discursively lumped together as anti-globalization protesters disrupted the conference, and thus contributed to halting the further deepening of the regime of international trade. The disruption of the paradigmatic example of regime theory by this heterogeneous, multitudinous coalition could not be theorized by regime theory itself; it mostly assumed good faith actors, a level of mutual trust, and cooperation towards shared aims. Antagonism, conflict, an obstinate refusal to be governed by a regime, or the fundamental disavowal of its rules were not conceptualized in regime theory, or to state it differently: regime theory had little to say about crises. This was not necessarily a shortcoming of the theory itself. Yet, it made the application to the phenomenon of migration, and particularly irregular migration, a form of migration that was explicitly defined as a practice of disregarding and circumventing laws, a dubious proposition. If migration regimes aimed at ordering and controlling migration, how could this be achieved when principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures were only agreed upon on the side of control, but not by migration itself? What if those that were supposed to be governed by a regime refused to be governed? In his highly influential essay ‘Between Phantoms and Necessary Evils’, migration sociologist Giuseppe Sciortino (2004) offered a different conceptualization of a migration regime. Without reference to regime theory and only passingly noting the increasing popularity of the term migration regime, he loosely defines ‘a country’s “migration regime” [as] the set of rules and practices historically developed by a country in order to deal with the consequences of international mobility through the production of a hierarchy – usually messy – of roles and statuses’ (Sciortino, 2004, p. 32). More fundamentally, he conceptualized them as the ‘outcome of the interaction of two social processes: the human mobility across social spaces and the enactment of state policies on the very same spaces’ (Sciortino, 2004, p. 21), thus introducing a notion of antagonism, or co-production of the regime by migration and state alike. Sciortino’s seminal essay also offered various insights into migration regimes that turned out to be instructive for research. Sciortino highlighted that migration regimes were the outcomes of their own, contingent history, rather than the product of consistent planning. This history consists of ‘generations of turf wars among bureaucracies and waves after waves of “quick fix” to emergencies, triggered by changing political constellations of actors’ (Sciortino, 2004, p. 32) and is similarly the ‘result of continuous repair work through practices’ (Sciortino, 2004, p. 33). Finally, Sciortino stressed the arbitrariness of how migration was categorized by pointing out the ‘interdependence of observation and action’ (Sciortino, 2004, p. 33): a regime that observes migration through a security perspective will act upon it as irregular migration, while one that is primarily concerned with the national labor market might observe the same as labor migration. Categories of migration are thus produced by the regime’s gaze, and are not intrinsic to migration itself. Sciortino’s (2004) essay opened the notion of a migration regime to an understanding of antagonistic co-production. This approach was then further developed by Transit Migration Forschungsgruppe (Research Group on Transit Migration) through its research at the edges and fringes of Europe (Transit Migration Forschungsgruppe, 2007; Tsianos, Hess, & Karakayalı, 2009; Tsianos & Karakayalı, 2010). They coined the concept of ethnographic border regime analysis both as a theoretical intervention as much as a methodological proposition. Yet, before diving deeper into its conceptualizations, a note on terminology is warranted.

Migration and border regimes  115 This concerns the pronounced usage of the term border and border regime, as opposed to migration regime, or in their conjunction as migration and border regime. Certainly, the notion of a regime can be applied equally as well to the field of borders and border policies as it can be applied to migration and migration policies. Yet, the relevance of borders to migration policy is not necessarily obvious, as borders usually intersect profoundly only with a specific type of migration, i.e. migration described as irregular or unauthorized, and, at the same time, borders constitute only one element of control practices exercised by nation states vis-à-vis (irregular) migration. Yet, beginning in the 1990s, the world saw a veritable proliferation and transformation of borders. Owing to the geopolitical transformations, borders ceased to be defined primarily in terms of military interests and began to assume biopolitical functions particularly with regard to migration. The global rise of the notion of integrated border management in the 1990s is instructive: increasingly, states sought to tap into the institution of the border as a convenient technology of governance (Hobbing, 2005). Yet, migration and border regimes should not be conflated too easily. Certainly, the crossing of (state) borders plays an important role in the definition of migration and borders are often involved in the governance of international migration. However, if the term border were to be used synonymously with any form of technology to govern mobility, the term itself would soon lose its analytical edge and would come to denote any form of difference. Conversely, to insist on borders as a precondition for a migration regime would preclude us from the study of urban migration regimes, which are largely characterized by the absence of an enforceable territoriality (and thus borders), or the Chinese migration regime of the Hukou system, the system of household registration that shares many characteristics with other transnational migration regimes, even though it is confined to the Chinese state. And finally, as Mezzadra and Neilson (2013) have demonstrated, the study of the transformations contemporary borders are undergoing is indicative of larger political and societal developments in the twenty-first century and should be studied in themselves. Similar to the transformations institutions such as citizenship or asylum are undergoing, borders should not be regarded merely functionally for the purposes of studying migration regimes. That the transformations of hitherto linear borders of bounded sovereignty into spaces of variegated and overlapping jurisdiction had an impact on the political order particularly applies to the European Union (see Zaiotti, 2011). More than in other regions of the world, and due to the particular and intertwined genesis of border and migration policies through the Schengen process, the European Union sought to leverage its external border into a device of migration control. Upgrading the borders of its member states, funding the research and installation of new border technologies, encouraging the expansion of national border guard institutions, and even creating a European border agency as a support mechanism were among the first initiatives the European Union undertook after the Amsterdam Treaty, and explicitly in the field of migration policy, not merely border policy. European migration policy saw effective border control as the precondition for being able to implement a migration policy for the bloc. In activist as well as academic circles, this development was often critiqued and summarized with the term ‘Fortress Europe’. Yet, the term evoked an understanding of the European Union and its member states as a monolithic actor endowed with a singular intent vis-à-vis migration, including its irregular and unauthorized forms. The term thus seemed at odds with the political reality of the 2000s, which saw repeated arrivals of unauthorized border crossers that politicians were quick to label as border ‘crises’, only a minimal consensus in the European Union on migration and asylum policies, and not only a heterogeneity of practices

116  Research handbook on the sociology of migration but also a multiplication of actors. Similarly, the implied concept of political power seemed particularly at odds with the emergent order of the European Union which was far from assuming characteristics of a nation state, could not even be described as a federation of states and yet was far more institutionalized and integrated than corresponding attempts to create supranational unions in the world. Applying regime theory to this segment of Europeanization therefore was an obvious choice, if only it could account for the lifecycle of the regime through the encounter of antagonistic forces. For this, the Research Group on Transit Migration drew upon the concept of an accumulation regime as developed by the ‘regulation school’ in France in the 1970s. The notion of crisis was central to the theorizations of the regulation school, for they were concerned with the question how the Fordist crisis, the global economic crisis of the 1970s, was overcome without a fundamental challenge to the capitalist system. The school’s authors were similarly concerned with understanding how patterns of stability and coherence emerge in the absence of a hegemonic power. Yet, unlike the regime theory of international relations, they explicitly understood the disparate dynamics that coalesced into stable patterns as antagonistic, i.e. of struggle and conflicts in relation to production and reproduction in society (e.g. Lipietz, 1987). The regime concept of the ethnographic border regime analysis thus understands the regime as a field of conflicts, tensions, frictions, and negotiations. It understands the developmental trajectory of the regime as determined by these events. Sciortino’s (2004) insight of ‘continuous repair work through practice’ is particularly instructive. The currency of the regime may ultimately be control, but achieving it, earning it, remains a constant challenge. Establishing and maintaining a minimum of coherence, not only among actors but also, for example, among specific, possibly informal practices and legislative orders, is the essence of continuous repair work. Especially in the European migration and border regime, which is characterized by the decisive component of a transnational expansion of sovereignty, the art of governing, according to Hess and Tsianos, consists in ‘governing the “side-effects”, the unintended effects of the process’ (Hess & Tsianos, 2007, p. 26, my translation). Consequently, the question of intentionality recedes for an analysis of the regime: ‘What makes the concept of regime so significant is that it allows us to understand regulations as effects, as condensations of social actions, and not to presuppose them functionally’ (Hess & Karakayalı, 2007, p. 50, my translation). The explicitly antagonistic co-production of the regime through continuous and repeated sequences of movement, control, and efforts to elude control establishes the regime as a field of conflict and negotiation. It is therefore permeated by tensions, instabilities, and, above all, unexpected dynamics. While these dynamics are driven by the antagonism between control and mobility, the resulting frictions, conflicts and confrontations are not ‘battles’ in an archetypal confrontation. Shifting actor constellations, situational alliances, tactical cooperation, and strategic compromises characterize the life of the regime just as much as shifting rationalities, emerging discourses, concrete challenges, and pragmatic solutions. This understanding of a migration and border regime then induces two methodological propositions. For a conceptualization that emphasizes complexity, a web of actors entangled in often conflictual encounters and characterized by instability and shifting alliances begs the question of how research can be carried out. For the side of control, the approach of governmentality studies, following the late works of Michel Foucault, has proved productive. Foucault’s interrogation of the ‘how’ of governing, his investigation of concrete governmental rationalities and technologies of power, in short, his analytics of the arts of government, has also provided ethnographic border regime analysis with a collection of tools to approach

Migration and border regimes  117 the actors of control. Accordingly, a regime can be thought along the lines of Foucault’s concept of a dispositif, which he describes as the connecting network between heterogeneous elements—such as discourses, institutions, architectures, etc. This understanding of a regime also overlaps with Foucault’s perspective on the workings of dispositifs. Their focus on the generation of answers to problematizations renders a regime as immanently productive, and not merely repressive. But despite significant borrowing, at its core, ethnographic border regime analysis is not designed as research in the tradition of governmentality studies. Too often, these studies fall back to describing and analyzing governmental programs, doing mere policy analysis, and thus neglecting and underexposing the subjectivizing effects of power and resistance that Foucault also highlighted. To apply such a curtailed approach to the study of a regime would effectively remove antagonism from the equation. Crucially, ethnographic border regime analysis negates the often-implied primacy of control over the practices of migration. If practices of control are predicated on the observation of modes of human mobility in order to render them as migration, migration must be the prime mover. For Karakayalı and Tsianos (2005, p. 46), this marks the fundamental difference between the concept of a migration system and of a migration/border regime: for the latter, movements of migration come first, and control is reactive. This understanding of migration as a powerful, yet at most weakly constituted and formalized social and political movement that has the power to alter societies finds its strongest expression in the thesis of the autonomy of migration. It stands in a long line of theory development within political movements, such as the Italian movement of workers’ autonomy (autonomia operaia) (Wright, 2002) as well as post-operaism. In particular, the work of the French economist Yann Moulier-Boutang (1998) on the emergence of ‘free’ wage labor as a reaction to abscondences from slavery and other unfree forms of labor is instructive in this regard. It emphasizes the potential for social transformation by practices of escaping, of absconding, of extracting oneself from control, in short: of ‘imperceptible politics’ (Papadopoulos, Stephenson, & Tsianos, 2008; see also Mezzadra, 2006). In this way, ethnographic border regime analysis as a ‘methodology of the autonomy of migration’ (Tsianos & Hess, 2010) fills a crucial gap in the study of migration and border policies, as it is the foundation for being able to grasp the impact of the movements of migration on the regime at large. Lastly, this perspective on migration motivates the ethnographic approach to studying border regimes. If regimes are the outcome of the constant and continuing, antagonistic encounter between mobility and control, and especially if these encounters play out predominantly at the border, then they can only be researched in situ and in actu. Ethnography is therefore a fitting approach, particularly since it has long departed from its initial focus on singular localities. Recent developments such as the advent of ‘multi-sited ethnography’ (Marcus, 1995), with its notion of following connections and conflicts, have claimed for this particular methodology the ability to adequately describe and understand disparate and heterogeneous phenomena (see also Feldman, 2012; Rabinow, Marcus, Faubion, & Rees, 2008).

118  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

ANALYTICAL VALUE, FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS, AND FURTHER READING For my own work, an ethnography of the European border agency Frontex (Kasparek, 2021), this approach proved highly beneficial. As an actor whose origins lie with police and paramilitary institutions and which has institutional proximity to intelligence actors, it was not feasible to carry out an in-depth study of inner workings of the agency—an obstacle that other researchers have faced. The obvious solution to this problem, i.e. to study the agency as a largely black-boxed actor in the wider ensemble of European migration and border policy has, however, often led to research that analyzes the agency in more formal terms and as a result of negotiations between the primary institutions of the EU. Approaching Frontex as a paradigmatic actor of the European border regime, following the agency to various sites in and around Europe, applying a genealogical reading of its history, and, finally, focusing on the conflicts and contestations surrounding the agency, has allowed me to write a much more variegated account of the agency. Focusing on the conflicts, tensions, and struggles has induced an early analysis of the ‘crisis’ of Schengen since 2011. A mere policy analysis or research into the shifting legislative landscape of European asylum policy has certainly not detected the hidden force and invisible political mobilization underlying the movements towards Europe following the democratic uprisings of the so-called Arab Spring. Rather than regarding refugees as agency-less victims, border regime theory posits migration to constitute a social and political movement, even though it might not be easily recognizable as such (also see Bayat, 2010, 2017). Given that the development of border regime analysis has been tied rather closely with the analysis of the development of the European Union and its multi-level polity, the question of whether the theory and approach is specific to Europe is justified. There are a few explicit attempts to bring ethnographic border regime analysis to other regional (or historical) contexts, especially contexts characterized by a stronger central government than in the EU. There still is an argument to be made, however, that this particular approach highlights how migration and border policy is formulated through the constant border and mobility conflicts rather than through a centralized and deliberate policy process, and is, therefore, ultimately applicable. For example, Kang (2017), in her history of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the precursor border guard institution in the United States, explores how migration policy was written from the borders, and not from Washington. To this end, there are not necessarily many examples that are explicit ethnographies of border regimes. There is, however, a growing body of work in critical border and migration studies that shares many of the sensitivities and perspectives in this chapter, even though they cannot be subsumed under the concept of ethnographic border regime analysis. Noteworthy is William Walters’ long project of a fragmented genealogy of bordering in Europe (Walters, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2017). Instead of narrowly focusing on the creation and the experience of borders, as contemporary border studies often do, Walters’ works discuss specific practices—such as deportation or surveillance—and developments—such as the birth of the humanitarian border—in a way that offers a deeper insight and understanding of the ongoing transformations of borders through the tensions between practices of control and the agency of migration. Such approaches have produced important studies into the larger European migration and border regime and the construction of Europe’s border (Ellebrecht, 2020), into the refugee rights regime in the Mediterranean (Klepp, 2008), or more globally (Mountz,

Migration and border regimes  119 2020). Very much different in focus, Picozza (2021) discusses the European asylum system through the perspective of the movements of migration and solidarity, a perspective that has also informed other important works (Nyers & Rygiel, 2012). Finally, there is the important work on citizenship not as a formal institution but as a social relation (Isin & Nielsen, 2008; Nyers, 2018). What these works have in common is a shared curiosity into the arts and modes of how migration, time and again, is constructed as a problem and made observable and thus governable. To this end, they form an important contribution to understanding global politics of the twenty-first century, a century during which migration is an ever more integral part of global society.

NOTES 1.

Even though a brief overview follows later in this chapter, for a proper genealogical reconstruction, see Rass and Wolf (2018), and for a more conceptual discussion, see Cvajner, Echeverría, and Sciortino (2018). 2. Particularly important were two cases at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The 2011 decision in the case M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece strongly hampered the Dublin system and its practice of internal deportations, while the 2012 decision in the case Hirsi Jamaa et al. v. Italy effectively obliged Italy to accept asylum applications, even in international waters, and thus inhibited the long-standing practice of returning refugee boats to Libya.

REFERENCES Bayat, A. (2010). Life as politics: How ordinary people change the Middle East. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bayat, A. (2017). Revolution without revolutionaries: Making sense of the Arab Spring. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Cvajner, M., Echeverría, G., & Sciortino, G. (2018). What do we talk when we talk about migration regimes? The diverse theoretical roots of an increasingly popular concept. In A. Pott, C. Rass, & F. Wolff (Eds.) Was ist ein Migrationsregime? What is a migration regime? (pp. 65–80). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Düvell, F. (2002). Die Globalisierung des Migrationsregimes. Berlin: Assoziation A. Düvell, F. (Ed.) (2006). Illegal immigration in Europe: Beyond control? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ellebrecht, S. (2020). Mediated bordering: Eurosur, the refugee boat, and the construction of an external EU border. Bielefeld: Transcript. Feldman, G. (2012). The migration apparatus: Security, labor, and policymaking in the European Union. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Forschungsgesellschaft Flucht und Migration (1995). Polen. Vor den Toren der Festung Europa. Gegen die Festung Europa 1. Berlin/Göttingen: Verlag der Buchläden Schwarze Risse – Rote Straße. Hess, S., & Karakayalı, S. (2007). New Governance oder die imperiale Kunst des Regierens. Asyldiskurs und Menschenrechtsdispositiv im neuen EU-Migrationsmanagement. In Transit Migration Forschungsgruppe (Ed.) Turbulente Ränder: Neue Perspektiven auf Migration an den Grenzen Europas (pp. 39–56). Bielefeld: Transcript. Hess, S., & Tsianos, V. (2007). Europeanizing Transnationalism! Provincializing Europe! Konturen eines neuen Grenzregimes. In Transit Migration Forschungsgruppe (Ed.) Turbulente Ränder: Neue Perspektiven auf Migration an den Grenzen Europas (pp. 23–38). Bielefeld: Transcript. Hobbing, P. (2005). Integrated border management at the EU Level. 277. CEPS Working Documents. Retrieved from https://​www​.ceps​.eu/​ceps​-publications/​integrated​-border​-management​-eu​-level/​.

120  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Isin, E. F., & Nielsen, G. M. (Eds.) (2008). Acts of citizenship. London and New York: Zed Books. Kang, S. D. (2017). The INS on the line: Making immigration law on the US-Mexico border, 1917–1954. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Karakayalı, S., & Tsianos, V. (2005). Mapping the order of new migration. Undokumentierte Arbeit und die Autonomie der Migration. PERIPHERIE – Politik/Ökonomie/Kultur, 24(97–98), 35–64. Kasparek, B. (2021). Europa als Grenze. Eine Ethnographie der Grenzschutz-Agentur Frontex. Bielefeld: Transcript. Klepp, S. (2008). Negotiating the principle of non-refoulement in the Mediterranean Sea: Missions, visions and policies at the southern borders of the European Union. Leipzig: Leipziger Univ.-Verlag. Koslowski, R. (1998). European migration regimes: Emerging, enlarging and deteriorating. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24(4), 735–749. Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, 36(2), 185–205. Lipietz, A. (1987). Mirages and miracles: The crisis in global Fordism. London: Verso. Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1), 95–117. Mezzadra, S. (2006). Diritto di fuga: Migrazioni, cittadinanza, globalizzazione. Verona: Ombre corte. Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Moulier-Boutang, Y. (1998). De l’esclavage au salariat: Économie historique du salariat bridé. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Mountz, A. (2020). The death of asylum: Hidden geographies of the enforcement archipelago. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Nyers, P. (2018). Irregular citizenship, immigration, and deportation. Abingdon: Routledge. Nyers, P., & Rygiel, K. (Eds.) (2012). Citizenship, migrant activism and the politics of movement. London and New York: Routledge. Papadopoulos, D., Stephenson, N., & Tsianos, V. (2008). Escape routes: Control and subversion in the twenty-first century. London: Pluto. Picozza, F. (2021). The coloniality of asylum: Mobility, autonomy and solidarity in the wake of Europe’s refugee crisis. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Portes, A., & Böröcz, J. (1989). Contemporary immigration: Theoretical perspectives on its determinants and modes of incorporation. International Migration Review, 23(3), 606–630. Rabinow, P., Marcus, G. E., Faubion, J. D., & Rees, T. (2008). Designs for an anthropology of the contemporary. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Rass, C., & Wolff, F. (2018). What is in a migration regime? Genealogical approach and methodological proposal. In A. Pott, C. Rass, & F. Wolff (Eds.) Was ist ein Migrationsregime? What is a migration regime? (pp. 19–64). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Sciortino, G. (2004). Between phantoms and necessary evils: Some critical points in the study of irregular migrations to Western Europe. IMIS-Beiträge, 24, 17–43. Transit Migration Forschungsgruppe (Ed.) (2007). Turbulente Ränder: Neue Perspektiven auf Migration an den Grenzen Europas. Bielefeld: Transcript. Tsianos, V., & Hess, S. (2010). Ethnographische Grenzregimeanalyse. Eine Methodologie der Autonomie der Migration. In S. Hess & B. Kasparek (Eds.) Grenzregime. Diskurse, Praktiken, Institutionen in Europa (pp. 243–264). Berlin: Assoziation A. Tsianos, V., Hess, S., & Karakayalı, S. (2009). Transnational migration theory and method of an ethnographic analysis of border regimes. Sussex Centre for Migration Research Working Paper, 55. Tsianos, V., & Karakayalı, S. (2010). Transnational migration and the emergence of the European border regime: An ethnographic analysis. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 373–387. Walters, W. (2002). Mapping Schengenland: Denaturalizing the border. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(5), 561–580. Walters, W. (2006). Border/control. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 187–203. Walters, W. (2009). Europe’s borders. In C. Rumford (Ed.) The SAGE handbook of European studies (pp. 485–505). London: Sage.

Migration and border regimes  121 Walters, W. (2011). Foucault and frontiers: Notes on the birth of the humanitarian border. In U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann, & T. Lemke (Eds.) Governmentality: Current issues and future challenges (pp. 138–164). London and New York: Routledge. Walters, W. (2017). Live governance, borders, and the time–space of the situation: EUROSUR and the genealogy of bordering in Europe. Comparative European Politics, 15(5), 794–817. Wright, S. (2002). Storming heaven: Class composition and struggle in Italian autonomist Marxism. London: Pluto. Zaiotti, R. (2011). Cultures of border control: Schengen and the evolution of European frontiers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10. Contexts of reception Ayumi Takenaka

INTRODUCTION Contexts of reception play a decisive role in shaping immigrant experiences. No matter how educated or skilled immigrants may be, their course of adaptation is shaped by the context they encounter in the new land. Migrants’ individual characteristics do matter in integrating, but the degree to which they matter depends on the nature of destination societies. A welcoming environment is likely to facilitate their integration, and a hostile one, to deter it. Central to this idea is the ‘modes of incorporation’, a thesis elaborated by Portes and his collaborators (Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). It stipulates that immigrants’ socioeconomic outcomes are determined by the interplay between what they bring with them and the receiving context they face. This chapter explores how and why contexts matter, starting with the questions: (1) what is the context of reception?; (2) how do contexts play out in comparative perspective?; and concluding with (3) the challenges in examining their roles and suggestions for future research.

WHAT IS THE CONTEXT OF RECEPTION AND WHY DOES IT MATTER? Broadly defined as ‘the opportunity structure and acceptance in the host community’ (Stepick & Stepick, 2009; Portes & Böröcz, 1989), the context of reception entails three dimensions relevant to immigrants: government policies, labor market conditions, and ethnic communities. First, governments have a role to play in shaping the context of reception. Supportive policies, such as job and language training and access to citizenship, generally facilitate immigrant integration (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). The effects of policies are nevertheless contingent on the characteristics of immigrants. For immigrants with professional or business skills, governmental support can boost socioeconomic mobility, although it may perpetuate the social dependence and economic marginalization of those without such skills (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). The conditions of the host labor market also form a critical part of the context of reception. Features such as demand for specific kinds of labor, stage in the business cycle, gender inequalities, and career structures, determine job prospects and earnings (Model & Ladipo, 1996; Reitz, 2003). Similarly, low rates of unemployment and equal earnings distribution in the host society are likely to work in favor of newcomers’ economic mobility, as do open and unregulated market economies conducive to immigrant entrepreneurship (Rath, 2003). Also important is the manner in which particular immigrant groups are typified or stereotyped (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). When members of an ethnic group are perceived favorably as hard-working and reliable, for instance, such positive typification can lead to preferential hiring. By contrast, negative typification can result in confining immigrants to low-wage menial jobs or exclusion 122

Contexts of reception  123 from the labor market. Those various labor market situations, again, interact with the characteristics of immigrants. Resourceful immigrants, such as professionals and entrepreneurs, may be able to circumvent labor market discrimination, although those without such resources are less able to do so (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). The third dimension is ethnic communities. If there are pre-existing ethnic communities in the host society, they can cushion the impact of cultural change and initial economic difficulties newcomers may experience; when there are no such communities, immigrants must confront the mainstream society directly (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). The effects of ethnic communities depend on their nature, however. Entrepreneurial communities can offer employment, and communities containing a sizable professional population can enhance new members’ aspirations (Borjas, 2006; Reitz, 2003). Resourceful communities can also provide information about employment, credit, and support for entrepreneurial ventures (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). But if communities are primarily composed of manual laborers, they may deter newcomers’ economic mobility by keeping them confined to low-wage occupations. Reliance on ethnic networks may also come at the cost of pressures for conformity and slow down integration into the mainstream society over the longer term (Reitz, 2003). Altogether, a combination of these three dimensions determines the overall nature of receiving contexts—favorable, hostile, or neutral (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). A favorable context consists of supportive government policies, labor markets, and ethnic communities. Hostile contexts are rife with discrimination and negative typification. When there are no preconceived perceptions of particular immigrants, the context of reception may be considered neutral; newcomers can then freely compete with natives based on individual merit and credentials, although such impartial contexts are rare, according to Portes and Böröcz (1989). In sum, contexts of reception matter, because even if immigrants have similar abilities and backgrounds, they may be channeled toward different positions in the labor market, depending on the nature of the host society (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). The Development of the Concept The modes of incorporation concept offered a fresh perspective in immigration research. In contrast to the previously dominant assimilation framework that focused on immigrants’ individual characteristics, the new perspective shifted the focus to the role of context (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Assimilation was largely understood as a process of individual action; hence, its main concern was how immigrants changed in adapting to the new environment (Luthra, Soehl, & Waldinger, 2018). Under this framework, migrants’ human capital, such as education and skills, was considered a primary determinant of economic achievement. Subsequently, the nature and role of the receiving society were unquestioned or did not receive adequate attention. Classical assimilation theory was developed in the 1920s in the context of growing immigration to the United States. Mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe, those immigrants were largely uneducated and unskilled and were considered culturally and racially different from the native majority. Yet, as time passed by, they were expected to learn the ropes and ‘make it’ in the new land. Along the way, any ethnic or cultural distinctiveness was predicted to disappear through intermarriage and greater identification with, and acceptance by, the host population (Alba & Nee, 2003; Gordon, 1964; Park & Burgess, 1924). Assimilation, therefore, was assumed to be a natural, and inevitable, process. Since all immigrants were expected to

124  Research handbook on the sociology of migration go through the process uniformly, assimilation was additionally understood as a linear and inter-generational process. As such, it was thought of as the ultimate stage (and goal) of immigrant adaptation (Gordon, 1964; Rumbaut, 2015). This model did not quite hold for all immigrants. In particular, in today’s context, in which immigrants are so diverse in their national origins and socioeconomic backgrounds, they undergo diverse experiences. Some start near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, and others start higher up. Not only do their economic outcomes vary, but inter-generational mobility paths are also far from uniform. When the assimilation process was no longer viewed as linear and uniform, scholars began to pay more attention to the role of the receiving context. In assessing how immigrants assimilate differently and why, Portes and Zhou (1993) pointed to the segmented nature of the host society. Under the classical assimilation hypothesis, newcomers were assumed to assimilate into the ‘core’ (i.e. mainstream, white middle-class) sector of American society. Yet America is more diverse in reality, and has grown even more diverse in recent years. The critical question, therefore, is to what segment of the host society immigrants assimilate (Portes & Zhou, 1993). Depending on that, immigrants and their descendants can go through different socioeconomic trajectories (Portes & Zhou, 1993). In observing the diverse adaptation patterns of second-generation immigrants, Portes and Zhou (1993, p. 82) conclude that assimilation has become segmented; ‘Instead of a relatively uniform mainstream whose mores and prejudices dictate a common path of integration, we observe today several distinct forms of adaptation’. Segmented Assimilation and the Role of Receiving Contexts Segmented assimilation theory was developed in the 1990s by Portes and his collaborators who identified three distinct assimilation paths for the second generation. One is the straight-line assimilation into the middle class, a path experienced by many old European immigrants. An alternative path works in the opposite direction by assimilating into the ‘underclass’ (Portes & Zhou, 1993). By settling in a poor inner-city neighborhood and assimilating to its norms and standards, some immigrants, such as the Haitian adolescents in Miami discussed by Portes and Zhou (1993), are exposed to substandard schools and housing conditions and experience downward economic mobility. In a racially stratified society, such as the United States, racial minorities may be prone to this kind of ‘downward’ assimilation (Waters, Tran, Kasinitz, & Mollenkopf, 2010). A third possible path involves selective assimilation. Immigrants can assimilate selectively into the mainstream society while simultaneously preserving ties and solidarity with the ethnic community. An example Portes and Zhou (1993) cite is the case of the Punjabi Sikhs in California studied by Gibson (1989). Although Punjabi immigrants were poor and faced much racial discrimination, they made considerable economic progress over time, and their children performed well in school. A decisive factor was community and familial support that immigrant parents established to shield their children from external hostility (Gibson, 1989). By maintaining ethnic ties and traditions, therefore, Punjabi immigrants and their descendants were able to assimilate into the mainstream society (Portes & Zhou, 1993). To sum up, there are diverse ways of assimilating, and outcomes vary accordingly. A key to explaining the variation lies in where immigrants settle and how they are incorporated in the host society. And this calls for more systematic analysis of the nature and role of the receiving context (Portes & Böröcz, 1989). What kind of context best affords opportunities

Contexts of reception  125 for immigrants? How do the mechanisms of economic mobility differ across various contexts? These questions have given rise to comparative research across contexts—comparing different destinations as well as different time periods.

CONTEXTS OF RECEPTION IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE A comparative perspective offers explanatory power in examining how different contexts might affect immigrant mobility paths (Reitz, 2003, 2016). Now that destinations have grown in number and diversity, this approach has proven particularly useful (Reitz, 2003, 2016). Recent years have seen ‘new’ destinations emerging in remote and rural areas beyond the traditional gateway cities (Winders, 2014). As a result of extensive networks, easier access to transportation, and changing geopolitics and border control policies, destinations have also expanded globally. Countries that used to send large numbers of emigrants, such as Ireland, Italy, Spain, and South Korea, have become countries of immigration. The Chinese diaspora has stretched to every corner of the globe, from Israel to Spain and to South Africa (Minghuan, 2012). Emigration from Peru, too, ‘exploded’ in the 1990s, so Peruvians are now found in over 25 countries beyond the traditional destinations of North America and Western Europe (Durand, 2010). This prompts us to ask how immigrants fare across destinations or why immigrants fare better in some contexts than others, and what mechanisms are at play in explaining the diverging outcomes of immigrant integration. Cross-National Comparisons Cross-national research typically compares the socioeconomic outcomes of similar-origin groups (or immigrants of the same national origin) in different national contexts. Model and her colleagues, for example, have conducted a series of comparative studies between the United States and European countries, demonstrative that there is a ‘fundamental difference in the context of reception’ (Model, 2005, p. 18). Following the modes of incorporation model, those studies have generally shown that ‘favorable’ contexts, characterized by supportive governments, labor markets, and ethnic communities, indeed help immigrants to succeed economically (Reitz, 2003). Model and Lin (2002) point out, however, that cross-national analysis requires a more complex set of dimensions than just the three identified by Portes and Rumbaut (2006), such as citizenship laws, race relations, the size and sex ratio of the immigrant group, colonial legacy, and the historical relationship between the host and home countries. In her comparative analysis of six non-white groups in the United States and the United Kingdom, Model (2005) finds that the United States provides a more favorable context because of its longer history of immigration, greater racial and ethnic diversity, and stronger legislative and judicial commitment to equal employment opportunities, including affirmative action for some minority groups. Other studies also confirm that the United States accommodates immigrants better than the ‘Old World’, in general, because of the greater emphasis on individualism and meritocracy (Lipset, 1991) and the prevalent national ideology that considers the United States a ‘nation of immigrants’ at least for most of its history (Model & Ladipo, 1996). Yet, in another comparative study of Black Caribbeans in the United Kingdom, the United States, France, and Canada, Model and colleagues (Model, Fisher, & Silberman, 1999) find no significant differences. Similarly, Cheng (1994) finds no cross-national differences

126  Research handbook on the sociology of migration in the occupational status of Chinese migrants in the United Kingdom and the United States. In analyzing the economic achievement of different immigrant groups in the United States, Canada, and Australia, Borjas (1988) and Reitz (1998) have both found that immigrant earnings relative to those of natives were lower in the United States than in Canada and Australia. Comparative research is complex, because there are different forces at play in each national context. Vermeulen (2010) discusses how the mechanisms producing downward assimilation differ between Europe and the United States. Although racism may be thought to have a central role in prompting downward assimilation, in France, skin-color-based racism does not have the same power as in the United States; instead, religious differences are more often the basis for discrimination and exclusion (see also Alba & Foner, 2015). Within the United States, too, racism works differently for different groups. In their comparative study of immigrant groups in New York and London, Model and Ladipo (1996) show that all groups perform better in New York, except Blacks. Kislev (2020) similarly finds that there is a penalty attached to Blacks in comparison with other groups in the United States. Moreover, the main dimensions of contexts do not always function the same way across countries. In Japan, Peruvian migrants enjoy favorable government policies relative to their US counterparts, but Takenaka and Paerregaard (2015) have found that the privileged legal status and special job and language training accorded to Peruvians actually hinder their occupational mobility. Comparative research entailing newer destinations shows an equally complex picture. In contrast to traditional destinations, newer destinations may offer more neutral environments because of lack of prior exposure to immigrants (Winders, 2014). For example, Marrow (2013) shows that in the case of Latin Americans in Ireland, they benefit from the absence of the negative stereotypes prevalent in the United States. At the same time, newer destinations may present challenges for newcomers. Not having a prior history of immigration and pre-established ethnic communities, such destinations may not offer informal networks and institutional infrastructures to meet the needs of immigrants (Winders, 2014). In Japan, where the number of immigrants grew only in the 1990s, Latin American newcomers are consistently reported to suffer disadvantages over their counterparts in the more traditional destination of the United States (Takenaka & Paerregaard, 2015; Takenoshita, 2011; Tsuda, Valdez, & Cornelius, 2003). Because of the lack of ethnic niches and the rigidity of the labor market, Japan does not offer sufficient opportunities for newcomers, according to these studies. Bradatan and Kolloju (2015) report a similar finding in Spain; skilled migrants from Latin America do not fare as well as their counterparts in the United States, because of the less established immigration history and ethnic communities in the country. Yet, Connor and Massey (2010) have found that Latin American migrants are generally better off in Spain than in the United States, because they are mostly from South America and more educated in general than US Latin Americans, disproportionately composed of Mexicans and Central Americans. Takenoshita (2011) also points out that Brazilian migrants in Japan do not fare as well as in the United States, in part because their level of education is lower in the first place. These examples illustrate challenges for comparative research. Above all, it is methodologically difficult to control for origin factors (van Tubergen, Maas, & Flap, 2004; van de Werfhorst & Heath, 2019). In principle, immigrants of comparable backgrounds should be compared to isolate the effects of receiving contexts, yet accessing and assessing data on origins is difficult at best. Without fully understanding migrants’ prior backgrounds in their local contexts, it is also difficult to discern the value of what they bring from home and how that shapes their subsequent migration paths in various destinations (Feliciano, 2005; Feliciano

Contexts of reception  127 & Lanuza, 2017). Another challenge lies in lack of comparable data across countries. Since most datasets on immigrant integration are collected separately within each national context, comparative studies generally pool different datasets together. This may pose a challenge for comparative research in assessing the effects of different receiving contexts. Comparison Across Different Time Periods Another set of comparative research examines contexts across different time periods. Contexts of reception are obviously not static; they evolve over time, even in the same city or country (Stepick & Stepick, 2009). Thus, it is crucial to take historical dynamics into consideration. This is well illustrated by studies comparing two different periods of mass immigration to the United States (e.g., Foner, 2002; Min, 2002; Waldinger & Perlmann, 1998). As previously mentioned, immigrants who arrived at the turn of the twentieth century, such as Italians, Jews, and the Irish, were largely marginalized. Although they were often treated as distinct and inferior ‘races’, they became ‘white’ over time, as they assimilated and climbed up the socioeconomic ladder (Brodkin, 1998; Ignatiev, 1995). This process of assimilation was aided by the context of reception; the government granted easy access to legal status until the 1920s, and the thriving manufacturing industry provided them with well-paid and stable jobs, which made intergenerational mobility possible (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Stepick & Stepick, 2009; Waldinger & Perlmann, 1998). More recent immigrants, however, face a very different context of reception. Because of the rapid process of deindustrialization and economic transformation, once-abundant ‘good’ blue-collar jobs are scarce, and occupational ladders have largely evaporated (Portes & Zhou, 1993). The emerging knowledge economy has resulted in a rise in native-born educational levels, so that newcomers without matching skills face difficulties in accessing well-paid jobs (Reitz, 1998). Today’s economy, sometimes characterized as an hourglass-shaped economy, consists of ‘many good jobs at the top, many bad jobs at the bottom, few decent jobs between’ (Waldinger & Perlmann, 1998, p. 910). Subsequently, there is a greater mismatch between immigrants’ aspirations and opportunities today than before (Gans, 1992; Portes & Zhou, 1993). That, in turn, has led some down the paths of ‘the second-generation decline’ (Gans, 1992), ‘generations of exclusion’ (Telles & Ortiz, 2009), or ‘intragenerational reverse incorporation’ (Jones, 2019). Despite such pessimism, it is simultaneously acknowledged that US society today is more receptive to immigrant incorporation than before (Waldinger & Perlmann, 1998). Blatant racism has largely diminished (Jaret, 1999), and the racial composition of the host population has also changed since the turn of the twentieth century (Waldinger & Perlmann, 1998). Many other societies have undergone a similar transition. Societies previously regarded as homogeneous are becoming more diverse as a result of growing immigration. To fully capture the role of contexts of reception, therefore, we need to examine how contexts themselves change over time, and how that might affect immigrant experiences (Jones, 2019).

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ON CONTEXTS OF RECEPTION To build on past studies on contexts of reception, future research must take a number of issues into consideration. The first is the temporal dimension.

128  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Temporal Changes Modes of incorporation have served as the basic framework for understanding contexts of reception, yet this model does not fully capture temporal changes (Jones, 2019). It classifies a particular receiving context as favorable, neutral, or hostile, but such conditions do not remain fixed (Stepick & Stepick, 2009). Government policies change, as do public attitudes; anti-immigrant phenomena rise and recede, and may rise again later (Jaret, 1999). Even though much scholarship treats race as fixed, race too changes, as it is a social construct (Jones, 2019). Some studies focus on ‘big events’ and ‘crises’ to examine a temporal impact on immigrant integration. For example, Stepick and Stepick (2009) and Portes and Fernández-Kelly (2008) have looked at the Mariel boatlift, a mass migration of Cuban refugees to Florida in 1980, showing how the event affected negatively the public attitude toward Cubans already living in the United States. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 also had a significant impact, particularly on Arab and Muslim immigrants (de Haas, Castles, & Miller, 2020). Crises matter, as they can produce bumps in immigrant assimilation processes, according to Gans (1992). On such occasions, non-white immigrants are often scapegoated and forced to define themselves as ethnics in self-defense, instead of being encouraged to assimilate into the mainstream (Gans, 1992). While one-time events are important, we must pay more attention to long-term social changes, argues Jones (2019), who examined the impact of recent immigration politics on Latino immigrants in the United States (see also Perez, 2021). The same applies to cross-national research. Much of cross-national research compares contexts only at a single point in time, yet we need a more temporal approach to examine how changes over time affect immigrant incorporation (Jones, 2019; Sun, 2021). As contexts change, immigrants also change, and so do their goals and aspirations (Boccagni, 2017). Accordingly, in assessing the effects of receiving contexts on immigrant integration, we must recognize that the definitions of ‘success’ also shift over time; there are multiple ways of integrating ‘successfully’ and its definitions themselves are context-dependent (Boccagni, 2017; Takenaka & Paerregaard, 2015). Nested Contexts of Reception The multi-dimensional nature of contexts should also be taken into consideration. A context of reception may be favorable at the national level, but hostile at the local level, and may also vary along three dimensions: governmental, societal, and institutional (Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018). A useful notion in this regard is the ‘nested contexts of reception’ (Luthra et al., 2018; Perez, 2021). This framework aims to capture the ‘nested’ relationships of national, state, and local contexts to explain variation in immigrant outcomes (Perez, 2021; Golash-Boza & Valdez, 2018). For example, Golash-Boza and Valdez (2018, p. 538) showed how contexts of reception function differently at multiple levels in examining the experiences of undocumented adolescents in the US: ‘the national context … determines whether or not they can stay in the country … the state-level context conditions whether or not they can attend university, and a welcoming local context can provide students with a sense of safety and inclusiveness’. Whether the overall context may be considered positive, neutral, or negative, it is essential to pay heed to how contexts of reception operate differently or similarly on each level in shaping immigrant adaptation (Stepick & Stepick, 2009).

Contexts of reception  129 Thinking of ‘Destination’: Where is the Place of Reception? A final issue concerns the notion of reception. Under conditions of globalization and growing human mobility, it has increasingly become difficult to define the context of reception. Previously, it was assumed that once immigrants get to the destination, they are there to stay. Classical assimilation theory predicted that immigrants would subsequently move up the socioeconomic ladder as they assimilated, while severing ties with their home country and community. Today’s immigrants, however, may not stay for long in one destination and may keep on moving, either going back and forth between their country of origin and destination or on to third and more countries. Thanks to extensive personal networks and constant communication through new information technologies, cyclical and recurring migration is on the rise. Consequently, the process of immigration no longer entails just one sending country and one receiving country. The receiving country today may become tomorrow’s sending country. And if there are intermediary or transit countries, it is even more difficult to identify the context of reception. As more and more people migrate many times, multiple contexts should be considered in analyzing immigrant experiences. And the complex migration patterns themselves are a product of the modes of incorporation into each context. Studies on multiple instances of migration have shown that the manner in which migrants integrate into one destination influences subsequent movements. Some people migrate onward to third countries if they fail to integrate in the first destination, according to Beenstock (1996), who has studied secondary movements of immigrants first arrived in Israel. Likewise, Constant and Massey (2002) report that immigrants who fail to develop a sense of attachment to Germany are more likely to move on to third countries. Other studies have found, however, that it is the ‘successful’ integration in the initial destination that prompts secondary movements (DeVoretz & Ma, 2002; King & Newbold, 2007). For example, migrants may use newly acquired citizenship of the initial destination as a means to move on to another country (DeVoretz, 2009). Accumulating savings and gaining familiarity with labor market practices in the initial destination may also serve as a stepping-stone to another country, especially if the initial destination is a developed country with resources (Takenaka, 2007, 2013). In sum, immigrant experiences, including cross-national movements, are shaped by multiple contexts. To understand the role and nature of contexts of reception today, therefore, we need to go beyond a national framework to look at global forces and consequences.

CONCLUSION This chapter has highlighted the importance of contexts of reception in immigration research. To understand immigrant integration and make sense of diverging outcomes, we must consider not only immigrants’ own skills and education, but also the broader context they encounter in the host society (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Contexts of reception matter, fundamentally because they shape opportunities and aspirations for immigrants. As migration patterns and host societies have become more diverse, it is increasingly complex and challenging to capture the effects of one context of reception. Contexts of reception are not only dynamic and multi-faceted, but are also shaped by global flows and connections. Subsequently, analyses of contexts of reception would benefit from a broad and

130  Research handbook on the sociology of migration comparative approach. Instead of asking who ‘makes it’ in one host society and which destination does better in accommodating immigrants, we might be better off asking what forces are at play in multiple locations and at multiple levels in shaping migrants’ experiences and trajectories over time.

REFERENCES Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2015). Strangers no more: Immigration and the challenges of integration in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beenstock, M. (1996). Failure to absorb: Remigration by immigrants into Israel. International Migration Review, 30(4), 950–978. Boccagni, P. (2017). Aspirations and the subjective future of migration: Comparing views and desires of the “time ahead” through the narratives of immigrant domestic workers. Comparative Migration Studies, 5(1), 1–18. Borjas, G. J. (1988). International differences in the labor market performance of immigrants. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://​doi​.org/​10​.17848/​9780880995757. Borjas, G. J. (2006). Making it in America: Social mobility in the immigrant population. Working Paper 12088. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from https://​www​.nber​.org/​papers/​w12088. Bradatan, C., & Kolloju, N. (2015). How are ‘the Others’ doing? Highly skilled Latin American immigrants and economic crisis in the US and Spain. In M. Aysa-Lastra & L. Cachón (Eds.) Immigrant vulnerability and resilience: Comparative perspectives on Latin American immigrants during the great recession (pp. 89–102). New York: Springer. Brodkin, K. (1998). How Jews became white folks and what that says about race in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Cheng, Y. (1994). Education and class: Chinese in Britain and the US. Aldershot: Avebury. Connor, P., & Massey, D. S. (2010). Economic outcomes among Latino migrants to Spain and the United States: Differences by source region and legal status. International Migration Review, 44(4), 802–829. Constant, A., & Massey, D. (2002). Self-selection, earnings, and out-migration: A longitudinal study of immigrants to Germany. Discussion Paper 672. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). de Haas, H., Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2020). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world, 6th edition. New York and London: Guilford Press. DeVoretz, D. J. (2009). Immigrant circulation and citizenship: Hotel Canada? Discussion Paper 4312. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). DeVoretz, D. J., & Ma, J. (2002). Triangular human capital flows between sending, entrepot and the rest of the world regions. Canadian Studies in Population [ARCHIVES], 29(1), 53–69. Durand, J. (2010). The Peruvian diaspora: Portrait of a migratory process. Latin American Perspectives, 37(5), 12–28. Feliciano, C. (2005). Educational selectivity in US immigration: How do immigrants compare to those left behind? Demography, 42(1), 131–152. Feliciano, C., & Lanuza, Y. R. (2017). An immigrant paradox? Contextual attainment and intergenerational educational mobility. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 211–241. Foner, N. (2002). From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s two great waves of immigration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gans, H. J. (1992). Second‐generation decline: Scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post‐1965 American immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15(2), 173–192. Gibson, M. (1989). Accommodation without assimilation: Sikh immigrants in an American high school. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Golash-Boza, T., & Valdez, Z. (2018). Nested contexts of reception: Undocumented students at the University of California, Central. Sociological Perspectives, 61(4), 535–552. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ignatiev, N. (1995). How the Irish became white. New York: Routledge.

Contexts of reception  131 Jaret, C. (1999). The classical and contemporary mass migration periods: Similarities and differences. Journal of American Ethnic History, 18(3), 9–39. Jones, J. (2019). From open doors to closed gates: Intragenerational reverse incorporation in new immigrant destinations. International Migration Review, 53(4), 1002–1031. King, K. M., & Newbold, K. B. (2007). Onward emigration to the United States by Canadian immigrants between 1995 and 2000. International Migration Review, 41(4), 909–929. Kislev, E. (2020). The economic advancement of European minority immigrants to the USA. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(4), 710–731. Lipset, S. M. (1991). American exceptionalism reaffirmed. In B. E. Shafer (Ed.) Is America different? A new look at American exceptionalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Luthra, R., Soehl, T., & Waldinger, R. (2018). Reconceptualizing context: A multilevel model of the context of reception and second‐generation educational attainment. International Migration Review, 52(3), 898–928. Marrow, H. B. (2013). In Ireland ‘Latin Americans are kind of cool’: Evaluating a national context of reception with a transnational lens. Ethnicities, 13(5), 645–666. Min, P. G. (Ed.) (2002). Mass migration to the United States: Classical and contemporary periods. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira. Minghuan, L. (2012). Making a living at the interface of legality and illegality: Chinese migrant workers in Israel 1. International Migration, 50(2), 81–98. Model, S. (2005). Non-white origins, Anglo destinations: Immigrants in the US and Britain. In G. Loury, T. Modood, & S. M. Teles (Eds.) Ethnicity, social mobility, and public policy: Comparing the USA and UK (pp. 363–392). New York: Cambridge University Press. Model, S., Fisher, G., & Silberman, R. (1999). Black Caribbeans in comparative perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25(2), 187–212. Model, S., & Ladipo, D. (1996). Context and opportunity: Minorities in London and New York. Social Forces, 75(2), 485–510. Model, S., & Lin, L. (2002). The cost of not being Christian: Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims in Britain and Canada. International Migration Review, 36(4), 1061–1092. Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1924). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Perez, N. (2021). Nested contexts of reception: Latinx identity development across a new immigrant community. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(11), 1995–2015. Portes, A., & Bach, R. L. (1985). Latin journey: Cuban and Mexican immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Böröcz, J. (1989). Contemporary immigration: Theoretical perspectives on its determinants and modes of incorporation. International Migration Review, 23(3), 606–630. Portes, A., & Fernández-Kelly, P. (2008). No margin for error: Educational and occupational achievement among disadvantaged children of immigrants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 620(1), 12–36. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait, 3rd edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530(1), 74–96. Rath, J. (2003). Undressing the garment industry: Immigrant entrepreneurship in seven cities. In J. Reitz (Ed.) Host societies and the reception of immigrants (pp. 253–285). La Jolla, CA: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. Reitz, J. (1998). Warmth of the welcome: The social causes of economic success for immigrants in different nations and cities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Reitz, J. (Ed.) (2003). Host societies and the reception of immigrants. La Jolla, CA: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. Reitz, J. (2016). Towards empirical comparison of immigrant integration across nations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(13), 2338–2345.

132  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Rumbaut, R. G. (2015). Assimilation of immigrants. In J. D. Wright (Ed.) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edition, vol. 2 (pp. 81–87). Oxford: Elsevier. Stepick, A., & Stepick, C. D. (2009). Diverse contexts of reception and feelings of belonging. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(3). Sun, K. C.-Y. (2021). How long-term Taiwanese migrants negotiate later life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Takenaka, A. (2007). Secondary migration: Who re-migrates and why these migrants matter. Migration Information Source. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Takenaka, A. (2013). Re-migration of immigrants to the United States: Who re-migrates and why? In M. LeMay (Ed.) Immigration and superpower status: U.S. immigration history and issues. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Takenaka, A., & Paerregaard, K. (2015). How contexts of reception matter: Comparing Peruvian migrants’ economic trajectories in Japan and the US. International Migration, 53(2), 236–249. Takenoshita, H. (2011). The economic incorporation of Brazilian migrants in comparative perspective: A preliminary study of Brazilian labour market outcome in Japan and the United States. Keio University Repository. Retrieved from https://​koara​.lib​.keio​.ac​.jp/​xoonips/​modules/​xoonips/​detail​ .php​?ko ara_id=AN00150430-00000125-0167. Telles, E., & Ortiz, V. (2009). Generations of exclusion: Mexican Americans, assimilation, and race. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Tsuda, T., Valdez, Z., & Cornelius, W. A. (2003). Human versus social capital: Immigrant wages and labor market incorporation in Japan and the United States. In J. Reitz (Ed.) Host societies and the reception of immigrants (pp. 215–252). La Jolla, CA: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Heath, A. (2019). Selectivity of migration and the educational disadvantages of second-generation immigrants in ten host societies. European Journal of Population, 35(2), 347–378. van Tubergen, F., Maas, I., & Flap, H. (2004). The economic incorporation of immigrants in 18 western societies: Origin, destination, and community effects. American Sociological Review, 69, 704–727. Vermeulen, H. (2010). Segmented assimilation and cross-national comparative research on the integration of immigrants and their children. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1214–1230. Waldinger, R., & Perlmann, J. (1998). Second generations: Past, present, future. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24(1), 5–24. Waters, M. C., Tran, V. C., Kasinitz, P., & Mollenkopf, J. H. (2010). Segmented assimilation revisited: Types of acculturation and socioeconomic mobility in young adulthood. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1168–1193. Winders, J. (2014). New immigrant destinations in global context. International Migration Review, 48(1_suppl), 149–179.

11. Theorizing modes of incorporation Peter J. Kivisto

INTRODUCTION International migration is a dislocating phenomenon, one in which newcomers settling permanently or semi-permanently either seek to fit in and adjust to their new social environment or resist doing so. Members of the receiving society and their societal institutions play a role, either facilitating adjustment or serving as impediments to the process. Over time, migrants change, the place they left behind changes, the native-born in the receiving society change, as does the society itself. Since its earliest years as a discipline, at least in the United States, theorizing and empirical research on settlement has been a preoccupation, though until recently the primary focus of migration scholars has been on the impact movement across borders has on the migrants themselves. The focus on such research was clear early on in landmark studies such as W. I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki’s five-volume The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920) and the ten books published under the auspices of the Carnegie Corporation’s Americanization series, the most well-known being Old World Traits Transplanted (Park & Miller, 1921) and The Immigrant Press and Its Control (Park, 1922). In a network centered at the University of Chicago during the early decades of the twentieth century, the first and most durable articulation of a mode of incorporation was advanced: assimilation. This concept quickly achieved theoretical hegemony, challenged only by Horace Kallen’s normative philosophical idea of cultural pluralism. However, by circa 1970 assimilation was increasingly subjected to critique in the United States, where in the wake of the Civil Rights movement and what was described as an ethnic revival among European-origin ethnics, pluralism received a hearing. Simultaneously, as migration to Western Europe expanded, European social scientists turned their attention to immigration. It soon became clear that assimilation did not travel well. A sign of this aversion to the word is that other terms came into play as substitutes, in particular, integration, inclusion, and incorporation. Later these would be joined by others, including multiculturalism, transnationalism, diversity, and interculturalism. There is no definitional consensus about any of these terms, or about the presumed relationships between and among them. Moreover, their meanings as analytical concepts have inevitably intermingled with their meaning in normative political expressions. The term used to frame the discussion herein is ‘modes of incorporation’. Concurring with Jeffrey Alexander (2006, p. 425), ‘mode’ will be treated as a synonym for ‘pathway’. Alexander (2006, pp. 424–457; see also Alexander, 2001) identified three modes of incorporation: assimilative, hyphenated, and multicultural. In contrast, Peter Kivisto and Paul Croll (2012, pp. 124–155) specified assimilation, transnationalism, and multiculturalism, while Stephen Castles (1995) distinguished between assimilation, differential exclusion, and multiculturalism. Referring, not to modes of incorporation but models of integration, Richard Alba and Nancy Foner (2015, pp. 229–231) view differing national models on a continuum between Canada’s official multiculturalism and at the other pole the strong assimilationist stance of 133

134  Research handbook on the sociology of migration France and the ethnoculturalism of Germany. In each of these accounts, and in related ones, there is one shared commonality, which is that assimilation and multiculturalism are the only two terms that are consistently identified as modes of incorporation. Despite the proliferation of competing concepts, these two have proven to be the most theoretically robust and, consequently, they have had the most significant impacts on empirical research. In contrast to assimilation, for example, neither integration nor incorporation have received the same level of theoretical attention. In practice, both terms have tended to be employed in research agendas in a more limited way, focusing particularly on the degree of parity immigrants have achieved vis-à-vis the native born in educational attainment, locations in the labor market, and other social realms (recognizing that this is also true of a substantial body of research framed by assimilation theory). Largely left out of consideration are societal and cultural changes across the receiving society. The introduction of terms such as ‘diversity’ constitute efforts to combat the political backlash to multiculturalism by replacing a polarizing term with a potentially less controversial one (Faist, 2009; Vertovec, 2010). Such efforts to date remain undertheorized. The idea of interculturalism (Cantle, 2012) was construed as a replacement for multiculturalism’s presumed failure. In the decade since its introduction, some have concluded that multiculturalism and interculturalism ought to be viewed as complementary concepts (Mansouri & Modood, 2021), while the most widely known exponent of liberal multiculturalism, Will Kymlicka (2016, p. 162) argues that interculturalism’s arguments are offered without evidence and thus cannot be taken as ‘an objective social science account of our situation’, but rather ought to be understood as a ‘new myth’. Yet others have concluded that the ensuing debates amount to the narcissism of small differences. Transnationalism differs from the concepts discussed above insofar as it seeks to identify a phenomenon that has not received the attention it merits—the nature and extent of continuing relations between immigrants and their place of origin. After considerable debate during the past two decades, a consensus is emerging. In the first place, transnationalism is a real phenomenon. It is not new, the historical record revealing it in early migratory eras. However, the evidence also reveals that for most immigrant groups, transnationalism either comes to an end or ceases to be a major factor in shaping the lives of those in the receiving nation, particularly those from the second generation and beyond (Kivisto, 2001; Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt, 2017; Waldinger, 2015). Finally, and germane to this discussion, claims to the contrary, transnationalism does not constitute a distinctive mode of incorporation. Rather it should be seen as adding a layer of complexity to the processes and pace of incorporation. One final point is necessary. Both assimilation and multiculturalism have been used to analyze a range of marginalized groups, both ethnic/racial and other groups such as women and LGBTQIA+ communities. However, the focus here will be confined to the purpose of this Handbook, examining the use of the concepts in studying immigrants and their offspring.

THE SOCIOLOGY OF ASSIMILATION In what has been described as the canonical formulation of assimilation, Robert Park and Ernest Burgess made clear it was not to be confused with the melting pot, or what they disparagingly called the ‘magic crucible’ (Kivisto, 2004). They defined assimilation as ‘a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memory, sentiments, and

Theorizing modes of incorporation  135 attitudes of other persons and groups and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common historical life’ (Park & Burgess, 1921, p. 735). Two features of this definition were largely overlooked by subsequent theorists until recently. First, Park and Burgess did not argue that ethnic and racial differences would disappear. Second, they viewed assimilation as impacting both immigrants and the native-born, in the process reconfiguring the societal core (Alba, 2020, pp. 144–145). This deceptively simple definition contained the kernel of a perspective on incorporation as being relational and reciprocal. This kernel has been factored into two recent developments, one rooted in the history of assimilation theorizing and the other deriving from a current of multiculturalist thinking. It took until the 1990s for a growing number of sociologists and historians to become convinced that a reconsideration of what had become an increasingly disparaged idea was in order (Kazal, 1995). Two developments stand out in this period of reconsideration, one addressing the segmented character of assimilation and the other focusing on boundaries. Both reflected the influence of broader disciplinary trends. However, it was only the latter that reconnected with Park and Burgess, taking their initial insight in new directions. Segmented Assimilation Segmented assimilation is a concept developed by Alejandro Portes and various colleagues, including Rubén Rumbaut and Min Zhou. Herbert Gans (1992) set the stage in an article exploring the possibility of second-generation socioeconomic decline. Gans identified six potential scenarios, three positive and three negative, revolving around the possible roles played by education, succession, and ethnic niches. This was contextualized in terms of an era characterized by the shift from an industrial to a post-industrial economy. In the first articulation of the segmented assimilation thesis, Portes and Zhou (1993) observed that many contemporary immigrants are defined as nonwhite and thus race must be factored into the equation. Second, the economy has changed because of deindustrialization, which has drastically reduced the number of available jobs in the manufacturing sector. The idea of segmented assimilation was born of the idea that the incorporative trajectories of contemporary immigrant children might take three possible paths reflecting new economic conditions. As Portes and Zhou (1993, p. 82) put it, ‘One of them replicates the time-honored portrayal of growing acculturation and parallel integration into the white middle-class; a second leads straight in the opposite direction to permanent poverty and assimilation into the underclass; still a third associates rapid economic advancement with deliberate preservation of the immigrant community’s values and tight solidarity’. By being incorporated into different sectors of the American class structure, immigrants possessing differing stocks of human capital are being socialized into different subcultures (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001a). Portes and Rumbaut stress the relationship between the two generations that results from this interplay, distinguishing three types of acculturation: dissonant, consonant, and selective. Dissonant refers to a situation in which the children become rapidly acclimated to the language and ways of life of the new society and simultaneously experience a dramatic loss of their cultural heritage. At the same time, their parents find getting acclimated difficult and thus remain rooted in the premigration worldview. In this setting, parents become dependent on their children, thus establishing a ‘role reversal, especially where parents lack other means to maneuver in the host society without the help of their children’ (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001a, p. 54). Dissonant acculturation can lead to downward assimilation, particularly if the

136  Research handbook on the sociology of migration children question parental authority and embrace the adversarial lifestyle associated with the ‘code of the street’. Downward assimilation contributes to gang involvement, drug activities, unplanned pregnancies, and dropping out of school. In contrast, one version of consonant acculturation results when parents and children acclimate to their new setting in more-or-less parallel fashion, both managing to become culturally and socially competent in the new society and at the same time exiting the ethnic community together. In this scenario, parents and children are on the same page insofar as both generations are seeking integration into the American mainstream. This trajectory is most likely to occur among families whose parents possess high levels of human capital and are thus from the outset poised to enter the middle class and to experience upward mobility. In the other form of consonant acculturation, parents and children are again coming to terms with the new society congruently. However, in this version, both are slow to make a language transition and to embrace the host society’s values and lifestyle. At the same time, both remain embedded in the ethnic community. These immigrants and their offspring remain isolated from the larger society, dependent on the ethnic enclave. One outcome of such acculturation is that mobility and integration into the larger society are blocked. Finally, selective acculturation entails a successful balancing act on the part of both immigrants and their children between embracing the cultural values and language of the society and remaining embedded in the ethnic community. Thus, assimilation occurs gradually and without the anomic dislocations that can occur in consonant or dissonant acculturation. The ethnic community in this case serves as a decompression chamber that helps ease the transition into the larger society. In this scenario, there is little intergenerational conflict, the second-generation children count many co-ethnics among their friends, and they tend to be bilingual (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001a, p. 54). The three obstacles identified above serve to establish what Portes and Rumbaut view as the novel features making contemporary immigrant incorporation different from the past. They contend that although assimilation should still be viewed as the master concept in the study of today’s immigrants, it is important to avoid concluding that assimilation is a uniform and unidirectional path. In their Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study, they found that most youth are poised to experience a successful entry into the mainstream. They are acquiring educations that can serve them well in that quest and their early occupational experiences suggest they are moving in a positive direction. On the other hand, a substantial number, though a minority, is being left behind. Portes and Rumbaut (2001b, pp. 313–314; see also Portes & Rumbaut, 2001a, 2006) have proposed ‘modes of incorporation’ as ‘a specific instance of structural embeddedness of individual action’. The three salient structures are ‘those of the receiving government, society, and preexisting ethnic community’. Modes of incorporation here is intended to link agency with what the authors call ‘contexts of reception’. The question is whether the relationship between agency and structure has been adequately conceptualized. Waldinger and Catron (2016, p. 28) argue that not only has the idea never been convincingly operationalized or measured, but it also theoretically fails to specify ‘the mechanisms linking different combinations of features and outcomes’. Parallel research on the second generation that has not embraced segmented assimilation theory has nevertheless arrived at similar conclusions. In their study of New York City, Philip Kasinitz, John Mollenkopf, Mary Waters, and Jennifer Holdaway concluded that their evidence leads them to be ‘guardedly optimistic about the second generation’ (2008, p. 16).

Theorizing modes of incorporation  137 In their comparison of six countries in North America and Western Europe, Alba and Foner (2015) point to national similarities and differences in second generation integration, examining their location in the economy, the educational system, politics, and religion and the role played by factors such as race, residential segregation, and intermarriage. Their general conclusion is that progress is evident, though that claim needs to be qualified by also noting the continuing obstacles to integration. The authors of these two studies expressed reservations about aspects of segmented assimilation theory, but their research, like that of Portes and his colleagues, contributed to thinking about assimilation by recognizing that in highly differentiated and complex societies, newcomers can end up in different places in the social hierarchy, and they can arrive in those places via differing pathways. Neo-Assimilation: Boundaries and the Mainstream In comparison to segmented assimilation’s focus on the connection between assimilation and mobility, Richard Alba and Victor Nee (2003) produced a revisionist theory of assimilation, an approach that they refer to simply as ‘new assimilation theory’, or what came to be called neo-assimilation theory. Influenced by the new institutionalism in sociology and building on the ‘forms-of-capital’ model, their theory is intended to both link agency to structure and the micro-level to the macro-level. Furthermore, the theory is intended to be sensitive to historical and structural contexts. Alba and Nee distinguish between proximate and distal causes, the former referring to factors working at the individual and group network level and the latter to the macro-structural level, focusing, for instance, on the role of major societal institutions, particularly the state and the economy. From the agency side of the equation, their framework calls for considering differentials in financial, human, and social capital among immigrants and the varied ways these resources are deployed, both by individuals and collectivities (this is an approach that Alba and Nee clearly share with segmented assimilation theorists). From the structure side, they seek to find these deployments in terms of the existing institutional mechanisms that either facilitate or inhibit assimilation. Of particular significance in post-civil rights America is the impact that the rights revolution has had on both the potential for and modes of incorporation of immigrants and other minorities. In this regard, the state plays a critical role in structuring and enforcing mechanisms for incorporation and its impact has been profound in challenging discrimination, particularly in the workplace. The central concept employed in new assimilation theory is that of boundaries. The idea that boundaries are socially constructed rather than being givens has since become a taken-for-granted assumption in ethnic and racial studies. In this regard, this subfield is not so unique for boundaries and the related concept of borders have increasingly been employed by social scientists in a wide range of fields, including social and collective identity, class, ethnic/racial, and gender/sexual identity inequalities, the professions, science, communities, and national identity. Alba and Nee (2003, p. 60) ‘distinguish among three boundary-related processes: boundary crossing, boundary blurring, and boundary shifting’. They borrow from the work of Aristide Zolberg and Long Litt Woon (1999). The first of these processes— boundary crossing—occurs at the individual level and does not entail the altering of the boundary itself. It neither makes a bright boundary blurry nor does it expand the boundary or shift its location. Rather, the boundary stays intact as an individual opts to exit one group and enter into

138  Research handbook on the sociology of migration another. Assimilation posed in terms of boundary crossing means that the individual leaves the marginalized outside group and enters the mainstream. The second process is blurring, which is a group phenomenon brought about by situations in which the boundary demarcating ‘us’ and ‘them’ becomes less clear, and thus calls into question where people are located. The third is boundary shifting. Here, as the term implies, the boundary moves rather than individuals moving. Alba and Nee accept this model, as well as Zolberg and Woon’s claim that ‘Boundary shifting can occur only after substantial boundary crossing and boundary blurring have taken place’ (1999, p. 9). Their empirical focus for post-1965 immigrants is on boundary blurring, which they consider to be distinctly characteristic of the contemporary second generation, for they have entered a society more receptive to difference than in the past. In contrast, boundary shifting is little discussed. Boundary crossing is perceived as having been far more characteristic of immigrants and their children during the last great migratory wave to the United States, and as less common today. Alba and Nee cite as an example the attempts made in the past to make physical changes by resorting to cosmetic surgery in order to eliminate what was seen as a distinctly ethnic look. Another common form of boundary crossing occurred when individuals shed their ethnic-sounding names for WASP substitutes. Boundary crossing was the likely option for Jews in an earlier era seeking to assimilate in a context characterized by a bright boundary. However, there is evidence to indicate that the bright boundary has in recent decades given way to boundary blurring, which leads to a situation in which ethnic distinctions come to play a less significant role in shaping intergroup relations. The form of assimilation resulting from blurring differs from that characteristic of crossing. In the latter, the conversion-like move across boundaries produces a radical disjuncture between people’s past identities and their new identities. By contrast, blurring occurs when the mainstream’s boundary is sufficiently porous to admit aspects of the minority group’s culture. In other words, boundary blurring is a two-way, rather than a one-way process. The sort of assimilation made possible by boundary blurring can lead to the maintenance of a meaningful and substantive minority group identity, something that can be more substantive than the thinner version of ethnic identity maintenance depicted in the idea of ‘symbolic ethnicity’. The outcome is hyphenated or hybrid identities. Although to date this revisionist account of assimilation has not had the impact on empirical research as has segmented assimilation, it nonetheless represents a major widening of the theoretical lens by looking at changes occurring in the larger society as a consequence of immigration. In his recent study of established Americans in Silicon Valley communities that have received large immigrant influxes in recent decades, Tomás Jiménez (2017) makes a convincing case for what he calls ‘relational assimilation’. And it is here that the objective of this approach to assimilation has the potential to engage with multiculturalism.

THEORIZING MULTICULTURALISM SOCIOLOGICALLY Despite the challenges to the articulation of distinctively sociological accounts of multiculturalism, promising efforts have been made. Any such efforts have necessitated engaging with a substantial body of philosophical work on multiculturalism, normatively shaped and often connected to explicit attempts to link theory to social policies. We turn to two such efforts. The first frames the discussion in interactional terms around the idea of claims-making. The second

Theorizing modes of incorporation  139 is framed as a mode of incorporation, with a focus on the cultural dynamics of incorporation into civil society. Multicultural Claims-Making Multiculturalism can be conceived in relational terms involving competing understandings of fairness. For example, Pieter Bevelander and Raymond Taras (2013, p. 14) contend, ‘Both beneficiaries and critics agree that multiculturalism is a way to make claims on the state— justifiable ones for the first group, opportunistic ones for the second’. Likewise, Sarah Carol and Ruud Koopmans (2013) used the idea of claims in examining conflicts between Muslim immigrants and their opponents. However, left implicit was the matter of what precisely claims-making entails. It was Giuseppe Sciortino (2003) who offered the first succinct and original definition of multiculturalism as entailing ‘political claims expressed by actors on behalf of a social category’. Kivisto (2012) further elaborated Sciortino’s thesis, beginning with the idea that the claims-makers are the more or less legitimate, contested, or uncontested spokespersons for a particular type of social category: a ‘community of fate’. The claims being advanced are predicated on concerns about the well-being of not only members of that community, but of the community itself—the ‘fate of the community’. Claims may be concerned with redistribution, recognition, or some combination of the two, and can be addressed to state officials and to the public at large. Five types of political claims can be distinguished: accommodation, exemption, preservation, redress, and inclusion, but only three apply to immigrants. The two that do not—preservation and redress—will not be discussed here because they are only relevant to the claims-making of indigenous peoples, ethnonational groups, and in the American case, those whose ancestors were victims of the slave trade. Accommodation calls for differential treatment in the form of reasonable adjustments that allow people to remain embedded in the larger society while continuing to be faithful to their cultural roots. Thus, an employer who accommodates an Orthodox Jew by not requiring the person to work on Saturday, instead perhaps working on Sunday, would be an example. Exemption, as the term suggests, calls for differential treatment by the waiving of certain laws, rules, regulations, and the like in order to make possible the maintenance of certain culturally inscribed practices. Thus, Sikhs may claim on religious grounds an exemption from mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. In both types of claims, the burden of preserving the cultural practice rests with the group itself; the larger society and the state merely provide the room to make that possible. The final type of claim concerns inclusion, which manifests itself in two subtypes. The first involves valorizing not only the existence of different ethnic cultures, but the very idea of living in a diverse society. Such claims are more generally addressed in the realm of civil society than directly to the state. The second subtype calls for expanding the boundaries of solidarity by bringing heretofore stigmatized groups located on the periphery into the center. Redefining the location of Islam in Western societies today—on the periphery or at the center—is the most tangible and vexing example at present. Such claims can be directed to civil society, the state, or both.

140  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Multiculturalism and the Civil Sphere Jeffrey Alexander, in The Civil Sphere (2006, pp. 393–457; see also Alexander, 2001; and for commentaries, Kivisto & Sciortino, 2015), moves from visions of difference to modes of incorporation, doing so by treating multiculturalism as one of three pathways to marginalized minority group incorporation into the societal mainstream—and more specifically into the civil sphere as equals. Without dismissing the significance of socioeconomic integration and legal entitlement, he contends that incorporation is also a matter of achieving social solidarity. His three ideal types of incorporation are assimilation, ethnic hyphenation, and multiculturalism. Assimilation takes place at the individual and not group level (as with Alba and Nee). It entails admission into the civil sphere once the marginalized individual replaces an ethnic cultural identity with the identity of the core group. The process of incorporation is one-way; the outsider chooses to adapt to the core culture, which remains unchanged by this new entrant. Only the individual qua individual can obtain an ‘admission ticket’, something not available to the individual as group member or to the group at large (Kivisto, 2007, p. 122). Ethnic hyphenation is differentiated from assimilation insofar as it distinguishes between private and public identities. Whereas in assimilation, the shift from particular ethnic identity to core societal identity entails the thoroughgoing deracination of the previous identity, and thus the exit from the ethnic group, ethnic hyphenation allows for the persistence of particularistic group identities in the private realm but expects those identities to remain there and not intrude into the public realm. Once again, incorporation is a phenomenon involving individuals, and once again the core’s culture remains unchanged. Alexander uses the language reminiscent of Mary Douglas (1966) of pollution and purity in his account, stressing the idea that outsider identities are in both types of incorporation forever stigmatized, though in the latter with a greater level of tolerance. Multiculturalism represents an alternative to both modes. Rather than calling for individuals to partially or totally distance themselves from their ethnic identities, it calls for a revaluation of those identities that results in their valorization rather than their stigmatization. Thus, individuals enter the civil sphere with those particularistic identities intact. In contrast to the other two modes, by expanding the boundaries of the civil sphere to permit stigmatized groups located on the societal periphery to enter the center, the center is also prepared to redefine those boundaries in a more universalistic way. Indeed, what Alexander finds as key to the distinctiveness of multiculturalism as a mode of incorporation is its potential for reconfiguring the relationship between the universal and the particular. Rather than being seen as antithetical, they are linked in a fashion that establishes a form of solidarity predicated on the existence of diversity (Alexander, 2006, p. 452). Alexander’s approach is shaped by his commitment to what he calls a ‘strong program in cultural sociology’, and, as such, his emphasis is clearly focused on issues related to recognition rather than redistribution. In so doing, an analytic distinction is made between difference and otherness, where the former involves inequality and disadvantage while the latter is concerned with social distance and exclusion. Alexander’s theorizing about multiculturalism is very much about the latter, and with issues central to major normative theorists, including a focus on the right to culture, dignity, justice, recognition, and respect. However, he approaches them in a manner that distances the analysis from explicitly normative considerations in the interest of focusing on real existing instances of multiculturalism and alternative modes of incorporation.

Theorizing modes of incorporation  141 Alexander does not engage in extended treatments of two issues that are at the center of current debates among multicultural theorists. First, he does not clearly differentiate the focus on individuals versus the privileging of group rights, the divide pitting liberal multiculturalists against those who are dismissive of liberalism. However, his position appears akin to that of Kwame Anthony Appiah (2005, pp. 121–122) when he argued that ‘the conflict between individualism and group rights is a mirage and that those rights, at least if they are properly titrated, really serve the ends of liberal individualism’. It’s no more illiberal for a society to protect my culture, in his view, than it is for a society to protect my property. Moreover, Alexander also does not extend his discussion into the arena of concrete policy agendas in liberal democracies. What he does do, which is what makes his such an original contribution to thinking about multiculturalism, is to locate it in terms of his understanding of civil society as a realm with universalistic aspirations concerned with extending the boundaries of inclusion while simultaneously promoting solidarity.

CODA The backlash against multiculturalism—a core element of the right-wing populist agenda— reflects a fear that immigrants change the homeland, while refusing to change themselves. A century of empirical evidence disproves the latter part of this proposition, for indeed immigrants change, consciously and unconsciously, enthusiastically and reluctantly. Equipped with the insights of neo-assimilation theory and civil sphere theory, the stage has been set for research agendas to make sense of the processes and mechanisms involved in how receiving societies and their native-born also change due to their interactions over time with newcomers.

REFERENCES Alba, R. (2020). Demographic illusion: Majority, minority, and the expanding American mainstream. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2015). Strangers no more: Immigration and the challenges of integration in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Alexander, J. C. (2001). Theorizing the ‘modes of incorporation’: Assimilation, hyphenation, and multiculturalism as varieties of civil participation. Sociological Theory, 19(3), 237–249. Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. New York: Oxford University Press. Appiah, K. A. (2005). The ethics of identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bevelander, P., & Taras, R. (2013). The twilight of multiculturalism? Findings from across Europe. In R. Taras (Ed.) Challenging multiculturalism: European models of diversity (pp. 3–24). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Cantle, T. (2012). Interculturalism: The new era of cohesion and diversity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Carol, S., & Koopmans, R. (2013). Dynamics of contestation over Islamic religious rights in Western Europe. Ethnicities, 13(2), 165–190. Castles, S. (1995). How nation‐states respond to immigration and ethnic diversity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 21(3), 293–308. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. New York: Praeger. Faist, T. (2009). Diversity: A new mode of incorporation? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(1), 171–190.

142  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Gans, H. J. (1992). Second‐generation decline: Scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post‐1965 American immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15(2), 173–192. Jiménez, T. R. (2017). The other side of assimilation: How immigrants are changing American life. Oakland: University of California Press. Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J. H., Waters, M. C., & Holdaway, J. (2008). Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/Russell Sage Foundation. Kazal, R. A. (1995). Revisiting assimilation: The rise, fall, and reappraisal of a concept in American ethnic history. The American Historical Review, 100(2), 437–471. Kivisto, P. (2001). Theorizing transnational immigration: A critical review of current efforts. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4), 549–577. Kivisto, P. (2004). What is the canonical theory of assimilation? Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 40(2), 149–163. Kivisto, P. (2007). Review essay. In search of the social space for solidarity and justice: Jeffrey C. Alexander, The Civil Sphere (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). Thesis Eleven, 91(1), 110–127. Kivisto, P. (2012). We really are all multiculturalists now. The Sociological Quarterly, 53(1), 1–24. Kivisto, P., & Croll, P. R. (2012). Race and ethnicity: The basics. London and New York: Routledge. Kivisto, P., & Sciortino, G. (Eds.) (2015). Solidarity, justice, and incorporation: Thinking through the civil sphere. New York: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (2016). Defending diversity in an era of populism: Multiculturalism and interculturalism compared. In N. Meer, T. Modood, & R. Zapata-Barrero (Eds.) Multiculturalism and interculturalism: Debating the dividing lines (pp. 158–177). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mansouri, F., & Modood, T. (2021). The complementarity of multiculturalism and interculturalism: Theory backed by Australian evidence. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(16), 1–20. Park, R. E. (1922). The immigrant press and its control. New York: Harper and Brothers. Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1921). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Park, R. E., & Miller, H. A. (1921). Old world traits transplanted. Chicago: University of Chicago Society for Social Research. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, P. (2017). Commentary on the study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(9), 1486–1491. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001a). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001b). Conclusion. In R. Rumbaut & A. Portes (Eds.) Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America (pp. 301–317). Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait, 3rd edition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74–96. Sciortino, G. (2003). From heterogeneity to difference? Comparing multiculturalism as a description and a field for claims-making. Comparative Social Research, 22, 263–285. Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918–1920). The Polish peasant in Europe and America, 5 volumes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vertovec, S. (2010). Towards post‐multiculturalism? Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity. International Social Science Journal, 61(199), 83–95. Waldinger, R. (2015). The cross-border connection: Immigrants, emigrants, and their homelands. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Waldinger, R., & Catron, P. (2016). Modes of incorporation: A conceptual and empirical critique. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(1), 23–53. Zolberg, A. R., & Woon, L. L. (1999). Why Islam is like Spanish: Cultural incorporation in Europe and the United States. Politics & Society, 27(1), 5–38.

12. Diversity and super-diversity Ivano Bison and Daniel Joseph Belback

INTRODUCTION We live surrounded by diversity. Ecological systems and social systems owe their existence and survival to diversity. From an evolutionary perspective, Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1909 [1859]) argued that diversity occurs through an undirected, random process of adaptation to environmental circumstances, in combination with successful sexual reproduction. Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is important to human survival, contributing to ecosystem stability and allowing ecosystems to effectively withstand environmental perturbations. We also define our identity through diversity, with cognitive differentiation allowing us to understand what we believe we are and are not. The early twenty-first century has seen a great deal of migration (Meissner & Vertovec, 2015; Putnam, 2007; Vertovec, 2007), particularly when observing flows toward economically developed countries, such as Europe and North America, though there has been increasing migration into non-Western contexts (Biehl, 2014). What is more salient to this chapter is the fact that migratory flows have become much more diverse (Vertovec, 2007), meaning that there is greater variation in terms of nationality, citizenship, ethnicity, race, religiosity, socio-economic status, linguistic capability, legal status, occupation, education, age, class, and gender, to name just some of the relevant aspects. The ways in which migrants move and the reasons they do so have also diversified. Many migrants today enter spaces that have rich histories of previous migration, often entering ethnic enclaves embedded in friendly globalized diasporas or communities inhabited by other recent arrivals, established arrivals, or usually some combination of the two. In other words, some dimensions of migrant experiences and situations are increasingly diversified while for other dimensions there exists increasing monotonicity or sameness. Due to the acceleration of information and communication technologies (ICTs), the ability to maintain transnational ties has become much easier, faster, and increasingly streamlined. This ability has further served to nurture the establishment of migrant communities, through means such as political organizing, informal and formal economic integration, and global diaspora maintenance, making it possible for some migrants to be tied—culturally, socially, economically and/or politically—to multiple locations, usually one’s homeland and one’s migratory destination. These diversifying transnational diasporic experiences, spanning vastly different yet interconnected contexts, thus involve considerable variation in migrants’ meaning-making processes. The advent of ICTs has also spawned increased homogeneity in the types of communication and information migrants obtain, as large tech companies have increasingly monopolized. Moreover, this transnational connection and network maintenance allows for the existence of increasing socio-cultural hybridity in both sending and receiving societies. Another source of change concerns the ways in which migrants are accepted (or not) into their respective receiving societies. This relational interplay between established populations 143

144  Research handbook on the sociology of migration (locals) and newcomers (migrants) is often conceptualized through processes like integration, incorporation, or assimilation.1 Given that many newcomers are received into communities often inhabited by other migrants from varying walks of life, theorists such as Vertovec (2007) have suggested that, in localities where a migratory background is the norm, the assumption that migrants will be ostracized or problematized owing to their cultural differences can be (at least) downplayed. Migrants often face highly difficult processes of integration into receiving societies, as their social, cultural, economic, and political capital is never synchronously aligned, entering spaces composed of socio-cultural hybridity and ultimately increasing variation. Although none of these phenomena are entirely new, the scale of variation and interconnectedness surely is. An implication follows; integration need not mean taking on the culture of the host society, at least in the traditional sense. As well-established migrant communities have formed their own cultures, grounded in the expectation and acceptance of difference, newcomers may integrate into this more inclusive way of dealing with difference. Vertovec’s ‘super-diversity’ concept has triggered broad debates in migration studies, seen vividly in the more than 7,500 quotations of his original paper.2 The debate on diversity inevitably requires opening some crucial research questions. How do integration processes occur within such varying, complex, and interconnected migrant experiences? Are migrants truly the masters of their own domains or does the socio-cultural fabric of receiving societies still play a large role? With ICTs having undeniably created much faster and more efficient channels of communication and travel, is there a rush to assume that the globalized/globalizing world is truly a multicultural place vastly different from that of the past? Is the contemporary world being overly romanticized or catastrophized? To review the role of diversity in migration-related issues, we start with an example of urban research inspired by the notion of super-diversity, followed by other examples of diversity and super-diversity in non-Western contexts. We subsequently focus on the concept of diversity, as it is employed in contemporary debates. We argue that super-diversity can be thought of in many different forms, composed of many smaller differentiated types coming together to form a rich tapestry of many other types. Linguistically, this is intuitive, as super-diversity functions in the same manner, adding on to the diversity at its core. ‘Super’ implies largesse, excessiveness, and greater proportionality. Therefore, super-diversity means high variation. But what is varying, how is it varying, where is it varying, and when is it varying? Ultimately, how much variation is there? To study diversity, one must be sure to define the who/whom or the actors and groups involved, as well as the features differentiating among individuals, categories, and groups. In the context of international migration, different axes of differentiation can stem from both sending and receiving societies. Temporality, spatiality, and differences in migratory flows serve to shape diverse and super-diverse contexts both internally and externally from each other. A definition of a particular space, such as a town, city, or borough, is needed to understand the context and physical bounds of a given diverse setting. Finally, time plays a role in studying a given context, making it possible to compare and observe increasing or decreasing amounts of a given diversity type or type(s). An example of recent research below helps to explain the importance of contextual variables, particularly space, in diversity and super-diversity studies. As diversity and super-diversity are both highly context-specific analytical lenses, the type and rate of difference varies dramatically depending upon one’s temporal and spatial position.

Diversity and super-diversity  145 Several scholars within the super-diversity field have highlighted the importance of understanding ‘multiple axes of difference’ shaped by specific localities (Berg & Sigona, 2013; Biehl, 2014; Hall, 2015; Padilla, Azevedo, & Olmos-Alcaraz, 2015; Wessendorf, 2014). For example, in her ethnography, Kristen Biehl (2014) studies the ways in which migrants deal with the problem of finding housing and its multifaceted role in the Istanbul neighborhood of Kumkapi, a residential neighborhood with a long history of diverse immigration flows. Because she is interested in the unfolding of diverse experiences in a shared spatial context, she utilizes ‘superdiversity primarily as a descriptive tool, addressing the entanglement of multiple variables impacting the experiences of new migrant populations in Istanbul’ (Biehl, 2014, p. 604). Her empirical example illuminates ‘the confluence and interplay of multiple variables’ (Biehl, 2014, p. 604), shaping not only the identities of migrants but also the relationality that occurs within contexts composed of large migrant communities.

THE MULTILAYERED MEANINGS OF DIVERSITY Social scientific interest in diversity may be parsed at three different analytical levels: multicultural societies, organizational practices, and distinctiveness (Faist, 2015, pp. 300–301). The first concerns the use of diversity to characterize, often self-descriptively and synonymously, specific multilingual/multicultural societies such as Canada (i.e. the ‘diverse societies’). Although this usage makes it difficult to distinguish between diversity and differentiation, here, diversity relates to the deconstruction of notions of ‘normality’ within dominant cultures, as well as perceived inclusion through greater recognition for and appreciation of difference (Fraser & Honneth, 2003). A second and frequent usage has to do with organizational practices. It is assumed that the organizations of the mainstream society must adapt their practices, establishing routines that take cultural heterogeneity into consideration. Finally, a third widespread usage operates at the individual/group level. Here, diversity refers mostly to intercultural competences and interactional practices. To claim that a group is diverse implies some recognition of qualitative or categorical distinctions among group members and, hence, of internal divisions within the larger group. These processes can occur both consciously and unconsciously but are usually consequential in terms of group processes (e.g. resource allocation, opportunity, and satisfaction) (DiTomaso, Post, & Parks-Yancy, 2007, p. 475). Individuals ascribe social significance to the categories or groups they associate with various people. Diversity requires a specific spatial-temporal context because meaningful group differences exist and persist only insofar as they have structural or institutional bases (Andersen, 2001; Lin, 2001) in which they are embedded and shaped by ongoing processes of interaction and decision making that reinforce and reproduce group differences over time (Berger & Zelditch, 1998). Another perspective proposes that distinctions among individuals do not become meaningful due to the objective significance of the difference itself, which may be inconsequential or even dubious (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Distinctions become significant only when the dynamics that cognitively lead to categorical distinctions also lead to the ranking and differentiation of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ (Brewer, 1979; Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1987). One common distinction, in this sense, may be found between the diversity of ‘observable’ demographic characteristics, ‘readily detectable attributes’ or ‘surface level diversity’, such as racial or ethnic background, age, or gender, and diversity with respect to less ‘visible/

146  Research handbook on the sociology of migration observable’ demographic characteristics, ‘underlying attributes’ or ‘deep level diversity’, such as education, technical abilities, functional background, tenure in the organization, or socio-economic background, personality characteristics, culture, cognition, or values (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly III, 1991, 1992). Due to the socio-culturally constructed nature of surface level attributes, there is often a great deal of interplay between surface and deep level diversity, often seen at the group level as inequalities and disparities (Sciortino, 2012).

THE DIFFUSION AND STRENGTH OF PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES The literature on diversity at the individual level is largely dominated by three approaches: the social identity perspective (Tajfel, 1978), self-categorization theories (Turner, 1982) and the similarity attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971). These approaches all articulate processes through which individuals make sense of and locate themselves within their social environments. They help to explain the mechanisms through which individuals relate to others via their group memberships. These theories propose the idea that because self-perception is shaped by group membership, the individual is motivated to accentuate similarities between the individuals with whom they share group membership (in-groups) and differences between those who belong to different identity groups (out-groups). In addition, self-categorization theory holds that demographic characteristics can be used to classify individuals and thus can serve as the basis upon which individuals recognize themselves as members of a social group and adopt its behaviors (Turner, 1987). In a different vein, the similarity attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) offers a related but bottom-up conceptual justification for the effects of diversity within social units. It suggests that individuals are attracted to those with whom they possess similar characteristics and attitudes, which subsequently influences social interactions and intergroup relationships (Roberson, Ryan, & Ragins, 2017, p. 490). The relationships among different groups are often analyzed using two main approaches: contact theory and conflict theory. Prejudice is thought to decrease as one spends more time with those deemed outside one’s own group (Allport, 1954). However, the opposite has also been found, with prejudice increasing in conjunction with out-group contact (Brown, 2000). This finding makes sense if one also considers conflict theory, which postulates that conflict can result from competition over resources, both material and social (Sherif, 1988 [1961]; Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Thus, while bias toward out-group members can decrease with increased contact, there can also be increased bias if the context is characterized by intense competition for scarce resources. Conflict theory thus alludes to the need for closer examination of political elements in relation to the inter-group relations often characterizing diverse settings. One must consider inter-group power relations and organizing capacities in conjunction with the psychological theories noted above to get a clearer conception of diverse settings. Via this line of reasoning, one can intuitively see why the political and psychological veins of research on immigration would converge (Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2015), as inter-group dynamics are always the product of a plethora of factors. Attempts to utilize a psychological or political lens to analyze the relational understandings of newcomers are particularly important for understanding the dynamism of attitudes in the context of sustained migration. Hainmueller and Hopkins have found that US survey data consistently reveal that:

Diversity and super-diversity  147 immigration attitudes show little evidence of being strongly correlated with personal economic circumstances. Instead, research finds that immigration attitudes are shaped by sociotropic [unbiased concerns about the effect on the nation] concerns about its cultural impacts—and to a lesser extent its economic impacts—on the nation as a whole. (2015, p. 225)

In this sense, Hainmueller and Hopkins conclude that attitudes toward immigration appear to be more concerned with cultural than economic impacts. Similar results have been found in European countries (Manevska, Achterberg, & Houtman, 2018). While immigrants are often scapegoated economically via common stereotypes like ‘they are taking our jobs’, Hainmueller and Hopkins find that the actual anxieties are rooted in feelings about the nation as an imagined community, utilizing the term ‘socio-tropic’ to delineate this realm of sentiment. Because culture is highly relational, one can deduce that people are concerned with the ways in which the community will interact and be held together, indicating that perceptions of social cohesion and solidarity are highly important metrics for understanding attitudes toward diversity.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND STRUCTURAL PERSPECTIVES It is a widespread assumption in sociology that modern societies are characterized by a high degree of differentiation and diversity. While differentiation denotes a dynamic process in which new entities in a system emerge (Van Vught, 2007), diversity refers to a static situation, i.e. to the variety of the entities at a specific point in time (Huisman, 1995, p. 51). The former refers to social systems as a whole and their historical transformations,3 while the latter refers to the sub-categories, sub-groups, or sub-units comprising a social system. They are both relational concepts: differentiation emerges from a process of diversification compared to the past, owing to an increase in organic solidarity (Durkheim, 1984) or the process of cultural fragmentation (Weber, 1948), while diversity emerges only when two actors enter a relationship with each other shaped by their different categorical memberships (Tsui et al., 1991). ‘Being different’ is a relational concept that is only a characteristic of groups, not of individuals (Tilly, 1998; Tsui et al., 1991). While difference is relational, individuals can vary across temporal and spatial situations. This starting point generates two basic approaches for describing various aspects of the social world, according to their attributes or according to their relationships (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982). Adopting a relational approach has a direct effect on how we conceptualize diversity and how it can be employed in various social interactions. One perspective utilized for analysis posits that attributes are intrinsic characteristics of people, objects, or events. When we try to explain variance among such units of observation, we almost naturally resort to measuring attributes, those qualities that inherently belong to a unit apart from its relations with other units or the specific context within which it is observed. This ‘demographic’ perspective (Haveman & Wetts, 2019) explores diversity in terms of the distribution of individuals, groups, and organizations along salient dimensions of social structure, such as age, race and gender, group size and composition, and organizational form and location. Research has identified a wide range of categorical differences that symbolically and meaningfully distinguish different categories of actors (DiTomaso et al., 2007, p. 474). Among them, ethnicity (Portes & Rumbaut, 1996), race (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; Reskin, McBrier, & Kmec, 1999), gender (Chatman & O’Reilly, 2004; Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995; Reskin, 1993), age (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989), education

148  Research handbook on the sociology of migration (Halaby, 2003; Rosenbaum, Kariya, Settersten, & Maier, 1990), sexual orientation (Ragins, Cornwell, & Miller, 2003), physical ability (Colella & Varma, 2001), and religion (Islam & Hewstone, 1993) have been used in migration research. In many cases, however, the functional background of group members (Cunningham & Chelladurai, 2004), or the tenure or length of service (Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001; Sorensen, 2000), are analyzed. The level of technical capital is also salient to understanding the impact—and outcomes—of newcomers within many organizational dynamics. Relationships are actions or qualities that exist only if two or more entities (e.g. persons, objects, and events) are considered together. A relation is not an intrinsic characteristic of either party taken in isolation; it is an emergent property of the connection (e.g. a person’s age, sex, intelligence, income, and the like remain unchanged, whether at home, at work, or at church). Relations are context-specific and change or disappear upon an actor’s removal from interaction with other parties in time and space (e.g. a student/teacher relation does not exist outside a school setting; a marital relation vanishes upon the death or divorce of a spouse). The relational perspective breaks away from the assumption that individuals, groups, and organizations can be understood as atomistic actors. Instead, all social actors are just that—social— which requires recognizing how webs of social and economic interactions create opportunities for (and constraints on) action. Diversity is thus not a pre-social category; instead, it is always loaded with attributed meanings and thus culturally rooted. It is the perceived, evaluated form of (cultural) difference. It is thus constructed by social interactants who demarcate categorical boundaries based on socio-culturally constructed meanings, which often implies that certain classifications are perceived as dominant or rooted in hierarchies (Faist, 2015, p. 300). At the microlevel, relationships determine what actors can do and what actors are motivated to do because people and groups in organizations are interdependent (Haveman & Wetts, 2019). Therefore, when we refer to ‘diversity’ or ‘social diversity’, we refer to the ways in which people within a community or society are perceived as different and then distinguished from others. This distinction is often understood by gaining insight into commonsense social knowledge informing beliefs about difference.

DIVERSITY AND SUPER-DIVERSITY ‘Diversity’ has become a popular and often uncritically received term in migration studies (Berg & Sigona, 2013). According to Biehl, ‘This [popularity] has emanated from growing discontent with culturally and ethnically essentializing discourses of multiculturalist frameworks, increasingly appearing inadequate in theorizing the complexity of both migrant experiences and processes of urban coexistence’ (2014, p. 597). It has subsequently been claimed that to study increasingly diversified communities, their inhabitants, and their beliefs over time, it is necessary to understand the complex interplay among a growing number of historical and contemporary variables, shaping both perceptions of migrants and migrants’ perceptions of themselves. The popularity of the term, however, has gone hand-in-hand with the development of some important critiques. For some, diversity is simply a keyword that a variety of movements and organizational elites find useful to reference the organizational consequences of demographic changes in the available workforce. It should be treated consequently as a category of practice, not as a category of analysis and we thus should not think in terms of ‘groups or entities but in terms of practical categories, situated actions, cultural

Diversity and super-diversity  149 idioms, cognitive schemas, discursive frames, organizational routines, institutional forms, political projects, and contingent events’ (Brubaker, 2002, p. 11). Diversity is a controversial term often subject to critique. In 1995, for example, Jackson and colleagues stated that the term ‘diversity is not (yet) a scientific construct’ (Jackson, May, Whitney, Guzzo, & Salas, 1995, p. 216). At the turn of the millennium, some feminist theorists claimed that the focus on difference—albeit necessary to break away from false universalism—had degenerated into forms of solipsism (Gordon, 1999). Others have accused the term diversity of being marred by ambiguity, normativity, and polysemy (Vertovec, 2012, 2015). When researching topics concerning diversity it is important to keep in mind the rise of popular public discourses pertaining to diversity within the social imaginary. It is also important to note that diversity is a highly politicized word. Vertovec (2012) has noted that diversity and inclusion discourses have arisen in conjunction with policies of affirmative action in the United States. New civil rights legislation led to a focus within the public, business, and education sectors on increasing the diversity of people inhabiting their institutions (Vertovec, 2012). This conception of diversity was often conceptualized along racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and religious lines, focusing on increasing the representation of underrepresented groups. While this turn started in the United States, it has since become a common phenomenon, particularly in Western countries. A great deal of contemporary research has focused on and shown that diverse groups are often better at and more creative when solving problems. This diversity and inclusion turn has led to businesses adopting diversity and inclusion departments. Today, one can observe many backlashes to this conception of diversity, with populist discourses (primarily on the right of the political spectrum) claiming that diversity is a threat to established traditional values and morals. Moreover, these anti-diversity discourses often claim that diversity and inclusion departments practice their own form of discrimination. Either way, one can agree with Vertovec (2012, p. 287, emphasis in original) that ‘the current period is pervaded with discourses about diversity’. In the most ambitious reconstruction of the term diversity, Vertovec has suggested to focus instead on ‘the social organization of difference’. Such an approach focuses on the interactions between three analytically distinguishable domains: ‘social’ (concerning interpersonal interactions and behaviors), ‘organization’ (relating to patterns, forms, institutions, and structures of society), and ‘difference’ (referring to socially constructed categories) (Vertovec, 2021, p. 1275). This important innovation has led to the introduction of the concept of ‘super-diversity’ in Vertovec’s seminal work (2007). The concept seeks to capture the growing diversification within the above-referenced categories, in which both locals and newcomers are defined, in Vertovec’s view, by a plurality of origins, connections, and legal and economic statuses. In its original formulation, the concept was meant to capture the experience of certain locales defined by both ‘the differential convergence of factors surrounding patterns of immigration’ and the ‘wider set of social and economic relations within the places where they reside’ (Vertovec, 2007, p. 1049). In this sense, Vertovec claims that to understand the migration experience, at least in certain locales, it is necessary to take into consideration a larger set of variables. This work quickly gained notoriety and has since become the most heavily cited work in the history of the journal Ethnic and Racial Studies. It is important to stress that this initial empirical claim grew out of the development of a consistent perspective on diversity as an analytical category, inspired by what Charles Tilly has called ‘systematic constructivism’ (2008, p. 196). It gradually evolved into a more sophisticated framework, as Vertovec addresses how social construction—of categories,

150  Research handbook on the sociology of migration social relations, and status systems—actually works, by examining the dynamics of mutually conditioning systems (Vertovec, 2021, p. 1276). Vertovec’s current model is thus not specific to race and ethnicity but is applicable to numerous modes of difference. Like all popular intellectual concepts, super-diversity has taken on a life of its own. It has exceeded theoretically, descriptively, methodologically, and normatively what the author initially intended. Yet, this vast literature across a massive number of disciplines and the numerous debates within it have served to fuel the term’s rise, while giving it increased nuance, encompassed mainly in three veins of research: theoretical, methodological, and practical or policy oriented (Meissner & Vertovec, 2015). It has also taken on a descriptive and normative element to widely describe contemporary conditions of urban modern western multicultural society. For others, the term has come to imply ‘many ethnic groups’ (Meissner & Vertovec, 2015, p. 543). This over-simplification has sacrificed more complex understandings of migration and migrants’ lived experiences in its utilization of a mono-focal lens honed in on ethnicity, neglecting the much more complex and differentiated backgrounds and identities of migrants. While this explosion in super-diversity studies has no doubt been a success, the varying usage of the term has also muddied the waters, creating a need for clearer conceptions of what exactly super-diversity and its subfields constitute.

SUPER-DIVERSITY AS NORMATIVE? Super-diversity is often utilized as a normative concept, implying a progressive state achieved by Western multicultural societies. Following this line of thought, Alba and Duyvendak note: The notion of super-diversity pursues the idea of the normalcy of diversity into quotidian social life, the universal tapestry of human experience … a conviviality that appears to reflect a degree of levelling and everyday acceptance of ethnic differences … In its empirical reach, the super-diversity concept calls attention to settings in which diversity has become part of quotidian ‘normalcy’. (2019, pp. 106–107)

Unsurprisingly, this notion has often been criticized for overly romanticizing super-diverse contexts, proposing that new migrant enclaves can be characterized as embodying a wider acceptance of differences, and failing to take a holistic view of the wider societal ramifications seen in power struggles between mainstream receiving groups and newcomers that often dictate the experiences of migrants. It has also been noted that the normative acceptance of difference is not an alternative to the conformity diverse migrant groups often take toward adopting key norms of the mainstream host society, often called assimilation. Sometimes, the celebration of diversity is both a result of a vibrant receiving society and a function of the extent to which migrants, over time, have already integrated into it. The interest in diversity and super-diversity may consequently benefit from a relational perspective able to explore how increasing diversification may interact with processes of integration and incorporation occurring in receiving contexts. As Baldassarri and Abascal have observed, ‘[W]hether societal adaptations to diversity lead toward integration or division depends on the positions occupied by minorities and immigrants in the social structure and economic system, along with the institutional arrangements that determine their political inclusion’ (2020, p. 1186). This assertion implies the need to observe the social organization of power. Baldassarri and Abascal call for ‘scholars [to] develop a theory of social cohesion

Diversity and super-diversity  151 in multiethnic societies that considers intergroup dynamics, social cleavages, and asymmetries in resources and power’ (2020, p. 1187). Similarly, Sciortino, reconstructing Parsons’ theory of inclusion, notes that ‘the social pressure for inclusion requires that wide sectors of both the excluded and the already included groups are persuaded that inclusion is both normatively desirable and practically achievable’ (2021, pp. 169–170). This argument implies contestation over the meanings surrounding a ‘good’ society. Scholars of cultural sociology often propose the need to understand the moral undercurrents driving the ideas a society tells itself about itself. This is often achieved by understanding the sacred and profane or civil and uncivil significatory representations shaping the collective conscience (Alexander, 2006). Often, pluralistic societies composed of diverse political groups and media institutions end up with a broader range of views, while allowing for migrant community organizing. In this sense, the functionality of diverse contexts is rooted in socio-cultural understandings of the possibility of coexistence and mutual integration.

DIVERSITY AND TRUST An important, if somewhat parallel, debate in recent decades has focused on whether increased diversity causes fragmentation or cohesion. Putnam (2007), focusing primarily on social capital and trust related to levels of ethno-racial diversity, influentially posits that growth in diversity, at least over the short and medium term, implies increased societal fragmentation, due to lower trust levels and less civic participation. Putnam’s claim has been endorsed by several important scholars, committed to what may be called a communitarian conception of social capital (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2002; Fukuyama, 1996; Putnam, 1993). Such an approach has been criticized on both theoretical and empirical grounds (Portes & Vickstrom, 2011). More fundamentally, Abascal and Baldassarri have noted that diversity in studies by Putnam, or inspired by Putnam, is often measured via indexes focused on the likelihood that one might encounter someone outside of one’s group, thus flattening ‘fundamentally hierarchical relationships between ethnoracial groups’ (2015, p. 731). This flattening is thought to inevitably cause deficient explanations of diversity’s role in society. Thus, to come to clearer conceptions of diverse relationships, one needs to understand interdependencies as well, or organic forms of solidarity. Utilizing Putnam’s own data, Abascal and Baldassarri (2015) have refuted the notion that ‘diversity’ necessarily causes fragmentation and decreasing levels of trust. They instead illustrate the role of inequality, particularly ethno-racial historical and institutional inequality causing societal fragmentation. To gain an adequate understanding of diversity, it is thus necessary to account for solidaristic relations within modern society.

CONCLUSION This chapter has elaborated some of the prevailing perspectives on diversity and super-diversity within the field of migration studies. It has shown that the contemporary historical moment is one filled with rapidly changing and diversifying migrant experiences, grounded in much more interconnectedness than any other time in history. The chapter has attempted to provide some clarity around the term ‘diversity’ itself, often considered so broad that it loses meaning. It has also highlighted the popular conception

152  Research handbook on the sociology of migration that diversity implies a focus on racial and ethnic inclusion, while overlooking other modes of difference. Accordingly, this work seeks to unpack the highly variable types of diversity present within the field of migration, illustrating differing approaches to their study. It has covered psychological approaches grounded in social identity and self-categorization theories, as well as similarity attraction paradigms. The group interaction approaches of contact and conflict theories have been presented, with the former indicating decreased prejudice and the latter indicating increased prejudice from out-group contact. Demographic and structural approaches are also explored, which show differentiation as an ongoing relational process within a system and diversity as a static category grounded in time and space, though always defined based on relational considerations. The chapter has also delved into the ‘super-diversity’ turn, which has helped move the field forward by shedding long-held assumptions in favor of an approach that situates the social construction of difference at the forefront of analysis, prioritizing a broad swath of variables over the search for salience. The super-diversity term is discussed and critiqued as an academic and normative concept. Some embrace the theory from contact with out-groups decreasing bias, while others point to conflict theory and the dangers of assuming a more multicultural and accepting version of contemporary times that neglects how this process occurs. They show that migrants’ occupation of power often leads to their increased acceptance by the mainstream. The chapter also looks at social cohesion and trust, presenting two conflicting views on the effect of increased socio-cultural and ethno-racial diversity. As is evident from this chapter, the study of diversity and super-diversity in the context of migration is a very broad topic. As in all disciplines, there are competing modes of thought about how best to move the field forward. We think that proceeding with a relational, spatial, temporal, and contextual approach toward understanding differentiation processes is a good starting point for gaining a deeper understanding of social variation in the field of migration. In this way, one can gain a deeper appreciation for dynamic axes of difference.

NOTES 1. As these terms are often utilized interchangeably, this chapter primarily utilizes ‘integration’. Super-diversity is also often written without a hyphen as ‘superdiversity’. 2. See Google Scholar for an exact citation count. 3. From many, functional differentiation moves from the biological notion of the division of labor in physiology, and the economic notion of the division of labor in manufacture. In Spencer (1851), there is a specialization of component parts within some encompassing system. In Durkheim’s classic, The Division of Labor in Society (1984 [1893]), he argues that the division of labor is the process by which a wide range of social units become more specialized in performing social functions and that people are allocated in society based on merit and rewarded accordingly. Parsons (1966) develops a theory of society consisting of functionally defined sub-systems, which emerge from an evolutionary point of view through a cybernetic process of differentiation. Weber (1948) reads differentiation as a process of cultural fragmentation, which the individual is forced to navigate. Finally, in Luhmann (1982), differentiation is the process through which a new system/ environment distinction is created within an existing system. An ‘unavoidable consequence of functional differentiation’ (Luhmann, 1982, p. 132) is that modern society tends to become global.

Diversity and super-diversity  153

REFERENCES Abascal, M., & Baldassarri, D. (2015). Love thy neighbor? Ethnoracial diversity and trust reexamined. American Journal of Sociology, 121(3), 722–782. Alba, R., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2019). What about the mainstream? Assimilation in super-diverse times. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(1), 105–124. Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85(2), 207–234. Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. New York: Oxford University Press. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Social Forces, 33(1), 90–91. Andersen, M. L. (2001). Restructuring for whom? Race, class, gender, and the ideology of invisibility. Sociological Forum, 16(2), 181–201. Baldassarri, D., & Abascal, M. (2020). Diversity and prosocial behavior. Science, 369(6508), 1183–1187. Berg, M. L., & Sigona, N. (2013). Ethnography, diversity and urban space. Identities, 20(4), 347–360. Berger, J., & Zelditch, M. (1998). Status, power, and legitimacy: Strategies and theories. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Biehl, K. S. (2014). Spatializing diversities, diversifying spaces: Housing experiences and home space perceptions in a migrant hub of Istanbul. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(4), 596–607. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324. Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745–778. Brubaker, R. (2002). Ethnicity without groups. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie/Europäisches Archiv für Soziologie, 43(2), 163–189. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2004). Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 193–208. Colella, A., & Varma, A. (2001). The impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 304–315. Cunningham, G. B., & Chelladurai, P. (2004). Affective reactions to cross-functional teams: The impact of size, relative performance, and common in-group identity. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(2), 83–97. Darwin, C. (1909 [1859]). On the origin of species. New York: P. F. Collier & Son. DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 473–501. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62–68. Durkheim, E. (1984 [1893]). The division of labor in society, trans. W. D. Halls. London: Macmillan. Faist, T. (2015). Cultural diversity and social inequalities. In T. Matejskova & M. Antonsich (Eds.) Governing through diversity: Migration societies in post-multiculturalist times (pp. 39–60). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. London: Verso. Fukuyama, F. (1996). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. London: Penguin. Gordon, L. (1999). The trouble with difference. Dissent, 46(2), 41–47. Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548. Halaby, C. N. (2003). Where job values come from: Family and schooling background, cognitive ability, and gender. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 251–278. Hall, S. M. (2015). Super-diverse street: A ‘trans-ethnography’ across migrant localities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(1), 22–37. Haveman, H. A., & Wetts, R. (2019). Contemporary organizational theory: The demographic, relational, and cultural perspectives. Sociology Compass, 13(3), 12664. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior, 10, 237–252. Huisman, J. (1995). Differentiation, diversity and dependency in higher education. Utrecht: Lemma.

154  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Intergroup attributions and affective consequences in majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 936–950. Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., Whitney, K., Guzzo, R. A., & Salas, E. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.) Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. (1982). Network analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luhmann, N. (1982). The world society as a social system. International Journal of General Systems, 8(3), 131–138. Manevska, K., Achterberg, P., & Houtman, D. (2018). Why there is less supportive evidence for contact theory than they say there is: A quantitative cultural–sociological critique. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 6, 296–321. Meissner, F., & Vertovec, S. (2015). Comparing super-diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(4), 541–555. Padilla, B., Azevedo, J., & Olmos-Alcaraz, A. (2015). Superdiversity and conviviality: Exploring frameworks for doing ethnography in Southern European intercultural cities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(4), 621–635. Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Vickstrom, E. (2011). Diversity, social capital, and cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 461–479. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty‐first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. Ragins, B. R., Cornwell, J., & Miller, J. S. (2003). Heterosexism in the workplace: Do race and gender matter? Group Organization and Management, 28, 45–74. Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517. Reskin, B. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270. Reskin, B., McBrier, D. B., & Kmec, J. A. (1999). The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 335–361. Roberson, Q., Ryan, A. M., & Ragins, B. R. (2017). The evolution and future of diversity at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 483–499. Rosenbaum, J. E., Kariya, T., Settersten, R., & Maier, T. (1990). Market and network theories of the transition from high school to work: Their application to industrialized societies. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 263–299. Sciortino, G. (2012). Ethnicity, race, nationhood, foreignness, etc.: Prolegomena to a cultural sociology of difference-based interactions. In J. C. Alexander, R. Jacobs, & P. Smith (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of cultural sociology (pp. 365–389). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sciortino, G. (2021). A blueprint for inclusion: Talcott Parsons, the societal community and the future of universalistic solidarities. The American Sociologist, 52(1), 159–177. Sherif, M. (1988 [1961]). The robbers cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. [Orig. pub. as Intergroup conflict and group relations]. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Sorensen, J. B. (2000). The longitudinal effects of group tenure composition on turnover. American Sociological Review, 65, 298–310. Spencer, H. (1851). Social statics, or, the conditions essential to human happiness specified, and the first of them developed. London: John Chapman. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Diversity and super-diversity  155 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.) Political psychology (pp. 276–293). New York: Psychology Press. Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tilly, C. (2008). Explaining social processes. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Tsui, A. S., Egan, T., & O’Reilly III, C. (1991). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1991(1), 183–187. Tsui, A. S., Egan, T., & O’Reilly III, C. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549–579. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.) Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.) Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 42–67). Oxford: Blackwell. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. Van Vught, F. (2007). Diversity and differentiation in higher education systems. Keynote speech at the conference Higher Education in the 21st Century – Diversity of Missions. Dublin, June 26. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. Vertovec, S. (2012). ‘Diversity’ and the social imaginary. Archives Européennes de Sociologie/European Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 287–312. Vertovec, S. (2015). Introduction: Formulating diversity studies. In S. Vertovec (Ed.) Routledge international handbook of diversity studies (pp. 1–20). London: Routledge. Vertovec, S. (2021). The social organization of difference. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(8), 1273–1295. Weber, M. (1948). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Wessendorf, S. (Ed.) (2014). Commonplace diversity: Social relations in a super-diverse context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 353–376.

13. Inclusion and exclusion Gabriel Echeverría and Claudia Finotelli

INTRODUCTION Art and science are full of distinguished exclusions. In 1832, the Music Conservatory of Milan, under the direction of Francesco Basili, rejected the application of the 18-year-old student Giuseppe Verdi because of the incorrect positioning of his hands on the piano and his poor knowledge of the counterpoint rules. Nobody could have imagined that ten years later, after the release of the opera ‘Nabucco’ at La Scala theater in Milan, the once rejected music student would be celebrated as the world’s most important opera composer.1 Giuseppe Verdi’s life demonstrates that his exclusion from Italy’s most eminent music institution did not prevent him from gaining posterity through his artistic achievements. Put differently, exclusion from educational institutions does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with other forms of structural exclusion. In turn, the conservatory director Basili’s fall into oblivion, despite being a well-known composer in his time and a member of the most important Italian art academies, confirms that inclusion into formal academic structures is not necessarily a guarantee of fame and recognition over the long term. The stories of Giuseppe Verdi and Francesco Basili are not only, paraphrasing Karen Blixen, anecdotes of fate, but also evidence that individual social histories can be told as histories of inclusion and exclusion (Bommes, 2012b). Inclusion, and its opposite, exclusion, can be defined as the conditions that allow (or not) individuals to take part in certain social activities, to access determined social spaces and resources, and to experience a sense of belonging to a social group. The ways in which inclusion and exclusion have been understood, both conceptually and as concrete social phenomena, have varied significantly in relation to more general interpretations of society and its functioning. Inclusion and exclusion processes are especially relevant in the lives of migrants. Since migration is a form of space mobility aimed at improving chances of inclusion (Bommes, 2012b), migratory careers are necessarily informed by the opportunities and constraints migrants encounter along the way. If this is true, a number of questions arise: How does the inclusion and exclusion of migrants work in practice? Who decides which migrants should be included in different social spheres and which should not? How and when do migrants qualify for inclusion? Although crucial, it has taken considerable time for these questions to receive social and scientific attention, not least because they have been largely taken for granted. Once accepted by nation states that have chosen to ‘incorporate’ them, as is typical in classical immigration countries, migrants would gradually and ‘naturally’ become an integral part of society. In contrast, if migrants are meant to be only temporary visitors and workers, as imagined in some Western European countries, they would (ostensibly) leave once their obligations have been fulfilled. The processes of inclusion and exclusion have garnered scholarly attention since they emerged as political issues. In places where inclusion was simply expected to occur, 156

Inclusion and exclusion  157 labor-market and educational segregation of the second (and third) generations of migrants have shown that, in reality, legal inclusion through citizenship does not necessarily mean full recognition by or full structural inclusion into the receiving society. Conversely, where social exclusion dictated that migrants would return to their origin countries once their contributions were no longer necessary, migrants have been included in a number of unexpected ways. Even in cases of total exclusion, for example, in the case of irregular migrants, who have entered the territory and resided in receiving societies without the corresponding authorization, migrants have discovered ways to be included, for instance, in the labor market or in the education or healthcare systems. Such contradictions challenge the prevailing wisdom regarding migrant inclusion and exclusion and highlight the important gaps in governing and understanding these processes. Accordingly, since the last decades of the twentieth century, parallel and sustained efforts have emerged. For one, state institutions have multiplied their strategies and strengthened their ability to include or exclude migrants, depending on the situation. Secondly, scholarly interest in these processes has escalated, with a proliferation of new studies and debates, and more sophisticated accounts to understand them. The aim of this chapter is to critically review the evolution of research on migrant inclusion and exclusion, with a focus on the latest research developments. This evolution has taken place in a number of different dimensions, offering a complex, fragmented, and contradictory picture of inclusion and exclusion processes in contemporary global society. Along this path, a paradigmatic shift has been achieved by reconsidering the role of nation states as the natural containers for society, which have the power over inclusion and exclusion. Newer perspectives accord a central role to the concept of society, understood as a larger, all-encompassing ensemble composed of functionally differentiated sub-systems—among which states, while certainly important, are nevertheless only a part. The sub-systems of societies are each able to determine their own, partial forms of inclusion or exclusion, generating a myriad of diversified, and, at times, even contradictory, inclusion patterns. In the following section of the chapter, we focus on those accounts that have interpreted the inclusion and exclusion of migrants as something related to the desires and efforts of nation states, and, therefore, essentially as a state affaire. We then turn to accounts that have delved into the inclusion and exclusion of migrants as the result of complex social interactions within an increasingly globalized and differentiated society, essentially a social affaire. In the last part of the chapter, we analyze a selection of research studies that observe migrant inclusion and exclusion patterns from innovative and multifaceted perspectives.

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION AS A STATE AFFAIRE Migration studies have long focused on the interrelationship between migrants and the receiving society. In the sociology of migration in the United States, the inclusion and exclusion of migrants into receiving societies was initially viewed from the perspective of cultural assimilation or ethnic segregation (e.g. Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918; Eisenstadt, 1955), while subsequent works pointed to the importance of structural incorporation for the determination of the ‘structural effects and the fate of migrants themselves’ (Portes, 1981, p. 295). Interestingly, the interrelationship between migrants and the receiving society has been described as ‘incorporation’, ‘adaptation’, ‘absorption’, and sometimes ‘integration’; the

158  Research handbook on the sociology of migration terms ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ are rarely mentioned. Furthermore, the role of the state in steering migrants’ structural inclusion and/or cultural assimilation has been largely overlooked by US researchers. In Western Europe, where migration research had initially focused on migrants as a labor resource, researchers have explored the relationship between immigration and class (Castles & Kosack, 1973; Miller, 1981). Since migrants were generally not perceived as permanent settlers, there was little attention devoted to inclusion and exclusion patterns. Yet, the increase in permanent settlement among ‘guestworkers’, together with continued flows of asylum seekers and those seeking family reunification, even in the face of the immigration ‘stop’ in 1973 in Europe, has raised new questions about the relationship between newcomers and receiving societies. Especially in traditional ‘guestworker’ countries such as Germany and Switzerland, researchers began to assess challenges such as migrant segregation over the long-term (Hoffmann-Nowotny & Hondrich, 1982) and to discuss the different dimensions of social integration and migrant connections to the community of origin (Esser, 1980). Moreover, the legal status of migrants as a possible barrier to full integration in receiving societies started to draw scholarly attention. Researchers pointed to the difference in Western European societies between citizens with full civil, social, and political rights and denizens, citizens without political rights even though they may have social and civil rights (Hammar, 1990). The full legal inclusion of migrants through citizenship acquisition paved the way for a lively academic debate on membership, which has continued over the last 30 years (Bauböck, 1992). In contrast to the case of the United States, European research has pointed to the crucial role of the state for promoting inclusion and exclusion patterns in receiving societies through more or less liberal migration policies (Miles & Thränhardt, 1995; Boswell, 2003). The state has been deemed responsible for not only attracting desirable migrants and preventing the entry of unwanted migrants but also for promoting inclusion through integration programs, easier naturalization procedures, and access to ius soli. Against this backdrop, debates about state integration models and programs dominated a good deal of the European migration research at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Koopmans, Staham, Passy, & Giugni, 2005; Joppke, 2007). Ultimately, it can be argued that migrant inclusion and exclusion in Europe are mainly considered a state affaire. In fact, a crucial element of weakness affecting the study of international migration is related to the uncritical adoption of a nation state-centric perspective (see, for instance: Beck, 2003; Friese & Mezzadra, 2010; Echeverría, 2020; Isin, 2009; Mezzadra, 2011; Schinkel, 2010; Wimmer & Glick-Schiller, 2002). According to this perspective, the nation state is the site for migrant inclusion and/or exclusion. Since the idea of the nation state implies a perfect correspondence among the national territory, the national society, and the sovereignty of the national political authority, inclusion and exclusion have primarily been considered matters of territorial inclusion. The concept of ‘methodological nationalism’ has been proposed to describe the epistemological, conceptual, and methodological problems generated by the assumption ‘that the nation/state/society is the natural social and political form of the modern world’ (Wimmer & Glick-Schiller, 2002, p. 302). Not surprisingly, if embracing the concept of states as containers of society, migration researchers’ interpretative frames are strongly influenced by the characteristics of the nation states in which migration takes place. International migration and migrants will be observed differently depending on ‘the design of these states, their way of reproducing sovereignty, and the related conceptualisation of loyalty and power relations’ (Bommes & Thränhardt, 2012, p. 210). In such a context, the idea that different countries pursue different inclusion patterns

Inclusion and exclusion  159 and that some are more efficient than others starts to gain relevance for scholarly debates, as in the case of the emerging divide between Northern and Southern European countries (e.g. Baldwin-Edwards, 1997). Arguments concerning the large number of irregular migrants, and the small number of refugees in Southern Europe, have been used to highlight the North–South gap between strong and weak control regimes in Europe and to stress the marginalization of irregular migrants in Southern Europe compared to their Northern European neighbors (Thränhardt, 2003). Southern European integration regimes have been described as ‘perilously close to a de facto policy of differential exclusion’ (Freeman, 2004, p. 961)—a condition in which mere socio-economic integration is not combined with measures promoting stable immigrant settlement over the long term. Consequently, as Calavita (2005, p. 2) has noted: ‘despite all the rhetoric and policies aimed at facilitating integration, immigrants remain a class of pariahs, vulnerable to the kind of attacks described here, and vulnerable to the everyday experiences of exclusion that derive from and signify their marginality’. Yet, a combination of external shocks, together with new empirical data on migration, present a picture that clearly contradicts this idea. Regardless of their legal status in a given national territory, migrants may display very different degrees of inclusion and exclusion. Moreover, new forms of transnational, de-territorialized inclusion, sometimes even sponsored by nation states, has become increasingly relevant. We refer, for instance, to the economic, social, and political activities and involvement of migrants in their countries of origin from abroad (Faist, 2000; Glick-Schiller, Basch, & Blanc-Szanton, 1992; Portes, 2001, 2003; Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt, 1999). Likewise, the terrorist attacks in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, together with the urban riots in the migrant neighborhoods of major Northern European cities, clearly show that legal inclusion through citizenship does not necessarily mean social and cultural inclusion. Accordingly, the idea that inclusion and exclusion are a social rather than a state affaire has started to gain more traction among migration scholars.

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION AS A SOCIAL AFFAIRE The heterogeneity and unpredictability of migrant inclusion and exclusion patterns in receiving societies and the frequent incongruence of their outcomes in relation to political and administrative expectations have revealed the complexity of these processes, as well as the limitations affecting our understandings of them. The data emerging from empirical analyses portray a fragmented picture that has captured the overlapping of new and old forms of inclusion and exclusion, both within and across nation state borders. These results inevitably signal the need for a critical revision of dominant conceptual and theoretical frameworks and the development of new approaches. Critics of the container view on nation states have called for a return to the concept of society as a wider, more realistic framework for interpreting human relations. The state and the inventory of related concepts, such as national populations, national territory, sovereignty, citizenship, and integration should be considered historical constructs that, while important, cannot by themselves make sense of the whole of social reality. In a similar fashion, other scholars cite problems with the view that states are the ‘control units of society’ (Bommes, 2012a, p. 166). Bommes has underlined how this idea entails a ‘limited concept of social structure’ (Bommes, 2012b, p. 20). He suggests nation states are not superposed, all-embracing

160  Research handbook on the sociology of migration containers of society, but rather internal components of society. Similarly, Broeders highlights the tendency (even within the social sciences) to fully believe in clichés constructed from a statist perspective (Broeders, 2009). For instance, powerful ideas of states as ‘fortresses’ or ‘panopticons’ imply that they are overwhelming and undisputedly capable of controlling society, able to regulate the inclusion and exclusion of migrants at will. While these ideas may fulfill a social or political function, evidence has shown that they are partial and potentially misleading. On the basis of these criticisms, and connecting to more generalized theories of society, innovative approaches to the inclusion and exclusion of migrants have started to emerge since the 2000s. A common departure point is the intention to overcome the idea of migrant inclusion and exclusion as essentially a state affaire, and to explore instead the idea that they represent a social affaire. Within this effort, an important stream of research, which explicitly adopts the theoretical elements and concepts of Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory, has been inspired by the seminal works of Michael Bommes (Bommes & Geddes, 2000; Sciortino, 2004; Boswell, 2007; Cvajner & Sciortino, 2010; Bommes & Sciortino, 2011; Echeverría, 2020). At the basis of these interpretations, there is a radically alternative conceptualization of society. The concept of modern society proposed by Luhmann derives from its form of differentiation. Each form of social differentiation, in his perspective, entails a different, structural, way to include and exclude individuals (Luhmann, 1995, 2012). He argues, ‘We understand modern society as a functionally differentiated society’ (Luhmann, 2013, p. 87). This type of differentiation had become dominant between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, replacing the previously dominant stratified type of differentiation, in which the inclusion mechanism involved membership in certain social strata (nobility, clergy, commoners) (Luhmann, 2013, p. 27). According to ascribed individual characteristics such as house or family of birth, each person pertained exclusively to one social stratum for life. It was in relation to such membership that individuals were part of society. The transition to a functionally differentiated society has precipitated a far-reaching transformation. In relation to individuals, functional systems, unlike social strata, are, at least in principle, all-inclusive. In other words, they include or exclude individuals only on the basis of their particular functional code and are indifferent to all other possible characteristics. To give an example, the economic system only distinguishes between a convenient or inconvenient economic transaction, and does not take into consideration whether the participants are Mexican or Egyptian, doctors or carpenters, aristocrats or clergy; the scientific system considers a communication only on the basis of its scientific value, and it is not concerned about whether the proponent comes from Nigeria or Japan, is rich or poor, is lawfully residing on a particular territory or not, etc. (Echeverría, 2020, p. 105). The same logic applies to every functional system. In modern society, the ‘chances to become included in different social realms – the economy, law, politics, education, health and the family – are no longer based on descent, or belonging to a social strata, or to an ethnic or religious group’ (Bommes, 2012b, p. 37). In this sense, there is no unitary principle of inclusion or exclusion. One cannot be fully included or fully excluded; all are differentially included. Another crucial implication of the rise in functional differentiation as the main type of social differentiation has been the globalization of societal communication, or the development of a unified world society. Functional systems do not recognize territorial borders because there is no translation of the national/non-national code into their operations. A decisive implication

Inclusion and exclusion  161 of this evolution is the increasing pressure on individuals to follow the inclusion opportunities offered by the different social systems (the economy, education, the family, science, religion, etc.) wherever they emerge, resulting in a tremendous push on international migrations. It is in this sense that migration can be understood as ‘a form of mobility offering chances for inclusion’ (Bommes, 2012b, p. 26). Yet, to fully grasp contemporary inclusion and exclusion processes, the specific role of states must be taken into account. While all the other functional systems have a global reach, the political system, in order to better fulfill its function, namely, ‘the capacity to produce collectively binding decisions’ (Luhmann, 2009, p. 143), is segmentally divided into territorial states. Given the complexity of the political function, states have historically developed two additional strategies: the capacity to force obedience when voluntary collaboration is excluded (the monopoly over the legitimate use of violence) and the stimulation of voluntary collaboration through a quid pro quo logic (obedience in exchange for security, rights, and welfare) (Echeverría, 2020). Both strategies are implemented through the adoption and imposition of a membership status—formal, national citizenship. The rise of states as the main form of political organization has resulted in an attempt to enclose societal opportunities—the access to functional systems—within the borders that divide each territory (Bommes & Sciortino, 2011, p. 214). While citizens (nationals) are entitled to freely circulate in and out and access the opportunities offered within the national territory, non-citizens (foreigners) are banned from crossing national borders without permission and are in principle excluded from virtually every opportunity and benefit. In other words, states attempt to restore an all-encompassing, unitary principle of inclusion and exclusion. The creation of identity cards able to certify the lawful or unlawful residence status of the holder and the effort to impose identity checks in order to access other social systems, for instance, the labor market, the healthcare system, the educational system, etc., are precisely aimed at linking and conditioning inclusion to other functional systems to inclusion in the state. Thanks to these configurations, as suggested by Bommes and Geddes, states have evolved into ‘thresholds of inequalities’ (Stichweh, 1998; Bommes & Geddes, 2000), a marked tendency stemming from the evolution of the welfare state. To be a citizen of a rich state and not a poor one, allows incomparably better access to functional systems. Migration thus becomes a way to ‘achieve inclusion and participation in the various social systems – and with them, access to the relevant social and economic resources – by means of geographical and border-crossing mobility’ (Bommes & Sciortino, 2011, p. 214). Notwithstanding their ambitions, states have only partially translated these strategies into reality. On the one hand, even the most powerful state is not fully able to impose the member/ non-member logic, either in territorial terms (physical inclusion) or with regard to other functional systems (social inclusion). In certain contexts, state intervention is wide-ranging and effectively penetrates numerous areas of society (Bommes, 2012a, p. 166), while in others, it is more limited. On the other hand, while it is true that membership is the core feature of the state and that forgoing this could undermine its very existence, the main function of the political system is not the distinction between members and non-members, but the production of collectively binding decisions. In relation to this function, a membership strategy is certainly useful, but it is not the only one. In particular, if it is true that society is functionally differentiated, and that individuals seek inclusion in different systems, the political system, in order to fulfill its own function, cannot impede the functioning of the other systems. If that were the case and communication with other systems became obstructed, the possibility to produce

162  Research handbook on the sociology of migration collectively binding decisions could be seriously undermined (Echeverría, 2020). Individuals would have strong incentives not to follow the decisions of a system that precludes all other communication. For this reason, states are pushed to develop ecological equilibriums with other systems through irritation/resonance relations (Sciortino, 2000). Moreover, the recent evolution of citizenship constellations and the proliferation of overlapping forms of membership has partially disrupted the exclusiveness of state belonging. Dual-nationality rules or EU citizenship prevent political systems from banning communication with other political systems, facilitating individual, strategic, decision-making regarding the chances for inclusion (Finotelli, La Barbera, & Echeverría, 2018). It is precisely within the space of variability determined by the dialectic between the all-inclusiveness of functional systems and the exclusiveness of states in world society that contemporary inclusion and exclusion processes should be assessed. As becomes apparent, the relations between migrants and states are much more complex than the ideas of a forthright contraposition, or full exclusion, may suggest. The perspective offered by social systems theory suggests that this relation is embodied in a wide variety of territorial settings (Bommes & Geddes, 2000), which enable a similarly complex variety of potential individual inclusion and exclusion careers (Cvajner & Sciortino, 2010; Echeverría, 2020). The main consequence of this radically differential perspective is that the particular phenomenology of inclusion and exclusion processes cannot be theoretically or legally deduced; it must be empirically researched (Echeverría, 2020). Social systems theory has proven a particularly fruitful approach to better understand the functioning of irregular migration systems. Recent empirical works show that the lack of a residence permit does not necessarily imply full marginalization, as many former critics had forecasted (Bommes & Sciortino, 2011). In fact, through the combination of individual capital, such as a high education level or particular skills, social networks, and favorable structural conditions (such as an extended informal economy), irregular migrants can develop survival strategies that allow them to access jobs, healthcare, schools and universities for their children, despite their formal exclusion from the political system (Cvajner & Sciortino, 2011; Echeverría, 2020). At the same time, researchers have shown that differences in the type and size of irregular migration systems often depend on how states observe and act upon them. Against this backdrop, the fewer numbers of irregular migrants in Northern European countries, as compared to Southern Europe, does not depend on more efficient border and internal controls but on the fact that politically unwanted migrants in Northern European countries have been mainly managed through humanitarian channels. In Southern Europe, for instance, a large proportion of irregular flows have passed through the mechanism of ex post regularization based on the economic legitimization of irregular migrants. In contrast, in Germany, asylum regulations and non-refoulement rules have allowed migrants who have entered the country irregularly to avoid return once they apply for asylum. For many, claiming asylum became a way to legalize irregular status ex ante and, in the case of a negative decision, stay on the territory waiting for deportation, often impossible to implement (Finotelli, 2009). Likewise, differences in the public perception of irregular migrants in Spain and the Netherlands are mostly related to the different logics of internal controls in the two countries (Echeverría, 2020). Yet, social systems theory has not only been useful to understand differences between nation states (and to question the North–South divide in immigration control) but also to reveal the apparent contradictions within them. For instance, the case of Germany, with its contradictions between restrictionist immigration dogmas and progressive opening to

Inclusion and exclusion  163 highly skilled migration, has been explained through the functional differentiation between symbolic politics and the daily practice of state bureaucrats (Kolb, 2004). Social systems theories have also proven useful for understanding inclusion dynamics within organizations; in highly codified organizations, such as hospitals, adaptation to strict professional dynamics is more important for workplace integration than ethnic differences or legal precariousness (Finotelli, 2019). The case of foreign healthcare workers in hospitals clearly suggests the need to address organizations and their specific functional codes to better understand the complex mechanisms of migrant inclusion processes beyond national integration frameworks.

CONCLUSION Academic debates concerning the inclusion and exclusion of migrants have long been dominated by the idea that these processes are largely a state matter. According to this view, the state is responsible for designing and implementing the conditions for the legal, economic, and cultural inclusion (or exclusion) of migrants. This top-down approach, with the state at the forefront, has prevented researchers from fully grasping the complexities of inclusion and exclusion in destination countries. For example, such an approach cannot explain why the lack of legal inclusion does not necessarily trigger marginalization or why possessing citizenship is a necessary but not sufficient condition for socio-economic and cultural inclusion. Over the last few decades, innovative approaches to addressing this crucial problem have started to emerge. A particularly compelling strand of research has introduced concepts developed by social systems theory into the field of migration studies. This theoretical conversation has helped to better understand the apparent contradiction between migrants’ lives and state policies by moving from the conception of society as a vertically organized structure with the state on top to the idea of a functionally differentiated society consisting of different, independent, but communicating social systems—politics, economics, education, health, and the law. Such a shift allows us to see migrant inclusion and exclusion not as an absolute, on/ off condition, determined by states but rather as a partial, sometimes contradictory condition determined by the interplay of individuals with different functional systems, each characterized by its own internal logic and codes. In this perspective, the role of states is reconsidered but not at all neglected. Political organizations observe migration and act according to their logics, taking advantage of the powerful tools in their hands. Their efforts, however, are only partially able to determine the other social systems and the ways in which they observe and act with regard to migration. A perspective that integrates social systems theory contributes to a better understanding of apparently contradictory empirical realities, including economic-based tolerance of politically unwanted forms of migration and the concurrence of restrictionist discourses by governments with the inclusive daily practice of state bureaucracies. The analysis of migration from a social systems perspective also opens new research opportunities since it suggests that not only migrants and their lives but also the consequences of migration for society should be the objects of migration research. Put differently, the study of international migration can reveal much more about the social and political structures of their context of destination, rather than only about migrants themselves. Against this backdrop, the rise of anti-immigrant populism, the reluctance to accept asylum seekers in certain countries, and the widespread presence of irregular domestic workers in the labor market appear as key strategic material for future

164  Research handbook on the sociology of migration research on the evolution of liberal democracies and the functioning of modern national welfare states.

NOTE 1.

The exhibition ‘La Mano, l’errore e il trionfo’ (‘The Hand, the error and the triumph’, Milan, 2014), organized by the same Conservatory of Milan to celebrate 200 years since the birth of Verdi, represented an occasion to inform the public about the selection procedure and to publicly amend the selection commission’s crucial mistake; see http://​archivi​.beniculturali​.it/​index​.php/​news​-home/​ item/​933​-milano​-13​-febbraio​-2014​-​%7C​-la​-mano​-l​%E2​%80​%99errore​-il​-trionfo.

FURTHER READING/WATCHING/LISTENING Giorgio Gaber, ‘Il sogno in due tempi’, https://​www​.youtube​.com/​watch​?v​=​1Q0o​-NM5eoY. Giuseppe Verdi, ‘Nabucco’.

REFERENCES Baldwin-Edwards, M. (1997). The emerging European immigration regime: Some reflections on implications for Southern Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 35(4), 497–519. Bauböck, R. (1992). Changing the boundaries of citizenship: The inclusion of immigrants in democratic polities. London: Routledge. Beck, U. (2003). Toward a new critical theory with a cosmopolitan intent. Constellations, 10(4), 453–468. Bommes, M. (2012a). Illegal migration in modern society: Consequences and problems of national European migration policies. In C. Boswell & G. D’Amato (Eds.) Immigration and social systems: Collected essays of Michael Bommes (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Bommes, M. (2012b). Migration in modern society. In C. Boswell & G. D’Amato (Eds.) Immigration and social systems: Collected essays of Michael Bommes (pp. 19–36). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Bommes, M., & Geddes, A. (Eds.) (2000). Immigration and welfare: Challenging the borders of the welfare state. London and New York: Routledge. Bommes, M., & Sciortino, G. (Eds.) (2011). Foggy social structures: Irregular migration, European labour markets and the welfare state. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Bommes, M., & Thränhardt, D. (2012). National paradigms of migration research. In C. Boswell & G. D’Amato (Eds.) Immigration and social systems: Collected essays of Michael Bommes (pp. 201–232). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Boswell, C. (2003). European migration policies in flux: Changing patterns of inclusion and exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell. Boswell, C. (2007). Theorizing migration policy: Is there a third way? International Migration Review, 41(1), 75–100. Broeders, D. (2009). Breaking down anonymity: Digital surveillance on irregular migrants in Germany and the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit. Calavita, K. (2005). Immigrants at the margins: Law, race, and exclusion in Southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Castles, S., & Kosack, G. (1973). Immigrant workers and class structure in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cvajner, M., & Sciortino, G. (2010). Theorizing irregular migration: The control of spatial mobility in differentiated societies. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 389–404.

Inclusion and exclusion  165 Cvajner, M., & Sciortino, G. (2011). Special issue: Survival strategies of irregular immigrants. Migration Letters, 8(1). Echeverría, G. (2020). Towards a systemic theory of irregular migration: Explaining Ecuadorian irregular migration to Amsterdam and Madrid. Cham: IMISCOE Research/Springer. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1955). The absorption of immigrants. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Esser, H. (1980). Aspekte der Wanderungssoziologie. Assimilation und Integration von Wanderern, ethnischen Gruppen und Minderheiten. Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand. Faist, T. (2000). Transnationalization in international migration: Implications for the study of citizenship and culture. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(2), 189–222. Finotelli, C. (2009). The north–south myth revised: A comparison of the Italian and German migration regimes. West European Politics, 32(5), 886–903. Finotelli, C. (2019). Integration at work: Migrant healthcare professionals in two Spanish hospitals. Migration Studies, 9(10). Finotelli, C., La Barbera, M. C., & Echeverría, G. (2018). Beyond instrumental citizenship: The Spanish and Italian citizenship regimes in times of crisis. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(14), 2320–2339. Freeman, G. (2004). Immigrant incorporation in Western democracies. International Migration Review, 38(3), 945–969. Friese, H., & Mezzadra, S. (2010). Introduction. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 299–313. Glick-Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Blanc-Szanton, C. (1992). Towards a definition of transnationalism. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 645(1), ix–xiv. Hammar, T. (1990). Democracy and the nation state: Aliens, denizens and citizens in a world of international migration. Aldershot: Avebury. Hoffmann-Nowotny, H.-J., & Hondrich, K.-O. (Eds.) (1982). Ausliinder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und in der Schweiz. Frankfurt: Campus. Isin, E. F. (2009). Citizenship in flux: The figure of the activist citizen. Subjectivity, 29(1), 367–388. Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22. Kolb, H. (2004). Einwanderung zwischen wohlverstandenem Eigeninteresse und symbolischer Politik: das Beispiel der deutschen ‘Green Card’ (Vol. 12). Münster: LIT Verlag. Koopmans, R., Staham, P., Passy, F., & Giugni, M. (2005). Contested citizenship: Immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press. Luhmann, N. (1995). Inklusion und Exklusion. In N. Luhmann (Ed.) Sociolische Aufklärung 6 (pp. 237–264). Opladen: Westdeutsher Verlag. Luhmann, N. (2009). La política como sistema. México: Universidad Iberoamericana. Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of society – Volume 1. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Luhmann, N. (2013). Theory of society – Volume 2. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Mezzadra, S. (2011). The gaze of autonomy: Capitalism, migration and social struggles. In V. Squire (Ed.) The contested politics of mobility: Borderzones and irregularity (pp. 121–143). London: Routledge. Miles, R., & Thränhardt, D. (1995). Migration and European integration: The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. London and Madison, NJ: Pinter Publishers & Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Miller, M. (1981). Foreign workers in Western Europe: An emerging political force. New York: Praeger. Portes, A. (1981). Modes of structural incorporation and present theories of labour immigration. In M. Kritz, C. B. Keely, & S. M. Tomasi (Eds.) Global trends in migration: Theory and research on international population movements (pp. 279–297). New York: Center for Migration Studies. Portes, A. (2001). Introduction: The debates and significance of immigrant transnationalism. Global Networks, 1(3), 181–194. Portes, A. (2003). Conclusion: Theoretical convergencies and empirical evidence in the study of immigrant transnationalism. International Migration Review, 37(3), 874–892. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, P. (1999). The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 217–237. Schinkel, W. (2010). The virtualization of citizenship. Critical Sociology, 36(2), 265–283. Sciortino, G. (2000). Toward a political sociology of entry policies: Conceptual problems and theoretical proposals. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 26(2), 213–228.

166  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Sciortino, G. (2004). Between phantoms and necessary evils. Some critical points in the study of irregular migrations to Western Europe. IMIS-Beiträge, 24, 17–43. Stichweh, R. (1998). Migration, nationale Wohlfahrtsstaaten und die Entstehung der Weltgesellschaft. In M. Bommes & J. Halfmann (Eds.) Migration in nationalen Wohlfahrtsstaaten. Theoretische und vergleichende Untersuchungen (IMIS-Schriften, vol. 6) (pp. 49–61). Osnabrück: Universitätsverlag Rasch. Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918). The Polish peasant in Europe and America, 2 vols. New York: Knopf. Thränhardt, D. (2003). Where and why? Comparative perspectives on asylum in the OECD world. In J. Doormenik & H. Knippenberg (Eds.) Immigration and immigrants: Between policy and reality. A volume in honor of Hans van Amersfoort (pp. 18–41). Amsterdam: Aksant. Wimmer, A., & Glick-Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334.

14. Remittances in a world of uncertainty and insecurity Ibrahim Sirkeci

INTRODUCTION Remittance flows provide a lifeline to households in sending countries, as well as local and national economies in the developing world (Ratha & Sirkeci, 2010, p. 125). They also represent a stable source of hard currency for sending nations. Concerns about declines in remittances are not new. There were similar concerns in the previous global crisis (see, for example, Lopez, Livingston, & Kochhar, 2009). However, it was shown that these concerns were largely unfounded as remittances did not fall as much as expected (Ratha, Mohapatra, & Xu, 2008; Ratha & Sirkeci, 2010, p. 126). The COVID-19 pandemic has caused great disruption in every domain; politics, societies, and economies have changed in many respects. Remittances have also been subject to these changes. Nevertheless, neither the root causes of human mobility nor the mechanisms moving people from one place to another have changed categorically. Inequalities and the resulting insecurities still influence our spatial decisions and strategies. COVID-19 is certainly a significant global crisis and it is likely to have a lasting impact and make human mobility a little more difficult. Therefore, remittances as part of household strategies remain important for debates on human mobility, as well as for the challenges encouraging migration around the world. Our understanding of remittances and the scholarship on them have expanded significantly in the last two to three decades. While monetary remittances are more visible and the most discussed, non-monetary remittances have also been explored, and the wider impact of remittances has been acknowledged. Remittances are typically the money or goods that migrants send back to families and friends in the countries of origin. Social remittances (Levitt, 1998) include the transfer of ideas, identities, behaviors, social capital, and knowledge acquired by migrants. Both monetary and social remittances are known to have an impact on development. For example, formal monetary remittances exceed official development aid (Sirkeci, Cohen, & Ratha, 2012). In this chapter, I first discuss the key concepts and models concerning remittances, and their evolution. I then illustrate the various trends in remittance behavior across the globe and over time. To conclude, I point to some directions for future research on remittances.

STUDYING REMITTANCES AND CONTEMPORARY THEMES The way we understand and frame human mobility determines how we approach remittances. Oded Stark and colleagues have underlined the importance of relative deprivation and the role of the household (Stark, 1984; Stark, Taylor, & Yitzhaki, 1986; Stark & Taylor, 1989). Lucas and Stark (1985) have asserted a crucial distinction between altruism and self-interest in 167

168  Research handbook on the sociology of migration sending remittances. Households have been discussed as a key decision-making unit both for migration and remittances flows (Cohen & Sirkeci, 2012). Most of the literature on migration, however, uses the simplistic frame of the push-pull model, but, more recently, a burgeoning literature emphasizing aspirations as key drivers has emerged. In these models, there is very little room for remittance behavior but it can nevertheless be a part of the considerations. Many other models can accommodate remittances as a risk-minimizing and diversifying instrument opted for by households. It is also important to understand that remittances are a form of funding migration in a similar way that one may take a (either bank or informal) loan and pay it back later. Loan payments are already a known target for remittance use (see Antoniades, Seshan, Weber, & Zubrickas, 2018). Remittances sent to source migration countries, their impact on development, alleviating poverty, and contribution to household expenditures have frequently been discussed in studies of migration. Remittances often boost the consumption of family and friends left behind and may also act as insurance against risks and or shocks faced by families at home. In the same vein, remittances are used, for example, to cover healthcare costs (see Cox, Eser, & Jimenez, 1998). This usage is possibly one of the reasons for the sustained growth of remittances during the COVID pandemic. Another important aspect of sending remittances is the level of investments and links among countries of diaspora and countries of origin. The volume and frequency of remittances is moderated by the diaspora’s size and age. Recent or new migrants tend to remit more, and more often, compared to their descendants. Another important moderator involves the immigration and settlement regimes of destination countries. Immigrants in places where contract migration is common and permanent residency and/or citizenship are more difficult to attain are likely to send more remittances as there is little opportunity for investment in those countries. Transaction costs represent a relatively understudied area in remittance scholarship, even though they are a critical point in policy debates. The 3 percent level of transaction cost proposed by the Sustainable Development Goals remains a distant target. The costs of sending remittances have been very high for the more disadvantaged (Sirkeci & Přívara, 2017) and this continues to be the case (World Bank, 2021a; Kpodar, Gammadigbe, Quayyum, & Mlachila, 2021). We have seen a paradigm shift with the introduction of the concept of social remittances (Levitt, 1998; Levitt and Lamba-Nieves, 2013) and other non-monetary remittances, which can refer to everything other than money transfer between destination and sending countries. Levitt (1998, p. 927) describes social remittances as ‘the ideas, behaviours, identities, and social capital that flow from receiving to sending country communities’. In other words, we can refer to all social, cultural, and political outcomes of migration for sending communities as social remittances. Nevertheless, I would argue that such a position would be as one sided as most of the literature on monetary remittances. For various reasons, sending households remit money to their members abroad, especially in the early period after emigration. Similarly, we can (and should) discuss what social, cultural, and political influences immigrants and their sending communities bring to destinations. Otherwise, we can find it difficult to explain ‘reverse remittances’ (Mazzucato, 2009), for instance, how doner kebab has become mainstream fast food across Europe (Sirkeci, 2016). A recent review of the economic literature on remittances by Tuccio and Wahba (2020) comprehensively summarizes and identifies its main themes. There is a clear expansion of work on social remittances, which enhances our knowledge on changing norms, including

Remittances in a world of uncertainty and insecurity  169 gender norms (Tuccio & Wahba, 2018), fertility behaviors (Beine, Docquier, & Schiff, 2013), knowledge transfers (Bahar & Rapoport, 2018), and so on (see also Lacroix, Levitt, & Vari-Lavoisier, 2016). Nevertheless, this particular subfield is understudied and warrants further research (Tuccio & Wahba, 2020). In their study of a Dominican migrant community, Levitt and Lamba-Nieves (2013, p. 19) also expose another common bias about the positive impact of (social) remittances: ‘[O]ver time, migrants and non-migrants have all become acutely aware that not all social remittances are positive’. It is important to recognize the pros and cons of both monetary and non-monetary remittances. More recently, we have also seen an increasing interest in irregular remittances and the remittances of irregular migrants. Understandably, it is much more difficult to capture this segment of global remittances. Informal remittances understandably go hand in hand with irregular migration (Ambrosius & Cuecuecha, 2016; Freund & Spatafora, 2008; Tilbe, 2016, 2019; Zewdu, 2018). Sending remittances via informal channels is not generally a personal choice; it is often dictated by the status of migrants. Hence, irregular migrants with no or very limited access to banking facilities are forced to utilize informal transfers (Tilbe, 2019, p. 175). Another important driver of informal remittances is the transaction cost (Freund & Spatafora, 2008). There has been a decline in the costs of sending remittances over the last two decades but transaction costs remain significantly higher when sending money to some of the most disadvantaged developing countries (Sirkeci & Přívara, 2017). There are persistent calls to drive the costs down to 3 percent as part of the international remittance agenda included among the indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals (Mohieldin & Ratha, 2020). Informal remittances are difficult to measure and often underestimated within the overall figures reported by banks around the world: ‘Unrecorded flows through informal channels are believed to be at least 50 percent larger than recorded flows’ (Ratha, 2020). This vast difference is significant, given the fact that global remittances grew from about $450 billion to over $700 billion in a decade (World Bank, 2021a). It is also important to note that informal remittances account for a large portion of global personal remittances and they represent the majority of remittances received in certain, often less developed, countries such as Congo (Sumata & Cohen, 2018, p. 98).

RESEARCHING REMITTANCES World Bank surveys and reports are the main sources of quantitative data for research on remittances. There is a significant investment in this research area, both from within and outside the bank. Dilip Ratha’s contribution by creating and funding many projects, particularly the development of KNOMAD (the Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and Development), has been critical in the development of this field. Nevertheless, studies dependent on World Bank data—based on International Monetary Fund (IMF) statistics—are skewed towards monetary remittances and data on these are often incomplete. About one third of countries do not collect regular remittance data while the data collected by many others are not perfect. Moreover, data are often limited to compensation of employees and personal transfers through formal channels and do not necessarily cover the small amounts sent through money transfer agencies and other channels (see Irving, Mohapatra, & Ratha, 2010). Irving et al.

170  Research handbook on the sociology of migration (2010) have also shown that definitions are not always coherent, and personal transfers often conflate remittances with other transfers, including diaspora investment. Widely used remittance data are marked by the limitations of the definitions used. Employee compensation is ‘the income of border, seasonal, and other short-term workers who are employed in an economy where they are not resident and of residents employed by nonresident entities’ (IMF, 2009, p. 272); and ‘personal transfers consist of all current transfers in cash or in kind made or received by resident households to or from nonresident households. Personal transfers thus include all current transfers between resident and nonresident individual’ (IMF, 2009, p. 273). Reinke (2007, p. 1) also argues that the low quality or less credible data on remittances, compared to other balance of payment components, is due to ‘the inadequacy of practical compilation guidance for data compilers’. For researchers, policy makers, and practitioners alike, it is important to understand the definitions of the components used in remittance calculations within the balance of payments framework: ‘Compensation of employees is a component of income while workers’ remittances are a component of current transfers; and both are part of the current account. Migrants’ transfers are a component of capital transfers, which is part of the capital account’ (Reinke, 2007, p. 2). The first definition is straightforward; it consists of wages and salaries earned and transferred. The second involves current transfers by migrants and their dependants: ‘Migrants’ transfers are contra-entries to the flow of goods and changes in financial items that arise from the migration of individuals from one economy to another’ (Reinke, 2007, p. 2). ‘Migrant transfers’ has been replaced with ‘Personal remittances’ to cover all cash or in-kind transfers, as well as all income. Personal remittances are included in ‘Total remittances’, the social benefits covering all household earnings from working abroad. According to the World Bank (n.d.): Personal remittances is the sum of personal transfers and compensation of employees. Personal transfers include all current transfers in cash or in kind between resident and nonresident individuals, independent of the source of income of the sender (and regardless of whether the sender receives income from labor, entrepreneurial or property income, social benefits, and any other types of transfers; or disposes assets) and the relationship between the households (regardless of whether they are related or unrelated individuals).

Moreover, the compensation of employees representing wages and salaries in cash, in kind, and employers’ social contributions is ‘recorded gross and includes amounts paid by the employee as taxes or for other purposes in the economy where the work is performed’ (World Bank, n.d.). The complexity of the data and what they cover blurs the global remittances map. To further complicate the matter, one should remember that personal remittances data are provided by the IMF’s Balance of Payment Statistics database and then the missing information is gap-filled by the World Bank estimates. Hence, the World Bank’s (2016) estimate of, for example, over $600 billion global remittances in 2015 should not be interpreted as cash received and spent by households and communities left behind. The actual amounts can be expected to be significantly smaller. Nevertheless, in 2010, a survey on how central banks collect data and calculate remittances (including irregular transfers) found that new technologies used in transfers were overlooked by nearly half of the central banks (Irving et al., 2010, p. 10). Formal remittances are regularly reported and estimated more or less objectively. World Bank surveys and World Bank experts are leading this field with regular feeds and reports. However, there are large discrepancies in what has been reported in these surveys and what

Remittances in a world of uncertainty and insecurity  171 central banks submitted to the IMF in Balance of Payments reports. For example, remittances reported to the IMF in 2007 only totaled $105 million, whereas $1.8 billion were reported in the survey for Ghana. Similarly, as opposed to the $5 billion reported to the IMF, $14.8 billion were reported in the survey for the UK (Irving et al., 2010, pp. 8–9). Estimating informal remittances represents another large grey area; there is no commonly used definition and method of measurement. Nearly half of the central banks around the world (42 percent) use propensity to remit and surveys to estimate transfers via informal channels (Irving et al., 2010, p. 8). However, informal channels and irregular migrants’ involvement make these calculations unreliable guesswork at best (see Tilbe, 2019). There are other methods, such as estimating based on cash carried across borders by individuals, expert estimates, newspaper reports, and so on. To follow the right track in researching informal remittances, one must also understand the methods used in sending remittances outside of banks and money transfer operators. Some have argued that the choice of informal channels reflects personal payment habits, among other moderating factors (Kosse & Vermeulen, 2014). Kosse and Vermeulen also argue that, for example, heavy internet banking users are unlikely to use informal channels. Most research in this field covers: (a) types and characteristics of available remittance options; (b) characteristics of the transaction, including the amount, cost, and frequency; (c) characteristics of the senders and receivers, such as the status of migrants; and (d) the economic and institutional environment in destination (sending) country and country of origin (or recipient), such as banking infrastructure. In other words, personal, transactional, economic, and institutional factors must be included in the analysis of informal remittances. Researching social remittances perhaps warrants more qualitative approaches employed alongside the increasing efforts of economists to measure and quantify the outcomes of international migration and transfers accompanying human mobility. White (2016) argues that to understand the impact of migration on social change, we must understand social trends in sending countries. Hence, social remittances are considered one of the contributing factors to social change; in certain societies ‘the influence of migration is more likely to take place in the more elusive area of norms, values and behaviour’ (White, 2016, p. 51). Social and regional change in places of origin in relation to remittances have been discussed elsewhere with reference to both monetary and social remittances (e.g. Levitt & Lamba-Nieves, 2011; Zotova & Cohen, 2016). As Boccagni and Decimo (2013) have highlighted, social remittances are not an ancillary topic, but part and parcel of the core debates in relation to migration outcomes. Understandably, social remittances cannot be studied as we study monetary transfers. One must unpack the meaning of what is transferred, including money transfers, which may be expressed in the meaning of other material transfers as well as the transfer of norms, values, beliefs, opinions, attitudes, and behaviors. Social capital may offer a framework for researching and analyzing social remittances in a broad sense. One final area of research warranting further attention that can be linked to both monetary and social remittances concerns the ways in which remittances benefit weak states with a poor record of protecting human rights and violent conflicts. A rare analysis of this particular topic has been carried out by Culver (2022). He questions the link between remittances and autocratic regime stability to show that ‘remittances increase autocratic regime durability in countries that have monopoly control over domestic currency production’ (Culver, 2022, p. 21).

172  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

CONTEMPORARY TRENDS AND CHALLENGES IN REMITTANCES Remittances have been growing rapidly over the last three decades and they represent a crucial lifeline for communities and households left behind and for many developing nations in which remittances represent a significant portion of total GDP. Remittances, although they are mostly used for household expenses, indirectly benefit the wider economy in receiving countries as well as helping to alleviate acute and ongoing strains such as dealing with disasters and building and maintaining community projects (see Cohen, 2005, 2010; Cohen and Rodriguez, 2005; Fagen & Bump, 2006; Orozco, 2009). Small nations such as Tajikistan are dependent on remittances, which represent about a quarter of the nation’s income (Zotova & Cohen, 2016). On the other hand, some larger developing countries are prominent recipients, such as India, with over $87 billion received in 2021. (World Bank, 2021c)

Although inconclusive, the impact of remittances on development has been widely discussed. This effect can be difficult to measure and is often complicated by the fact that the indirect impact is not easy to account for (Chaudhary, 2020; Ullah, 2017; Xing, 2018). There is evidence showing that remittances help alleviate poverty in certain developing countries (Chen & Jayaraman, 2016; Kumar, 2019). Recent studies also link remittances to reducing food insecurity, especially in sub-Saharan Africa (Ebadi, Ahmadi, & Melgar-Quiñonez, 2020). Entrepreneurship in receiving households has also been positively affected by remittances (Kotorri, Krasniqi, & Dabic, 2020). At the same time, remittances have a much wider impact, including the impact on major receiving countries. Gnangnon (2019) has shown that export revenue volatility affects the volume of remittances sent and has suggested reform for export environments to facilitate the flow of critical remittance revenue to developing countries. Remittances are responsive to disruptive events. The most recent disruptive event in remittances globally is the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to the largest global output contraction in the last four decades. It is the second largest global crisis negatively impacting remittances, after the 2008 global financial crisis (Sirkeci et al., 2012). Immigrant communities are known to be more adversely affected by economic crises than natives, especially when strict immigration controls are applied, as in the latter half of 2008: ‘In such situations, remittances are critical to the overall survival of the sending nation that struggles with ecological disasters disrupting lives, economic collapse, job market declines, and rising inflation rates (see, for example, the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, the Asian crisis of the 1990s, or the crises that plagued Latin America through the 1980s and 1990s)’ (Sirkeci et al., 2012, p. 2). Figure 14.1 shows a steep increase in remittances to developing countries in the 2000s and a short-lived decline in 2009 which reflects the impact of the financial crisis. The impact is clearly smaller compared to foreign direct investment and other private transfers. Nevertheless, when the destination country is hit strongly by a crisis, remittance flows to dependent sending countries are likely to be hit and decline too, as was the case for some Latin American countries with large diasporas in the United States (Ratha & Mohapatra, 2009). Typically, the adverse impact of such crises is disproportionately larger for developing countries and the pandemic effect has been no different (Kpodar et al., 2021, p. 5). Similar to the 2008 crisis, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries saw sustained increases in

Remittances in a world of uncertainty and insecurity  173

Source: Ratha and Sirkeci (2010, p. 126).

Figure 14.1

The resilience of remittances sent to developing countries, 2010

remittances after May 2020, which is possibly due to immigrants’ desire to help their families experiencing grave difficulties. World Bank economists had projected a decline of more than 20 percent in remittance flows in April 2020 and later in October 2020, they revised the size of the decline but kept the prediction at about 7.2 percent. In fact, the actual decline was only about 1.6 percent (World Bank, 2021a). It is also on record that global remittances were larger than Foreign Direct Investments ($259 billion US) and overseas development assistance ($179 billion US) put together in 2020 (World Bank, 2021a). Nevertheless, some researchers argue that recent increases are due to a shift from informal to formal remittance sending channels (Dinarte, Jaume, Medina-Cortina, & Winkler, 2021). Ratha and colleagues (2021) have reported significant declines in remittances to certain regions. Europe, Central Asia, and sub-Saharan African countries saw a decline of between 8 and 14 percent in 2020, but recovered in 2021. However, overall, global remittances slightly plateaued in early 2020 and a strong recovery was observed as early as in the third quarter (Ratha et al., 2021, p. 14). Nevertheless, ‘[M]any countries saw sustained increases in remittances during the pandemic especially after May 2020’ (Kpodar et al., 2021, p. 6). These increases are understandable, as many immigrants felt the urge to help their families left behind; despite declining employment, due to government help with wages in destination countries, immigrants seemingly have found the resources to continue remitting. Kpodar and colleagues (2021) have also pointed out that during the pandemic, more remittances went through formal channels due to border closures and lockdowns, which made in-person transfers very difficult. This pandemic-induced trend may have caused much larger adverse effects in countries at the bottom of the development ladder.

174  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Over the last couple of decades, certain developing countries were the largest remittance receivers (Table 14.1). In 2020, India ($83 billion), China ($59 billion), and Mexico ($42 billion) were at the top (World Bank, 2017). However, it is important to recognize that major destination countries such as France and Germany are among the biggest recipients of remittances too, with $24 billion and $17 billion received in 2020 respectively. These figures speak to the call for more studies on reverse remittances. Table 14.1

Top remittance receiving countries, 1980–2020 (US$ million)

 

1980

1990

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020e

India

2,761

2,384

12,883

22,125

53,480

68,910

83,149

124

758

23,626

52,460

63,938

59,507

1,039

3,098

7,525

22,742

22,080

26,233

42,880

626

1,465

6,924

13,733

21,557

29,799

34,913

Egypt, Arab Rep.

2,700

4,284

2,852

5,017

12,453

18,325

29,603

Pakistan

2,050

2,006

1,075

4,280

9,690

19,306

26,105

France

1,441

3,839

8,870

14,205

19,898

24,067

24,482

339

779

1,968

4,315

10,850

15,296

21,750

2,380

4,858

3,604

6,864

12,789

15,578

17,899

22

10

1,392

14,640

19,745

20,626

17,208

17,624

28,774

72,332

191,648

340,384

446,306

539,526

35,814

60,936

127,956

284,595

472,946

601,867

701,931

China Mexico Philippines

Bangladesh Germany Nigeria Low- and middle-income countries World

Source: World Bank staff calculation based on data from IMF Balance of Payments Statistics database and data releases from central banks, national statistical agencies, and World Bank country desks.

It is also important to recognize changes in remittance flows that occur in response to changes in migration patterns. For example, remittances to Mexico saw a significant increase in recent years and this is believed to be due to the country becoming a transit country for many movers from Latin America (Plaza, 2021). Further, major conflicts are disrupting remittance flows around the world. For example, remittances were significant for Syria until 2010 and with the outbreak of the war, this corridor has formally closed. One may expect these remittances continue to flow to countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, where the vast majority of Syrian refugees settled. However, this is just an educated guess. As mentioned earlier, remittances are crucial for many smaller nations. Recent data shows that the share of remittances form a large part of the total GDPs for the following countries and hence important to monitor the dynamics and patterns in these corridors: Tonga (37%), Somalia (35%), Lebanon (32%), South Sudan (29%), Kyrgyz Republic (29%), Tajikistan (27%), El Salvador (24%), Honduras (23%), Nepal (23%), Haiti (21%), Jamaica (21%), Lesotho (20%) (World Bank, 2022). Top sending countries are typically favorite immigration countries. The United States has historically topped this list (see Table 14.2). The United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, Italy, and China have seen significant increases in remittance outflows in the 2000s. Another pattern evident here concerns countries where immigration is dominantly characterized by

Remittances in a world of uncertainty and insecurity  175 contract workers with little or no prospect of permanent settlement. Saudi Arabia is joined by the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in this category, shouldering approximately one tenth of global remittance outflows in 2020. Table 14.2

Top remittance sending countries, 1980–2020 (US$ million)

 

1980

1990

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

United States

1,360

11,850

35,315

47,751

50,527

60,719

68,000

3,676

5,372

10,566

40,702

43,240

Saudi Arabia

United Arab Emirates   4,090

11,200

15,390

14,303

27,069

38,787

34,596

Switzerland

2,343

8,170

6,196

10,859

18,512

26,031

27,965

Germany

5,826

6,854

8,663

12,706

14,682

18,249

22,024

5

754

1,817

1,455

5,718

18,121

232

6,827

21,454

19,689

16,895

China

 

Russian Federation

 

France Luxembourg

5,070

6,956  

970  

Italy United Kingdom

 

 

Netherlands Qatar

 

428  

1,393  

5,121

9,470

12,026

12,792

15,038

2,720

6,742

10,659

11,190

14,203

9,396

10,199

13,923

12,192

10,744

1,447  

4,545  

 

3,764

1,945

2,588

12,883

9,068

10,187

2,033

5,366

9,643

9,565

10,706

9,336

Source: World Bank staff calculation based on data from IMF Balance of Payments Statistics database and data releases from central banks, national statistical agencies, and World Bank country desks.

The cost of sending remittances has been at the center of high-level policy debates; the agreed objective is to reduce the cost to about 3 percent on average. The tendency is moving in this direction but transaction costs vary wildly among banks and money transfer operators, as well as among different migration corridors. Kosse and Vermeulen (2014, p. 31) have reported, for example, zero percent for sending money via banks (the cheapest) as opposed to nearly 15 percent (the most expensive) via money transfer companies from the Netherlands to Antilles. Corresponding figures for the Netherlands–Morocco corridor range from 12.6 percent to 29.7 percent. Sirkeci and Přívara (2017, p. 51), on the other hand, acknowledge the decline in remittance sending costs but quote similar variation in the costs of sending money from the UK to developing countries. The World Bank reported that as of the end of 2020, the average cost of sending $200 to ‘low and middle income countries’ stayed nearly at 7 percent against the targeted 3 percent. Again, as shown by several analyses, recent figures reveal that sending remittances to sub-Saharan Africa remains the costliest, at above 8 percent. For example, sending £120 from the UK to Gambia would cost on average more than 12 percent or about £15 (World Bank, 2021b). Social remittances represent an expanding area of research and have already developed well beyond what Levitt was foreseeing two decades ago. For example, Fomina (2021) looked into ‘transnational democratic remittances’ through the experiences of Russian migrants in Europe. Although referring to financial remittances too, Hajj’s (2021) work on Palestinians living in camps in Lebanon also alludes to the wider influence of diasporas on homelands. Similarly, other forms of non-monetary remittances, explicit or implicit, and their social meaning find their way into academic inquiry (see Boccagni & Decimo, 2013; Della Puppa & Ambrosini, 2022; Zotova & Cohen, 2016).

176  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

CONCLUDING REMARKS There are a few areas to highlight for future research on remittances. Expanding social remittances research is welcomed and offers wide opportunities. As indicated earlier in this chapter, along with the key thematic lines in remittance research, the remittance behavior of refugees requires attention. This niche field is overlooked but worth exploring. Due to their particular legal status, refugees may experience specific challenges, warranting new solutions and policies. Finally, I would like to draw attention to and encourage more research into reverse remittances. One thing missing from the literature concerns the monies sent alongside migrants and following their moves. However brave and resourceful they may be, many immigrants find it difficult to settle on their own means. Households left behind often send money and non-monetary remittances to support the migration venture. Supporting evidence for this situation shows that industrialized or advanced economies receive one third of the total global remittances. This gap in the literature is not limited to monetary remittances. The literature on social remittances has largely been blind to what immigrants bring and their families send to destination countries. I would also like to refer back to my earlier study with Jeffrey Cohen, in which we discussed six myths about remittances (Cohen & Sirkeci, 2012), offering useful pointers for future research and policy on remittances. Remittances are often the monies that travel from migrants to their sending households (Adams, 2009), and they play a critical and central economic role (Cohen, 2011). Non-monetary remittances are also critically important, embodied in the form of knowledge, practices, experiences, ideas, and beliefs (see Boccagni & Decimo, 2013; Brown & Connell, 1994; Grigolini, 2005; Levitt, 1998; Newland & Patrick, 2004; Villarreal & Davy, 2007). Along the same lines, it is also important to recognize that remittances are not just flows between migrants and their families. The impact extends well beyond two households, with a wider impact at the community and national levels, for a multitude of uses, including reverse remittances from families to migrants (see Cohen, 2011; Levitt, 1998). Irregular remittances represent a substantial share of global money transfers, ‘guesstimated’ to be much larger than the volume of formal transfers. We must work to understand these unaccounted and untraceable billions of dollars that flow by avoiding banks and other services because they ‘are critical to movers and non-movers alike’ (Cohen & Sirkeci, 2012). The relationship between remittances and migration propensity from recipient areas is a complex one, warranting further studies (Vertovec, 2009). Migration is hardly a decision made solely with regard to remittances (Cohen & Sirkeci, 2011). While doing such research, it is equally important to factor in the impact of social remittances on future migration outcomes and propensities. Just as migration motives and mechanisms are varying and complex, so are remittances. Remittance rates are elastic, can flow in both directions (Carling, 2008), and a broad range of demographics affect remittance outcomes (Cohen, Jones, & Conway, 2005; Conway, 2007). Clearly, remittances are as complex as migration decisions and processes; hence, they are equally difficult to understand and explain as neither outcomes nor motivations of migration and remittances are always clear and predictable (Cohen, 2011). The challenges for migration policy and management have a bearing on remittance behavior. For example, decreasing the costs of money transfers across borders is unlikely to be resolved within current parameters. The World Bank’s team efforts to illustrate the volume

Remittances in a world of uncertainty and insecurity  177 of remittances are important but one should not forget that remittances represent only a fraction of the added value created by immigrants. Most of the money they earn is spent in host countries. Nevertheless, immigrants and migration-linked networks are important for overcoming the challenges faced by communities in many developing countries and regions. This scenario is exacerbated in times of crisis, when movers are encouraged to remit even more, regardless of the availability of mechanisms. The ‘new normal’ of the pandemic and the Russian war against Ukraine are likely to have an impact and force changes in the remittance environment, as well as among population flows in general, perhaps not mostly positive.

REFERENCES Adams, R. (2009). The determinants of international remittances in developing countries. World Development, 37(1), 93–103. Ambrosius, C., & Cuecuecha, A. (2016). Remittances and the use of formal and informal financial services. World Development, 77, 80–98. Antoniades, A., Seshan, G., Weber, R., & Zubrickas, R. (2018). Does altruism matter for remittances? Oxford Economic Papers, 70(1), 225–252. Bahar, D., & Rapoport, H. (2018). Migration, knowledge diffusion and the comparative advantage of nations. The Economic Journal, 128(612), F273–F305. Beine, M., Docquier, F., & Schiff, M. (2013). International migration, transfer of norms and home country fertility. Canadian Journal of Economics, 46(4), 1406–1430. Boccagni, P., & Decimo, F. (2013). Mapping social remittances. Migration Letters, 10(1), 1–10. Brown, R. P. C., & Connell, J. (1994). The global flea market: Migration, remittances and the informal economy in Tonga. Development and Change, 24(4), 611–647. Carling, J. (2008). The determinants of migrant remittances. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(3), 581–598. Chaudhary, D. (2020). Influence of remittances on socio-economic development in rural Nepal. Remittances Review, 5(1), 83–96. Chen, H., & Jayaraman, T. (2016). Role of financial sector in the remittances–growth nexus in Fiji. Remittances Review, 1(1), 17–36. Cohen, J. H. (2005). Remittance outcomes and migration: Theoretical contests, real opportunities. Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID), 40(1), 88–112. Cohen, J. H. (2010). Oaxacan migration and remittances as they relate to Mexican migration patterns. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(1), 149–161. Cohen, J. H. (2011). Migration, remittances, and household strategies. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 103–114. Cohen, J. H., Jones, R., & Conway, D. (2005). Why remittances shouldn’t be blamed for rural underdevelopment in Mexico: A collective response to Leigh Binford. Critique of Anthropology, 25(1), 87–96. Cohen, J. H., & Rodriguez, L. (2005). Remittance outcomes in rural Oaxaca, Mexico: Challenges, options and opportunities for migrant households. Population, Space and Place, 11(1), 49–63. Cohen, J. H., & Sirkeci, I. (2011). Cultures of migration: The global nature of contemporary mobility. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cohen, J. H., & Sirkeci, I. (2012). Six myths about migrant remittances and the global economic crisis. Siirtolaisuus-Migration, 39(3), 23–29. Conway, D. (2007). The importance of remittances for the Caribbean’s future transcends their macroeconomic influences. Global Development Studies, 4(3–4), 41–76. Cox, D., Eser, Z., & Jimenez, E. (1998). Motives for private transfers over the life cycle: An analytical framework and evidence for Peru. Journal of Development Economics, 55(1), 57–80. Culver, J. (2022). Manipulating remittances: Strengthening autocratic regimes with currency overvaluation and remittance flows. Remittances Review, 7(1), 21–47.

178  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Della Puppa, F., & Ambrosini, M. (2022). ‘Implicit’ remittances in family relationships: The case of Bangladeshis in Italy and beyond. Global Networks, 22(1), 134–149. Dinarte, L., Jaume, D., Medina-Cortina, E., & Winkler, H. (2021). Neither by land nor by sea: The rise of electronic remittances during COVID-19. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ebadi, N., Ahmadi, D., & Melgar-Quiñonez, H. (2020). Domestic and international remittances and food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Remittances Review, 5(1), 37–54. Fagen, P. W., & Bump, M. N. (2006). Remittances in conflict and crises: How remittances sustain livelihoods in war, crises and transitions to peace. International Peace Academy Policy Paper. Retrieved from https://​www​.ipinst​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​publications/​remittances​_erpt​.pdf. Fomina, J. (2021). Political dissent and democratic remittances: The activities of Russian migrants in Europe. London: Routledge. Freund, C., & Spatafora, N. (2008). Remittances, transaction costs, and informality. Journal of Development Economics, 86(2), 356–366. Gnangnon, S. K. (2019). Export revenue and remittances sent from migrants’ host-countries. Remittances Review, 4(1), 3–18. Grigolini, S. (2005). When houses provide more than shelter. In L. Trager (Ed.) Migration and economy: Global and local dynamics (pp. 193–224). New York: AltaMira Press. Hajj, N. (2021). Networked refugees: Palestinian reciprocity and remittances in the digital age. Berkeley: University of California Press. International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2009). Balance of payments and international investment position manual. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Irving, J., Mohapatra, S., & Ratha, D. (2010). Migrant remittance flows: Findings from a global survey of central banks. World Bank Working Paper No. 194/2010. Washington, DC: World Bank. Kosse, A., & Vermeulen, R. (2014). Migrants’ choice of remittance channel: Do general payment habits play a role? Working Paper Series, No. 1683, European Central Bank. Retrieved from https://​ecb​ .europa​.eu/​pub/​pdf/​scpwps/​ecbwp1683​.pdf. Kotorri, M., Krasniqi, B. A., & Dabic, M. (2020). Migration, remittances, and entrepreneurship: A seemingly unrelated bivariate probit approach. Remittances Review, 5(1), 15–36. Kpodar, K., Gammadigbe, V., Quayyum, S., & Mlachila, M. (2021). Defying the odds: Remittances during the COVID-19 pandemic. IMF Working Paper No. WP/21/186. Retrieved from https://​www​ .imf​.org/​-/​media/​Files/​Publications/​WP/​2021/​English/​wpiea2021186​-print​-pdf​.ashx. Kumar, B. (2019). The impact of international remittances on poverty alleviation in Bangladesh. Remittances Review, 4(1), 67–86. Lacroix, T., Levitt, P., & Vari-Lavoisier, I. (2016). Social remittances and the changing transnational political landscape. Comparative Migration Studies, 4(1), 1–5. Levitt, P. (1998). Social remittances: Migration driven local-level forms of cultural diffusion. International Migration Review, 32(4), 926–948. Levitt, P., & Lamba-Nieves, D. (2011). Social remittances revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(1), 1–22. Levitt, P., & Lamba-Nieves, D. (2013). Rethinking social remittances and the migration–development nexus from the perspective of time. Migration Letters, 10(1), 11–22. Lopez, M. H., Livingston, G., & Kochhar, R. (2009). Hispanics and the economic downturn: Housing woes and remittance cuts. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Lucas, R. E. B., & Stark, O. (1985). Motivations to remit: Evidence from Botswana. Journal of Political Economy, 93(5), 901–917. Mazzucato, V. (2009). Informal insurance arrangements in Ghanaian migrants’ transnational networks: The role of reverse remittances and geographic proximity. World Development, 37(6), 1105–1115. Mohieldin, M., & Ratha, D. (2020). How to keep remittances flowing. Future Development. Brookings Institute. Retrieved from https://​www​.brookings​.edu/​blog/​future​-development/​2020/​06/​11/​how​-to​ -keep​-remittances​-flowing/​. Newland, K., & Patrick, E. (2004). Beyond remittances: The role of diaspora in poverty reduction in their countries of origin. A scoping study by the Migration Policy Institute for the Department of International Development. Retrieved from https://​www​.migrationpolicy​.org/​pubs/​Beyond​ _Remittances​_0704​.pdf.

Remittances in a world of uncertainty and insecurity  179 Orozco, M. (2009). The global economic crisis and intersecting variables determining remittance trends. Paper presented at International Policy Conference: The Impact of the Global Economic Crisis on Migrants’ Remittances and its Implications for Development. Utrecht, Netherlands. Plaza, S. (2021). The changing face of transit migration in Mexico: Higher remittances. World Bank People Move Blog. Retrieved from https://​blogs​.worldbank​.org/​peoplemove/​changing​-face​-transit​ -migration​-mexico​-higher​-remittances. Ratha, D. (2020). Remittances: Funds for the folks back home. Finance & Development. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from https://​www​.imf​.org/​external/​pubs/​ft/​fandd/​basics/​remitt​.htm. Ratha, D., Kim, E. J., Plaza, S., Seshan, G., Riordan, E. J., & Chandra, V. (2021). Migration and Development Brief 35: Recovery: COVID-19 Crisis through a migration lens. Washington, DC: KNOMAD-World Bank. Ratha, D., & Mohapatra, S. (2010). Revised outlook for remittance flows 2011–2012. Migration and Development Brief. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ratha, D., Mohapatra, S., & Xu, Z. (2008). Outlook for remittance flows 2008–2010: Growth expected to moderate significantly, but flows to remain resilient. Migration and Development Brief, No. 8. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ratha, D., & Sirkeci, I. (2010). Remittances and the global financial crisis. Migration Letters, 7(2), 125–131. Reinke, J. (2007). Remittances in the balance of payments framework: Current problems and forthcoming improvements. Paper presented at Seminar on Remittance Statistics, The Center of Excellence in Finance, Ljubljana, Slovenia, February 26 to March 2, 2007. Retrieved from https://​www​.imf​.org/​ external/​np/​sta/​bop/​pdf/​rem​.pdf. Sirkeci, I. (2016). Transnational döner kebab taking over the UK. Transnational Marketing Journal (TMJ), 4(2), 143–158. Sirkeci, I., Cohen, J. H., & Ratha, D. (2012). Migration and remittances during the global financial crisis and beyond. Washington, DC: World Bank. Sirkeci, I., & Přívara, A. (2017). Cost of sending remittances from the UK in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Remittances Review, 2(1), 47–56. Stark, O. (1984). Rural-to-urban migration in LDCs: A relative deprivation approach. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 32(3), 475–486. Stark, O., & Taylor, J. E. (1989). Relative deprivation and international migration. Demography, 26(1), 1–14. Stark, O., Taylor, J. E., & Yitzhaki, S. (1986). Remittances and inequality. The Economic Journal, 96(383), 722–740. Sumata, C., & Cohen, J. H. (2018). The Congolese diaspora and the politics of remittances. Remittances Review, 3(2), 95–108. Tilbe, F. (2016). Düzensiz Göçmenlerin Göçmen Dövizi Gönderme Pratikleri: Londra’daki Türkiye Göçmenleri Örneği (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi – Doctoral Thesis). Marmara Üniversitesi/Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul. Tilbe, F. (2019). İngiltere’den Türkiye’ye ‘Düzensiz’ Göçmen Dövizi Gönderme Davranışının Nedenleri Üzerine Nitel Bir İnceleme. Göç Dergisi, 6(2), 173–190. Tuccio, M., & Wahba, J. (2018). Return migration and the transfer of gender norms: Evidence from the Middle East. Journal of Comparative Economics, 46(4), 1006–1029. Tuccio, M., & Wahba, J. (2020). Social remittances. In K. Zimmerman (Ed.) Handbook of labor, human resources and population economics (pp. 1–13). Cham: Springer. Ullah, A. A. (2017). Do remittances supplement South Asian development? Remittances Review, 2(1), 31–45. Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. London: Routledge. Villarreal, M., & Davy, M. (2007). Sending money home: The dynamics of Mexico–US remittances. In E. Ashbee, H. Clausen, & C. Pedersen (Eds.) The politics, economics, and culture of Mexican–US migration: Both sides of the border (pp. 91–106). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. White, A. (2016). An inside-out approach to social remittances: Linking migration and social change in Poland. In M. Nowicka & V. Šerbedžija (Eds.) Migration and social remittances in a global Europe (pp. 49–70). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

180  Research handbook on the sociology of migration World Bank (n.d.). How do you define remittances? Retrieved from https://​datahelpdesk​.worldbank​.org/​ knowledgebase/​articles/​114950​-how​-do​-you​-define​-remittances. World Bank (2016). Remittances to developing countries edge up slightly in 2015. Retrieved from https://​www​.worldbank​.org/​en/​news/​press​-release/​2016/​04/​13/​remittances​-to​-developing​-countries​ -edge​-up​-slightly​-in​-2015. World Bank (2017). Migration and remittances data. Retrieved from https://​www​.worldbank​.org/​en/​ topic/​migra​tionremitt​ancesdiasp​oraissues/​brief/​migration​-remittances​-data. World Bank (2021a). Defying predictions, remittance flows remain strong during COVID-19 crisis. Press Release No. 2021/147/SPJ, May 12. Retrieved from https://​www​.worldbank​.org/​en/​news/​press​ -release/​2021/​05/​12/​defying​-predictions​-remittance​-flows​-remain​-strong​-during​-covid​-19​-crisis. World Bank (2021b). Remittance prices worldwide. Retrieved from https://​remittanceprices​.worldbank​ .org/​en/​corridor/​United​-Kingdom/​Gambia. World Bank (2021c). Remittance flows register robust 7.3 percent growth in 2021. Retrieved from https://​www​.worldbank​.org/​en/​news/​press​-release/​2021/​11/​17/​remittance​-flows​-register​-robust​-7​-3​ -percent​-growth​-in​-2021. World Bank (2022). World Bank Databank: Personal remittances received. Retrieved from https://​data​ .worldbank​.org/​indicator/​BX​.TRF​.PWKR​.CD​.DT. Xing, Z. (2018). Development impacts of remittances in agricultural households in Fiji. Remittances Review, 3(1), 19–49. Zewdu, G. A. (2018). Irregular migration, informal remittances: Evidence from Ethiopian villages. GeoJournal, 83(5), 1019–1034. Zotova, N., & Cohen, J. H. (2016). Remittances and their social meaning in Tajikistan. Remittances Review, 1(1), 5–16.

15. Transnationalism and the making of diasporas Thomas Lacroix

INTRODUCTION In October 2020, following the offensive on Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan, Kim Kardashian tweeted: ‘Please share the news. Armenians in #Arstakh have been attacked. We are praying brave men & women risking their lives to protect Artsakh & #Armenia. The news is misleading & these are not “clashes.”’ The media icon is better known for her TV performances than for her international engagements. Her tweeting about the military conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh reminded her followers that the Californian star is also a fourth-generation Armenian. She connects with a cross-border, diasporic space-time, with places she has never been to, and people she has never been acquainted with. This Twitter, now called X, post sheds light on what diasporas are about: an identity narrative performed over generations, turning into occasional engagements under specific circumstances. This also relates with what academics call ‘transnationalism’; i.e. the daily practices, transfers, communication, and circulation maintained across borders by people scattered around the world. Scholarship distinguishes between diasporas stemming from a symbolic attachment to their homeland and transnationalism sustained by actual practices. However, it would be wrong to simply oppose the identity symbolism of diasporas to the pragmatics of transnationalism. Both dynamics overlap in many ways. Diasporic affinities elicit transborder engagements, while transnational practices forge a common sense of belonging. And they raise similar questions, the first of which being: How do they relate to host country integration? Indeed, diasporic and transnational linkages have, for long, been associated with divided loyalties and a threat to national cohesion. And yet, as our example shows, Kim Kardashian is not exactly what one can call an outsider to US society. The intricacies of the relationships between integration and cross-border identifications have elicited endless debates. Other key questions include the relation with information communication technologies (ICTs), the development of cross-border political mobilizations, forms of organizing, etc. Common questioning and converging scholarship have spurred on the need for an overarching theoretical framework. This chapter aims to disentangle and re-entangle the two notions that have thus far structured the research on cross-border socialities. Although both concepts have a disjointed (not to say confrontational) intellectual trajectory, I will argue that diasporas can be regarded as specific forms of transnational communities. Transnationalism, it is contended, is the crucible for diasporic formations: long-distance ties and practices feed into the emergence of a shared collective consciousness transcending borders and generations. However, this re-articulation of both concepts implies knowledge about what distinguishes diasporas from other transnational communities and under what conditions one turns into the other. The chapter unfolds in three parts. The first presents the origin and trajectory of the two concepts while the second outlines a theoretical approach binding both dynamics. The conclu181

182  Research handbook on the sociology of migration sion exposes some of the theoretical conundrums that have arisen with the restrictiveness of migration policies and the closing of borders in a post-COVID world.

DIASPORA AND TRANSNATIONALISM: A BRIEF OVERVIEW The term diaspora1 primarily refers to the dispersal of the Jewish people after the successive destructions of the Jerusalem temple by Babylonian (sixth century bce) and Roman armies (first century bce). For centuries, the word has been associated with a divine curse. It is not until the early twentieth century, with the surge of political Zionism, that the term acquired a secular meaning. Henceforth, the Jewish diaspora is understood as a scattered population, linked together by a national tie, and bound to be reunited within a Jewish state. A few years later, the historian Simon Dubnow expanded on this definition to include other instances of dispersed people, such as Armenians and Greeks. After the Second World War, the concept gradually fed into the academic scholarship against the background of economic globalization, decolonization, and the recognition of minority rights. In the 1960s, Arnold Toynbee (1965) was the first to foresee the development of diasporas in relation to the ‘annihilation of distance’, rendered possible by new technologies and affordable transportation and communication means. Geographers use the concept to characterize people scattered in different countries, maintaining multifarious ties with their ‘motherland’ and other places of settlement (Ma Mung, 2000; Sorre, 1957). Anthropologists have highlighted cross-border trading groups in Western Africa and elsewhere, such as Lebanese traders and the Chinese. The term has ceased to be exclusively associated with groups expelled from their homelands in the wake of a violent conflict. Next to the so-called victim diasporas, Robin Cohen (1997) identifies imperial diasporas formed in the wake of labor exploitation during colonial times (e.g. Indians and the British), cultural diasporas unified by a common cultural background (Caribbeans), trade diasporas bound together by their business activities (Lebanese and Chinese), and religious diasporas coalesced around a political-religious project (Zionists and Sikhs). In parallel, the concept has become a rallying term for US academics observing the making of Black people as a political subject, united by a shared history of enslavement, dispersal, and struggle for freedom (Shepperson, 1966). Paul Gilroy’s The Black Atlantic (1993) re-embeds the US and British civil rights movements within the long-term creation of a transatlantic African diaspora. The referent to a common and traumatic origin has gradually been superseded by the salience of cross-border solidarities, political linkages, and cultural traits (Chivallon, 1994). By extension, cultural studies fostered the idea of diaspora as a ‘condition of subjectivity’, as a group tied together by a shared history of struggle and trauma, of stigmatization and colonial assignation (Tölölyan, 2018, p. 25). Homi Bhabha (2004) and Edward Soja (1996) highlight the creative and artistic capacities of diasporas, facing cultural discrimination and class relegation, producing thirdspaces, i.e. hybrid sites of contestation. From the 1990s onward, debates surrounding the role of diasporas with regard to state building and nationalism further complicated its meaning. The hosting of ethnic minorities with distinctive identifications and cross-border linkages has been perceived as a threat to state sovereignty over homogeneous nations (Sheffer, 1993). Others highlight the ambivalent role played by diasporas towards their country of departure. While some groups may be regarded as ‘nation builders’, financing homeland development groups or supporting post-conflict

Transnationalism and the making of diasporas  183 reconstruction, others may appear as ‘nation wreckers’, fueling conflicts through financial and ideological support to seditious groups (Nyberg-Sørensen, Hear, & Engberg-Pedersen, 2002). More recently, the exponential increase in migrant remittances has garnered the attention of international organizations and development agencies. The scope of the phenomenon has urged developing states to reach out to their ‘diaspora’ and enhance their developmental potential. This scenario has led to a surge in the creation of governmental institutions, agencies, and administrations in charge of relations with nationals abroad. In parallel, there has been a multiplication of dual citizenship agreements acknowledging the dual embeddedness of migrant groups (Gamlen, 2019). This policy restlessness has elicited the multiplication of organizations and representative bodies framing state/expatriate relations. For Paul Tabar (2016), the shaping of these cross-border institutional fields is the crucible of a new generation of ‘diasporas’, groupings not produced by bottom-up political mobilizations or the cultural productions of exiles, but by top-down state policies fashioning diasporas in accordance with their interests. To sum up, the scholarly diffusion of the concept of diaspora after the Second World War has followed three distinct pathways: the first associating the term with the practical and symbolic connections maintained with the homeland; the second with the political identification of racial minorities in their host land; and the third with the migration and development policies of sending states. This multiplication of perspectives on the notion of diaspora has elicited more confusion than clarification, leading to what Roger Brubaker (2005) points to as a dilution of its meaning. In parallel, the transnationalist approach to cross-border socialities has gained momentum. The word itself embodies more than a century-long history. Its first academic use can be traced back to the mid-nineteenth century in linguistics: in 1862, Georg Curtius coined the term to characterize the genealogic roots of languages spanning beyond the borders of present-day state territories (Saunier, 2009). This idea of border crossing was relegated to the background when Randolph Bourne, in 1916, wrote a paper titled ‘Trans-national America’, depicting US society as a patchwork of nationalities rather than as a ‘melting pot’ dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture. After the Second World War, the term reappeared in the domains of economics, law, and international relations. Since the 1950s, economists have used the term ‘transnational corporation’ interchangeably with ‘multinational corporation’ to encapsulate the new forms of entrepreneurship in a globalized economy (Kuznets, 1948). In parallel, lawyers versed in the study of the building of the United Nations, European institutions, and other international organizations have investigated the constitution of a transnational legal system in a variety of public and private domains (Jessup, 1956). The term was finally grasped by scholars of international relations to point to the variety of non-state actors populating a ‘transnational society’: corporations, migrants, international political groupings, NGOs, etc. (Aron, 1962; Keohane & Nye, 1972). Taken together, these bodies of work account for the emergence of a transnational sphere and actors and activities, as opposed to the international arena of interstate relations. Until the 1980s, migrants were only marginally present in this literature. In this regard, the year 1986 seems to be a turning point. That year, Arjun Appadurai launched the Transnational Culture project, in which migration-related cultural production holds a central place. The same year, the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science published a special issue entitled ‘From foreign workers to settlers? Transnational migration and the emergence of new minorities’, edited by Barbara and Martin Heisler (1986). Last but not least, the same

184  Research handbook on the sociology of migration year, a special issue of Peuples Méditerranéens titled ‘La fin du national?’ included a paper by Maurizio Catani (1986) relying on the transnational approach in a Marxist vein to grapple with cross-border migrant practices. Both publications depict transnationalism as a process undermining the homogenizing project of nation states, while sustaining the maintenance and reproduction of ethnic minorities. The debate on immigrant transnationalism unfolds during this period roughly in the same terms as the one surrounding the notion of diaspora. This understanding of transnationalism as a critique of assimilation pervades the literature throughout the 1990s. It is at the core of Nations Unbound, the book co-written by Linda Basch, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc (1994). The book gives transnationalism its definition, namely, ‘the processes by which immigrants forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement’ (Basch et al., 1994, p. 7). Transnationalism is addressed not only as a phenomenon to be investigated, but also as an intellectual perspective engaging with migrant activities between countries rather than on migration and their social interference within countries. Throughout the 1990s, a flurry of case studies documented immigrant transnationalism in the cultural, religious, political, or social domains (Guarnizo & Smith, 1998; Landolt, Autler, & Baires, 1999; Levitt, 2001; Pries, 2001). Research focused on topics as varied as hometown associations, international religious organizations, voting practices and political mobilizations, matrimonial and gender strategies, artistic projects, and business endeavors (for a review of the transnationalist agenda, see Levitt & Jaworsky, 2007). As a perspective, transnationalism is presented as a critique of so-called methodological nationalism, the explicit or unconscious tendency to assume state territories as the natural container of social processes (Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2003). Methodologically, transnational scholars favor ethnographic approaches to immigrant actors’ agency and multi-sited research in settlement and origin countries. The concept crossed the Atlantic to reach Germany (Faist, 2000), the United Kingdom (cf. the Transnational Communities Programme in Oxford) and France (Cesari, 1997). With its diffusion, the lexical field of the concept enlarged to an extent that it became more confusing than helpful: transnational communities, transnational social fields, transnational formations, transnational life, transmigration, etc. The theoretical vagueness was pointed out as early as the end of the 1990s (Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt, 1999). These authors called for the development of quantitative approaches to the phenomenon, with a view to evaluate the relative importance of transnational engagements within the broader realm of immigrant life. Two research programs followed, the first one on entrepreneurs (Portes, Haller, & Guarnizo, 2001), a second on associations (Portes, Escobar, & Walton Radford, 2005). Quantitative research on transnationalism became commonplace in the following years (Beauchemin, Hamel, & Simon, 2016; Meseguer, Lavezzolo, & Aparicio, 2016; Schans, 2009; Snel, Engbersen, & Leerkes, 2006). This broadening of the methodological toolbox enabled researchers to reassess the initial assumptions on which transnational studies were based. They show in particular that research on immigrant transnationalism can feed into a broader understanding of assimilation (Kivisto, 2001). There is no reason to believe that transnationalism undermines the nation-building projects of destination countries. Nor is it an enduring, all-encompassing phenomenon. If linear transnationalism, occasional and long-distance contacts with kith and kin, is extremely widespread, this broadness is rarely the case for resource-dependent transnationalism, more complex and collective endeavors requiring time and resources (Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002). While the former only requires regular phone calls and internet connections, the latter includes projects (e.g. development projects), economic investments, philanthropic

Transnationalism and the making of diasporas  185 activities, and so forth, drawing on (often collective) financial support and skills. Likewise, second-generation engagement is scarce, leading some to assert that immigrant transnationalism is a transitory phenomenon that has always accompanied immigration dynamics and not a social, enduring, and grassroots facet of contemporary globalization. According to Roger Waldinger (2015), the intersocietal convergence induced by the cross-border connections of immigrants between host and settlement areas ultimately gives way to divergence as time and integration erode these linkages.

HOW DO THEY DIFFER? HOW DO THEY RELATE? Both concepts gained currency from the early 1990s onward, at a time when researchers were looking for the tools to come to grips with globalization in the making after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although this background is shared by diaspora and transnational scholars, both concepts are markedly different. Table 15.1 offers an overview of their respective traits. Table 15.1

Overview of diaspora and transnationalism

 

Diaspora

Transnationalism

Origin

A polysemic term with a 2,000-year-old

A relatively recent concept initially from IR,

history and sedimentation of meanings from

economy, and law, which expanded to other

various sources (biblical, sociological, and

social sciences in the 1990s.

institutional). General definition Temporality

Spatiality

A dispersed people tied together by an identity

The maintaining process of individual and

and an institutional-practical framework.

collective ties and practices beyond borders.

A sense of groupness forged over generations

The building of simultaneous relations with the

and the sharing of a common memory with

homeland and other countries, mostly fading

reference to a real or imagined state.

after one generation.

Dispersion over two countries or more with

Multiscalar ties with a focus on translocal

the maintaining of interpolar ties between

sociality (binding places of arrival and

destination countries and of multipolar ties with departure). the homeland.

In short, the concept of diaspora covers dispersed groups sharing a common consciousness of belonging and collective memory built up over generations. Transnationalism designates the maintaining of cross-border social relations and simultaneous connections with people remaining in the place of departure. The research insists on the processual nature of transnationalism while diasporas are cross-border social formations. Overlapping but distinct, the two concepts remain ‘awkward dance partners’ (Faist, 2010). Khachig Tölölyan (2018) argues that diasporas are specific forms of transnational communities. We could add that transnationalism is a matrix out of which diasporas are produced (and conversely): the daily transnational engagements of migrants contribute to building a shared sense of building and lifeworld bounding people despite distance. And this process takes time, sometimes beyond the span of a generation (Tölölyan, 2018). In order to substantiate this argument, it is necessary to examine how identity production, transnational engagement, and migrant social institutions link up.

186  Research handbook on the sociology of migration First, we can consider identity. What makes diasporic identities so enduring and specific? Transnational and diaspora identities have in common an attachment to a place or a state of origin. This point of reference cements a shared sense of belonging to a space which is not the place of daily life. At the same time, such identities are permanently reprocessed through social interactions and adaptation in the place of settlement. However, diasporic belonging does not stem from the juxtaposition of separate modes of being developed in different contexts: it feeds on them while bringing about a third type of identification. It refers to a thirdspace (to use Soja’s and Bhaba’s terminology), i.e. a feeling of being part of ‘something else’, a collective space and time that spans borders. The literature underlines the importance of the emic construction of the diaspora, i.e. the building of shared understanding and narrative about what it means to be part of such a grouping. The scholarship on so-called ‘victim diasporas’ shows how the traumatic experience of exile buttresses the building of diasporic identities. Such experience is not a necessary condition (there are other types of diasporas, whose dispersion has not been spurred on by a conflict or forced eviction), but the initial and violent break from the country of departure and the rallying condition of exile constitute a favorable terrain for the germination of a sense of thirdspace belonging. Next, we look at engagements. Why are transnational practices and ties the crucible for such a diasporic sense of being? As theorized elsewhere, I argue that transnational engagements are emergent practices through which migrants strive to cope with the contradictory expectations they face at home and abroad (Lacroix, 2014, 2018). Migrants are ‘plural men/women’ socialized in multiple social contexts (Lahire, 2011). Emigrants become immigrants, rural farmers become urban workers, children of their parents become parents of their children, expatriate nationals become locally engaged citizens. Their cross-border engagements with homeland counterparts are communicative actions (Habermas, 1984) through which migrants reiterate their commitments as émigrés, while simultaneously expressing their condition of immigré. The migrant house built in the sending country is a typical example. With its distinctive feature, it publicizes the signs of their foreign experience while restating a form of allegiance and attachment. The business endeavors of migrant traders, the development initiatives of hometown collectives for their place of departure, and the artistic performance of artists in exile are examples of such manifold communicative engagement. In doing so, migrants forge a collective narrative of the multi-polarization of their existence and identity. The building of a thirdspace consciousness is nested in this process. Firstly, through their transnational engagements, migrants build a lived-space, a collective understanding of a space shared by migrants and non-migrants, a space that is not confined by territorial boundaries but by daily long-distance interactions. Lived-space is produced by identity markers whose semantics are meaningful for the members of the community. The ‘migrant home’ built up in the place of origin is one of the most widespread investments among immigrants (Boccagni & Pérez Murcia, 2021). Combining homeland and host-land features (for example, a living room with ‘traditional’ furniture and a Western kitchen), it expresses the multipolar positioning of their owner. When linked with a home in the place of settlement, the multi-residency of migrants canvases and informs a cross-border spatiality which is meaningful not only for themselves, but also for the other migrants and non-migrants who belong to the same social space. Outside the private space, migrants erect public buildings either for the benefit of all (especially in homeland communities) or for their own collective use. The literature on collective remittances has largely documented the building and/or refurbishment of schools, hospitals, and town halls, undertaken by collectives or individual migrants for

Transnationalism and the making of diasporas  187 development purposes (Portes & Fernández-Kelly, 2015). But we can also mention the premises of associations, gyms, cafés, community centers, places of worship, and schools acquired in the places of settlement. In both cases, the process is the same. Through architectural and/ or decorative features, they materialize in the ‘here’ the presence of a far-flung ‘elsewhere’. From this co-presence of the ‘here’ and the ‘there’ blossoms an imagined transnational space. The latter is not a mere transposed space from one place to the other, but an emergent one (a thirdspace) born out of the combination of elements that initially belong to two (or more) cultural universes. This explanation helps to understand why the building of a transnational space through the cross-border practices of migrants underpins the construction of a diasporic consciousness of belonging. In this regard, Emmanuel Ma Mung (2000) is right to argue that the maintenance of interpolar ties between the places of settlement favors the formation of diasporas. The ensuing circulation of objects and references that do not originate from the homeland but are borrowed from third countries, feeds into an emergent and distinctive transnational lived-space. Secondly, transnational practices are the crucible for the building of a lived-time, the intersubjective feeling of sharing the same ‘history’, the same temporal trajectory. The definitions of diaspora found in the literature often point out the importance of collective memory building (Safran, 1991). As shown by Maurice Halbwachs (1997), memory is not the stock of past events, but a meaningful reinterpretation of the past in the light of current context. In this regard, memory building is an emergent process in which the past collides with the present. Like the lived-space, this lived-time is produced and conveyed by transnational practices. A case in point is the widespread use by migrant organizations of homeland customary and religious terms to characterize their own development initiatives and solidarity practices: tiwizi among North Africans, Seva among Indians, udani among Cameroonians. These words have been transposed into the lexical field of development with little regard for their initial meaning. They are imbued with new meanings that reflect the multi-sited position of the actors. Expanding on this approach, one can distinguish different types of collective memories produced during the migration process: the traumatic events that precede and imbue the migration process shape the so-called exilic memory; by contrast, diasporic memories draw on the conflicts, mobilizations, adaptations, and cultural productions taking place after migration, during the settlement process (Lacroix & Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2013). Diasporas can be distinguished in accordance with the type of collective memory they nurture. For example, Robin Cohen’s (1997) above-mentioned typology can be revisited under the lens of these memorial forms: exilic memory is key for the reproduction of victim diasporas, while the memorization and transmission of a cultural repertoire (produced once migration has occurred and therefore part and parcel of a diasporic memory) characterizes cultural diasporas. Imperial diasporas include both aspects: while the initial conditions of the dispersion are central (memory of indenture, for example), anticolonial and social struggles also shape their collective identity. At the crossroads of lived space and time stand the ‘lieux de mémoire’. From Jewish or Armenian genocide memorials to the discreet plaques commemorating the assassination of a political leader, these places materialize a sense of transnational groupness. In his study of Pontic Greeks, Michel Bruneau (2009) shows how the orthodox monasteries of the Southern shore of the Black Sea still serve as referential points for the descendants of these exiles. They crystallize in the materiality of space the imagined history of exile. And, lastly, we have migrant social institutions. At the core of this diasporization mechanics stand transnational social institutions: transnational families, ethnic businesses, and migrant

188  Research handbook on the sociology of migration associations. In their bosom, the composite identities of their members that, in turn, imbue their transnational practices, are fashioned and negotiated. These social institutions and their capacity to take in charge cross-border engagements are key to understanding why a transnational community turns into a diaspora. The early engagements of migrant groups, mostly consisting of remittances and long-distance contacts, are mediated by families whose members are scattered in two or more countries. This ‘linear transnationalism’ is intense but short-lived: it fades over time while contacts with kith and kin loosen. Research shows that resource-dependent transnationalism taken on by businesses and associations is more enduring (Lacroix, 2018). Diasporas are shaped by the social institutions that govern their cross-border activities. Once again, Robin Cohen’s (1997) typology is useful here. He points out two practice-driven diasporas: trade diasporas (Lebanese and Chinese) and religious diasporas (Sikhs and Zionists). Ethnic businesses, on the one hand, and religious organizations on the other, channel not only the core activities of these diaspora groups, but they also form the backbone of community life. Around them are organized access to the job market, the migration trajectories of individuals (they condition destination choices), marriages, etc. Other transnational groups may rely on alternative types of organizations. Tamils and Kurds form political organizations, Mexicans tend to create hometown organizations, while caste or tribal organizations are common among Indians and Nigerians.

DIASPORA, TRANSNATIONALISM, AND THEIR LIMITS IN A POST-COVID WORLD The proposed approach connects both concepts beyond their distinctions, their difference of scale, timeframe, and focus. This connection is made possible because these concepts are the outcome of the same episteme. Do they remain relevant in a post-COVID world? I see three limits to the current approaches. Firstly, both concepts have been tailored by the need to understand the bearing of human migration on globalization. Do they remain relevant to understand what is at stake in a post-COVID world of closing borders and possible de-globalization? Even before the pandemic, with residence permits more sparsely delivered and for shorter periods of time, migration trajectories had become more chaotic and temporary. Transience and precariousness are the new norms for larger cohorts of migrants. And they certainly affect transnationalism: with the growing resources required for migration and settlement, migrants are limited in their capacity to engage in long-distance connections. What type of transnationalism does transient migration produce (if any) and what type of lifeworld does it generate? Secondly, despite recurrent claims, diaspora and transnational studies have kept a community-based focus, failing to factor in (super-)diversity in settlement areas. Approaches to super-diversity have explored how the proximity of populations from various backgrounds affects social processes locally (Vertovec, 2007), but little is known of their effect on cross-border ties and activities. The civil rights movements in the 1960s have been a rallying point for various immigrant groups and Black communities. But they have also been a historical stepping stone in the formation of a Black Atlantic diaspora. Can we draw a parallel with current solidarity movements involving asylum seekers and natives in the United States and Europe? Will they produce a new kind of cross-border social movement?

Transnationalism and the making of diasporas  189 A last limit of the epistemological purchase of both concepts derives from their transfer to the world of expertise and policymaking. So-called emigration and diaspora policies targeting expatriates abroad have elicited a renewal of the use of the term ‘diaspora’, but with a different meaning. While academics generally apply the term to sections of a migrant group engaged in diaspora-oriented social institutions, the policy use widens it to the ensemble of citizens abroad and their descent as whole, and whether they maintain any link with the homeland. Likewise, the criterion for membership differs: the sharing of a third consciousness of belonging highlighted by the scholarship is absent from policy-oriented concerns, which pays attention to citizenship and ancestry only. Neither usage can be easily reconciled. The influence of the grey literature (policy briefs, reports, and other resources targeted at policymakers) on academic research has led to the co-presence in the scholarship of an array of definitions for the same terms. Paul Tabar (2016) points to the effects of policies on the surge of diaspora-oriented organizations, and therefore speaks of diasporic ‘social fields’. But these fields are as short-lived as the policy fads that fostered them in the first place. It is doubtful that emigration policies will give birth to a cross-border imagined community likely to be called a diaspora over generations. This semantic conundrum partly explains the loss of gusto for diaspora studies in social sciences.

NOTE 1. This account of the historical trajectory of the concept of diaspora draws heavily on the work of Stéphane Dufoix (2008) and Khachig Tölölyan (2018).

REFERENCES Aron, R. (1962). Paix et guerre entre les nations. Paris: Calmann-Lévy. Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1994). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments and deterritorialized nation states. New York: Gordon and Breach. Beauchemin, C., Hamel, C., & Simon, P. (2016). Trajectoires et origines: enquête sur la diversité des populations en France. Paris: INED éditions. Bhabha, H. K. (2004). The location of culture. London and New York: Routledge. Boccagni, P., & Pérez Murcia, L. E. (2021). Fixed places, shifting distances: Remittance houses and migrants’ negotiation of home in Ecuador. Migration Studies, 9(1), 47–64. Brubaker, R. (2005). The ‘diaspora’ diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28, 1–19. Bruneau, M. (2009). Le rapport aux lieux et aux territoires en diaspora: Les grecs pontiques. In P. Rouillard (Ed.) Portraits de migrants, portraits de colons (pp. 29–39). Paris: De Boccard. Catani, M. (1986). Le transnational et les migrations: Individualisation et interaction entre systèmes de valeur. Peuples méditerranéens, 35–36, 149–164. Cesari, J. (1997). Les réseaux transnationaux entre l’Europe et le Maghreb: L’international sans territoire. REMI, 2, 81–94. Chivallon, C. (1994). Deux notions pour comprendre l’expérience sociale de l’espace: réseaux sociaux et territoires. Cahiers de la maison de la recherche en sciences humaines de l’université de Caen, June, 73–90. Cohen, R. (1997). The global diaspora: An introduction. London: UCL Press. Dufoix, S. (2008). Diasporas. Berkeley: University of California Press. Faist, T. (2000). The volume and dynamics of international migration and transnational social spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

190  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Faist, T. (2010). Diaspora and transnationalism: What kind of dance partners? In R. Bauböck & T. Faist (Eds.) Diaspora and transnationalism: Concepts, theory and methods (pp. 9–34). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Gamlen, A. (2019). Human geopolitics: States, emigrants, and the rise of diaspora institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gilroy, P. (1993). The black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Guarnizo, L. E., & Smith, M. P. (Eds.) (1998). Transnationalism from below: Comparative and community research. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press. Halbwachs, M. (1997). La Mémoire collective. Paris: Albin Michel. Heisler, B. S., & Heisler, M. O. (1986). From foreign workers to settlers? Transnational migration and the emergence of new minorities. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 485(1), 9–166. Itzigsohn, J., & Saucedo, S. G. (2002). Immigrant incorporation and sociocultural transnationalism. International Migration Review, 36(3), 766–798. Jessup, P. C. (1956). Transnational law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1972). Transnational relations and world politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kivisto, P. (2001). Theorizing transnational immigration: A critical review of current efforts. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24, 549–577. Kuznets, S. (1948). Foreign economic relations of the United States and their impact upon the domestic economy: A review of long term trends. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 92(4), 228–243. Lacroix, T. (2014). Conceptualizing transnational engagements: A structure and agency perspective on (hometown) transnationalism. International Migration Review, 48(3), 643–679. Lacroix, T. (2018). Le transnationalisme. Espace, temps, politique. Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Marne La Vallée: Université de Marne La Vallée. Lacroix, T., & Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2013). Refugee and diaspora memories: The politics of remembering and forgetting. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 34(6), 684–696. Lahire, B. (2011). L’homme pluriel: Les ressorts de l’action. Paris: Armand Colin. Landolt, P., Autler, L., & Baires, S. (1999). From hermano lejano to hermano mayor: The dialectics of Salvadoran transnationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 290–315. Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Levitt, P., & Jaworsky, B. N. (2007). Transnational migration studies: Past developments and future trends. Annual Review of. Sociology, 33, 129–156. Ma Mung, E. (2000). La diaspora chinoise: Géographie d’une migration. Paris: Ophrys. Meseguer, C., Lavezzolo, S., & Aparicio, J. (2016). Financial remittances, trans-border conversations, and the state. Comparative Migration Studies, 4(1), 1–29. Nyberg-Sørensen, N., Hear, N. V., & Engberg-Pedersen, P. (2002). The migration–development nexus: Evidence and policy options. International Migration, 40(5), 3–47. Portes, A., Escobar, C., & Walton Radford, A. (2005). Immigrant transnational organisations and development: A comparative study. CMD Working Paper Series, No. 05‑07: 66. Portes, A., & Fernández-Kelly, P. (Eds.) (2015). The state and the grassroots: Immigrant transnational organizations in four continents. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, P. (1999). The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 217–237. Portes, A., Haller, W., & Guarnizo, L. E. (2001). Transnational entrepreneurs: The emergence and determinants of an alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation. Transnational Communities Program. WPTC-01-05. Pries, L. (2001). New transnational social spaces: International migration and transnational compagnies in the early twenty-first century. London: Routledge. Safran, W. (1991). Diasporas in modern societies: Myths of homeland and return. Diaspora, 1(1), 83–99.

Transnationalism and the making of diasporas  191 Saunier, P.-Y. (2009). Transnational. In A. Iriye & P.-Y. Saunier (Eds.) The Palgrave dictionary of transnational history (pp. 1047–1055). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Schans, D. (2009). Transnational family ties of immigrants in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(7), 1164–1182. Sheffer, G. (1993). Ethnic diasporas: A threat to their hosts? In M. Weiner (Ed.) International migration and security (pp. 263–285). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Shepperson, G. (1966). The African abroad or the African diaspora. African Forum, 2(1), 76–93. Snel, E., Engbersen, G., & Leerkes, A. (2006). Transnational involvement and social integration. Global Networks, 6(3), 285–308. Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Oxford: Blackwell. Sorre, M. (1957). Rencontres de la géographie et de la sociologie. Paris: Marcel Rivière. Tabar, P. (2016). The Lebanese diasporic field: The impact of sending and receiving states. Immigrants & Minorities, 34(3), 256–275. Tölölyan, K. (2018). Diaspora studies: Past, present and promises. In R. Cohen & C. Fisher (Eds.) Routledge handbook of diaspora studies (pp. 22–30). Abingdon: Routledge. Toynbee, A. J. (1965). A study of history. Vol. XII. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. Waldinger, R. (2015). The cross-border connection: Immigrants, emigrants, and their homelands. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2003). Methodological nationalism, the social sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology. International Migration Review, 37(3), 576–610.

16. Children of immigrants and the second generation Davide Azzolini and Philipp Schnell

INTRODUCTION During the last three decades, large numbers of children of immigrants have come of age across many countries. Their achievements and the opportunities available to them in those countries are often regarded as a litmus test, not just for integration,1 but also for the success or failure of policies in this field. The experiences of these children—the so-called ‘second generation’—may provide a clearer indication of long-term integration prospects than the experiences of the parental generation. How and to what extent the second generation becomes ‘integrated’ is thus a core theoretical and empirical question in the sociology of migration. Consequently, the scientific debate on adaptation processes by children of immigrants has increased considerably, as indicated by the high number of journal articles published on this topic in the past five decades. Based on an article search carried out in Scopus and restricted to the top twenty journals in human migration, we found 2,701 studies dealing with children of immigrants published since 1970. They represent about 14 percent of all articles published in the same period in the same set of journals. The number of articles on children of immigrants has markedly increased over the considered period, especially in the most recent decade (see Figure 16.1).2 But the diverse and partially divergent integration processes of migrant children have also increasingly entered media coverage in the last decades. Media reporting has been, however, in particular associated with negative connotations of the second generation, such as the high numbers of immigrant origin students who perform below average in large-scale achievement tests in some European countries, an increase in religious attachment among the descendants of Muslim migrants, or the high crime rates among descendants of immigrants in larger US cities. Such negative reports have influenced the public debate about the second generation in Western societies, often questioning the integration capacity of immigration countries. On the other hand, the perspectives and stories of the second generation are covered more and more in popular media as well. In the Emmy and Golden Globe award winning comedy-drama Master of None (Netflix), experiences of ethnic stereotyping in film casting are addressed, for example, when the Indian-origin lead actor, Dev, is expected to speak (multiple times) with an Indian accent to obtain a part (such as the role of a taxi driver). These examples contest the idea that distinctions along ethnic, cultural, and social lines become less relevant over time (e.g. aspects of religiosity), while simultaneously indicating the significant role of contexts of reception (e.g. ethnic stereotyping) for integration processes by children of immigrants. This chapter elaborates the concepts ‘children of immigrants’ and ‘second generation’, as they have been conceived and employed in the sociology of migration. We begin by providing a short overview of the main theoretical perspectives on integration processes among children of immigrants, followed by a comprehensive description of the different operative and empir192

Children of immigrants and the second generation  193 ical definitions of the term ‘second generation’ used in the literature. We then demonstrate, on the basis of selected empirical studies, how these definitions affect integration outcomes. We conclude with a summary and an outlook on future research.

Notes: The list of top-20 human migration journals is retrieved from Google Scholar (accessed in February 2021). Ninety-eight percent of all articles are research contributions and literature reviews, while the remainder consists of editorials and notes. We used the following combination of search terms: children, second generation, generational status, child, youths, age arrival, age migration, offspring, students, adolescence, adolescents. Source: Scopus database. Extraction February 2021.

Figure 16.1

Number of articles on ‘children of immigrants’ published in top-20 human migration journals (1970–2020)

THEORETICAL RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT Broad agreement exists concerning the idea that in order to study patterns of migrant assimilation in destination societies, one must adopt a middle-term frame of analysis, i.e. to focus not only on migrants, but also on their descendants. Theoretical and empirical controversies exist, however, about the pace and pathways of the adaptation process over generations. According to a classical view—developed on the basis of the experiences of early immigrants of European ancestry in the United States—immigrant assimilation follows a straight-line pattern. Ethnic, cultural, or social distinctions become less important over time and immigrant offspring become similar to the non-immigrant population with regard to values, behaviors, and socioeconomic characteristics. In the early 1990s, a new theoretical perspective emerged, which argued that adopting a middle-term perspective, instead of a (too) long one, allows for the discovery that, whereas

194  Research handbook on the sociology of migration some ethnic groups are found to experience intergenerational upward mobility, other ethnic origin groups experience deprivation and social exclusion (Gans, 1992; Portes & Zhou, 1993). Research conducted in the United States shows that three main factors can be responsible for differentiated paths of assimilation: human capital (the formal education and occupational skills of the parents), the modes of incorporation (at three levels: government, society, and community), and family structure (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Portes, Fernández-Kelly, & Haller, 2009). In opposition to this ‘segmented assimilation theory’, classical assimilation theory has been renewed by the so-called ‘neo-assimilationists’ (Alba & Nee, 1997, 2003). These authors assert that there exists no systematic downward assimilation among the contemporary second generation. In the long-run, the dominant stream is ‘straight-line assimilation’ and any deviation from this upward path should not be regarded as individual anomalies. Kasinitz and colleagues (Kasinitz, Waters, Mollenkopf, & Holdaway, 2008) strengthen this neo-assimilationist perspective. Based on a study on the second generation in New York, they postulate a ‘second-generation advantage’, namely, that children of immigrants fare better than their respective native-born racial groups and are found to be better off than the foreign-born generation of the same national origin. In contrast to segmented assimilation theory, upward mobility seems to occur even among immigrant groups from relatively disadvantaged origins. Notwithstanding these newer perspectives, debates are ongoing and studies on intergenerational patterns of integration have not yet reached conclusive answers (Zhou & Gonzales, 2019). While some studies show that the children of immigrants attain better socioeconomic outcomes than their parents, there is also evidence that not all migrant origin groups benefit from this generational progress to the same extent (Ortiz & Telles, 2017; Park & Myers, 2010). While theoretical debates in the United States on the second generation are driven by divergent experiences of different ethnic groups in the same national context, European scholars have repeatedly stressed the importance of national contexts, given the fact that many countries are close to each other in some respects but differ substantially along important characteristics. Crul and Schneider (2010) have therefore argued for a ‘comparative integration context theory’, in which participation in social organizations and belonging to local communities among the second generation across Europe is strongly dependent on the integration context, including institutional arrangements in education, the labor market, housing, religion, and legislation.

DEFINING ‘SECOND GENERATION’ AND ‘CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS’ First and Second Generations While there is a large consensus about the importance of intergenerational analysis for the study of the long-term consequences of immigration, there is no unified agreement on the meaning and measurement of generations (Schneider, 2016). When referring to the ‘first generation’, immigration scholars usually have in mind persons born and socialized in a foreign country, who have migrated themselves as adults (Rumbaut, 2004, p. 1165). In other words, the first generation is often an equivalent of the parental generation in migration research (e.g. Crul, Schneider, & Lelie, 2012; Kasinitz et al., 2008).

Children of immigrants and the second generation  195 In its most rigid definition, the ‘second generation’ instead refers to the descendants of immigrants, who are born and socialized in the country to which their parents have migrated (Schnell, 2014). This definition of second generation corresponds to what is commonly used in immigration studies when research is conducted on the children of immigrants. Criticism on the Concept of ‘Second Generation’ The notion of the second generation has been criticized, especially when combined with the term ‘immigrant’ (Chimienti, Guichard, Bolzman, & Le Goff, 2021; Durmelat & Swamy, 2013). Although the expression ‘second-generation immigrant’ is common in the migration literature, it is technically a contradiction in itself. The second generation is made of descendants of immigrants, who were born in the country to which their parents have migrated, but did not immigrate themselves. Hence, this labeling implies that second (and subsequent) generation(s) will always be ‘immigrants’ (Batram, Poros, & Monforte, 2014), reflecting the assumption that they are never truly integrated into the country in which they are born. These attributed ‘problems’ of integration are seen as inherent in this notion, although it hardly corresponds to the self-perceived reality of the people concerned (Schneider, 2016, p. 2). Categories such as second generation are, however, of the utmost importance if one is interested in identifying disadvantages and discriminatory practices suffered by native-born descendants of immigrants (and subsequent generations). An increasing number of studies show that the second generation faces disadvantages in education (Heath & Brinbaum, 2014) or employment (Heath & Cheung, 2007) that cannot be fully explained by their lack of skills or various forms of capital. The persistence of ethno-racial disadvantages among citizens, who do not differ from others except for their ethnic background, their skin color, or their religious beliefs, is an indication that equality is an ambition not yet achieved (Fibbi, Midtbøen, & Simon, 2021, p. 2). Children of Immigrants: Further Classifications Many empirical studies have reported systematic differences in the pace and mode of integration between children of immigrants arriving at a younger vs. a later age, for instance, with regard to educational achievement (Schnell & Azzolini, 2015) or language acquisition (Spörlein & Kristen, 2019). Therefore, it is useful to further subdivide the group of first-generation immigrants according to age at migration. The idea behind such a life-course approach is that children under a certain age have fewer childhood memories attached to their home country and much more time for their individual development in the receiving society. According to a widely used categorical classification, first-generation immigrants are subdivided into specific categories according to their age of arrival to the receiving society (Rumbaut, 1997, 2004). As shown in Table 16.1, individuals entering the receiving country at age 18 or later are (mid-) adulthood immigrants, who migrate after having completed education and might come already with years of work experience and/or family formation. Those arriving in their adolescent years (ages 13–17) have been labeled the ‘1.25 generation’, which shows outcomes that are much closer to the first generation of immigrant adults (Rumbaut, 2004). Turning to foreign-born youths, who arrive in middle childhood (ages 6–12), they have been classified as the ‘1.5 generation’ or the ‘in-between generation’ (Rumbaut, 1997). This distinction is relevant in the United States, where many foreign-born children of immigrants are not granted citizenship by birth. Studies investigating this distinction and taking the unau-

196  Research handbook on the sociology of migration thorized status of the 1.5 generation into account point to significant differences in integration outcomes as compared to the second generation (who are given US citizenship by birth), including participation in certain life domains, civic engagement, or their sense of belonging (Gonzales & Chavez, 2012), up to variations in important socioeconomic outcomes (Patler, 2018). Next, children who arrive in destination countries during early childhood (ages 0–5) are labeled the ‘1.75 generation’, indicating their hypothesized closeness to the second generation. This generation is sometimes grouped together with native-born children of immigrants as a part of the second generation. To complete the picture, the ‘third generation’ is the appropriate term for the offspring of the second generation—i.e. the grandchildren of the first adult immigrant generation. Table 16.1

Overview of (categorical) definitions: first, second, and third generations First

1.25

1.5

1.75

2.

2.5

3rd +

generation

generation

generation

generation

generation

generation

generation

Foreign-born

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Age

18+

13–17

6–12

Description

Arriving

Arriving in

Arriving

0–5 Arriving in

0+ Born in the

0+ Born in the

0+ Born in the

in (mid-)

adolescent

in middle

early childhood country to

adulthood

years

childhood

country to

country to

which both

which one of

which (at least

parents

their parents

one of) their

migrated

migrated

grandparents migrated

Methodological Challenges The identification of first and second generations requires at a minimum data that contain information on the country of birth of the individuals. If they are foreign-born, information on the age and date of arrival may also be needed. The latter information makes it possible to classify immigrants as first generation (and related subgroups). If native-born, the country of birth of the mother and father is required in order to identify the second generation. The first methodological challenge already arises with respect to the place of birth of the parents. Some studies define the second generation as the children of two foreign-born parents, while others include in the definition also children with only one immigrant parent as second generation. Both approaches have been used and only some studies explicitly differentiate between descendants of two foreign-born parents and children of mixed marriages within their empirical materials (oftentimes referred to as the ‘2.5 generation’; e.g. Caron, 2020; Rumbaut, 2004). The approach used to identify children of immigrants (being of mixed parentage or not) has also profound consequences when one is interested in determining the size of the immigrant-origin population in certain countries. An example may be instructive here. Using data from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the share of second-generation youth among 15-year-olds in a pooled sample of 27 European countries is estimated at 8.3 percent when using the criterion of both parents being born abroad. It increases to 18 percent, however, if one defines ‘second-generation’ as descendants of at least one foreign-born parent. More than 9 percent of native-born adolescents in Europe are

Children of immigrants and the second generation  197 indeed of mixed parentage. Thus, the measurement of the size and composition of the second generation, which together with first generations comprise the country’s ‘immigrant stock’, depends on how the term is operationalized. Moreover, as shown below, the applied definition matters not only for quantifying the size of second-generation youths, but also for gaining an understanding of their actual level of integration into destination societies.

WHY DEFINITIONS MATTER: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON THE SECOND GENERATION’S OUTCOMES3 Place of Birth Most of the existing empirical evidence suggests that second-generation children display better educational outcomes compared to their first-generation counterparts, who arrived later to the country (Kao & Tienda, 1995). In some cases, the second generation reaches or even outperforms natives (Glick & White, 2003). This ‘relative’ advantage of second-generation children over migrant children is generally explained with ‘acculturation’ arguments: second-generation children perform better because they have spent more time in the destination country and thus have acquired country-specific norms and skills from their birth. Among these country-specific skills, a pivotal role is the facilitated acquisition of the language spoken in the destination country (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). However, this overall pattern hides a certain amount of country of origin variation (Heath, Rothon, & Kilpi, 2008). In European countries, children whose parents migrated from less-developed countries tend to show lower levels of educational and occupational attainment. This is the case, for example, of Turkish ancestry children in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands (Zuccotti, Ganzeboom, & Guveli, 2017) or Mexican-origin children in the United States (Lutz, 2007). Other groups, instead, even outperform the majority population in education and show a limited disadvantage in the labor market: South and East Asian groups, such as Indian youths in the United Kingdom and Norway (Fekjær, 2007; Rothon, 2007) and Chinese or other Asians in the United States (Glick & White, 2003; Zhou & Kim, 2006). Lee and Zhou (2015), on the basis of a study of adult children of immigrants in Los Angeles, argue that the educational outcomes of the 1.5 and second generation may be partially accounted for by ‘hyper-selectivity’, which provides youth with more favorable starting points and greater access to ethnic capital, which might also reinforce positive stereotypes as smart, high-achieving, hard-working, and deserving students. Moreover, evidence from Europe indicates that integration across generations proceeds at a faster pace in domains such as national identification or possession of host country citizenship relative to other dimensions, such as establishing friendships or romantic relationships between members of minority and majority groups (Heath & Schneider, 2021). It must be considered, however, that most of this generational and country-of-origin variation is due to socioeconomic background differentials across groups (Glick & White, 2003). According to Heath et al. (2008), social class accounts for at least half of the disadvantages among children of immigrants, relative to natives in several European countries. For children of immigrants from less developed countries, a significant gap relative to natives persists even after holding

198  Research handbook on the sociology of migration socioeconomic resources equal and could be accounted for by various factors such as language fluency, aspirations, social capital, and contextual effects (Heath et al., 2008). Age at Arrival These patterns are also dependent upon whether children of immigrants are classified only by their place of birth, or if their age at arrival (or, age at migration) is also considered. A widely accepted and established empirical finding is that a higher age at arrival is negatively correlated with a number of migrant children’s educational and socioeconomic outcomes (Heath & Kilpi-Jakonen, 2012). Two explanations are typically proposed for this trend. The first is that exposure to the host culture and educational system enhances immigrant acculturation and language acquisition. The earlier the student enters the receiving society, the quicker and more complete the acquisition of the new language (Esser, 2006), as well as socialization into the host society. Another point of agreement among migration scholars is that the relationship between age at arrival and migrant outcomes in the destination country is not linear; rather, specific critical ages at arrival exist and they are related to different stages of development. The specific critical age to be considered is still a debated issue. According to some studies, the most sensitive period for migrating is adolescence (Myers, Gao, & Emeka, 2009; Rumbaut, 2004), because individuals who immigrate as teenagers exhibit higher risks of acquiring less schooling and developing lower cognitive skills, compared to immigrants who arrived at earlier or at later ages. Rumbaut (2004) finds that those who arrived in the United States in their teen years (13–17—the 1.25 generation) show the same, if not even worse, educational and occupational attainments than their first-generation peers. Rumbaut (2004, p. 1191) further adds that ‘in general, the 1.25 cohort comes across as a distinctive and seemingly vulnerable one, all the more when compared to the patterns of their younger-at-arrival 1.5 and 1.75 compatriots’. Qualitative research has shed light on the specific mechanisms that can account for the link between age at arrival and educational success. According to a study based on the autobiographies of 65 adolescents with an immigrant background and successful school outcomes in Italy, Santagati (2021) concludes that second-generation students are often driven by a sense of competition to excel and stand out. The 1.5 generation, on the contrary, would prefer to work hard in order to be like natives and to demonstrate a sense of responsibility toward their parents. Finally, the 1.25 generation would have a more ‘wait and see’ approach; they accept their actual conditions as temporary and place trust in the future. Others have stressed that along with stern discipline, immigrant parents often dispense the advice that education is the only way to rise above their own lower class positions, a pattern that has been identified as the ‘motivating fear of failure’ (Portes & Fernández-Kelly, 2008) or the ‘family migration project’ (Tepecik, 2009). Other scholars claim that the most sensitive period occurs right after the prime years for language learning, positing the critical age at around nine years old (Beck, Corak, & Tienda, 2012; Böhlmark, 2008). At this age, children make the transition from ‘learning to read to reading to learn’, meaning that they acquire the skills needed to become self-learners; hence, migrating during or after this period might have notably negative impacts on children’s future schooling. Beck et al. (2012) document that for the United States, the chances of not having a high school diploma among immigrants increases dramatically for immigrants arriving at the age of nine or older.

Children of immigrants and the second generation  199 Finally, some studies posit that a sensitive period occurs also when children attend school for the first time, make friends outside the family, and master new physical and mental skills. Schnell and Azzolini (2015), in a comparative study on four Southern European countries, find that when immigrant children arrive after the age of six (when compulsory education starts), they face the largest disadvantages in educational achievement. Even if they themselves experience great disadvantages, their own children, in turn, benefit from the experience compared to first-generation children. Overall, the existing empirical base supports the theoretical supposition that distinguishing children of immigrants based on a more fine-grained level than simply their place of birth is important for a better understanding of the patterns of adaptation in the destination society. The best age categorization to be used is not always clear, potentially due to the fact that the different classifications could better fit different contexts or outcomes of interest. One vs. Two Parents Born Abroad Identifying children of immigrants based on the fact that they have two, or at least one, foreign-born parents is a further methodological choice that has important consequences, not only when estimating the share of children of immigrants in the population (as shown above) but also in terms of assessing certain levels of educational or social integration. Many empirical studies have shown that children of mixed couples exhibit higher educational outcomes relative to the children of two immigrants. For instance, Ramakrishnan (2004) finds that youth with a native and a foreign-born parent in the United States are less likely to drop out of high school, and that they also attain higher educational levels than those with two foreign-born parents. Other studies based in the United States even conclude that mixed-parentage children attain more years of schooling than students either with two foreign-born or two native parents (Chiswick & DebBurman, 2004). Similar conclusions are revealed in European countries. Azzolini and colleagues (Azzolini, Schnell, & Palmer, 2012) find that in Italy and Spain, standardized test scores among mixed-parentage children are indistinguishable from those of students with two native parents. Becker (2010) finds that children of Turkish migrants and Turkish-native unions in Germany have better cognitive skills and German language proficiency than children with two foreign-born parents. Muttarak’s (2013) study in Great Britain reveals that mixed-ethnic children attain similar educational and occupational outcomes compared to their peers with two ‘white’ parents. These results highlight the potential socializing action of the native-born parent, who— beyond facilitating children’s acquisition of the country language—can also grant children access to wider social networks and thus increase their chances of social contact with natives (Kristen et al., 2011). Moreover, the native parent likely possesses the country-specific human capital and the social capital necessary to support the child’s schooling. In addition, children of two migrant parents may face higher risks of being raised in an economically deprived household; hence, differences in outcomes between two-migrant children and mixed-parentage children are also accounted for in part by differences in socioeconomic status (Furtado & Song, 2015). In quantitative studies, mixed parentage children have been often considered together with children of immigrants. One reason for this grouping may be the relatively low incidence of mixed-parentage children in the population and the consequent limited size in the analyzed samples. However, now, the increased size of the descendants of mixed couples, together

200  Research handbook on the sociology of migration with the increased empirical evidence on their actual attainments, suggests that they should be treated separately in analyses (Alba & Foner, 2015). That said, the beneficial consequences of having one native-born parent are not the same for all ethnic or national-origin groups. Kalmijn (2015), using data from England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, shows that mixed parentage children with a parent of sub-Saharan or Caribbean ancestry perform similarly to natives, while those with a parent originating from either the Middle East or South Central Asia tend to perform more similarly to children of two immigrants. Alba and Foner (2015) find that in the United States, for Asians and Hispanics, intermarriage appears to be associated with substantially greater integration into the mainstream society; but for those of African ancestry, this outcome is more doubtful. A possible explanation is that children with one of the parents belonging to a visible minority group face a higher risk of stigmatization.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS The children of immigrants—which broadly includes native-born and foreign-born descendants of immigrants—constitute a substantial proportion of contemporary societies across the globe. Thus, the situation of the ‘second generation’ has become an important topic in the migration literature (see Figure 16.1) as well as in the public discourse. The importance of looking at how children of immigrants fare when they come of age in destination societies is evident for understanding the dynamics and patterns of immigrant assimilation. While definitions of second generation and children of immigrants are clear in general terms, their concrete and operative definitions are still ambiguous. We have shown that how the second generation is defined matters both for quantifying its incidence in a given society and, even more importantly, to assess the extent to which they are included in society. From a theoretical perspective, it appears that the integration of the second generation is a complex process that cannot be explained by uniformly pessimistic or uniformly optimistic interpretations. Moreover, at least in the European context, differences in institutional arrangements shape the integration of the second generation significantly. We have further shown that the concept ‘children of immigrants’ always masks a certain degree of heterogeneity of life situations, which must be considered in order to grasp the granularity of the adaptation process. Age at migration, place of birth, and mixed parentage are relevant and consequential factors. More research and data are needed, however, to determine more precisely, how exactly national origin interacts with the aforementioned factors, as well as with social class, immigrant selectivity, and what can be summarized as receiving contexts, to examine divergent outcomes among the second generation. Moreover, it will be important to deal not only with the second generation, but also to reveal the experiences of their children (the third generation) in order to achieve a more temporally complete glimpse into long-term intergenerational adaptation processes. This applies especially to Europe, in which much of the third-generation is just about to reach adulthood. Finally, we recognize two substantial gaps in existing research on the second generation. First, a persistent geographical gap exists, with much of the academic debate being dominated by North American, Western European and (to a lesser extent) Australian experiences, while studies from other parts of the world and their important immigrant-receiving societies remain scarce. Second, in the existing research on children of immigrants, most studies are either quantitative or qualitative in methodology;

Children of immigrants and the second generation  201 a coherent combination of these two methodological approaches is still rare (see also Zhou & Gonzales, 2019). Both shortcomings should be addressed in future research.

NOTES 1. In this chapter, we use the terms integration and assimilation interchangeably. This concept is neither interpreted nor used in a ‘normative’ way. It is rather employed in a merely descriptive manner, as a useful tool for interpreting the dynamics of immigrant adaptation (Alba & Nee, 2003; Rumbaut, 1997). 2. This growth also reflects the overall trend observed in the number of migration-related articles and journals indexed in Scopus. However, the articles dealing with children of immigrants have also increased relative to the total number of contributions published in the top-20 human migration journals (the proportion of articles on children of immigrants doubled in the last two decades, shifting from 9 percent in 2000 to 18 percent in 2020). Growth in the number of articles on children of immigrants has also occurred in non-migration specific journals (i.e. in top-20 sociology journals). 3. The key arena in which to examine the integration of immigrant youth is educational achievement and attainment (Schnell, 2014, p. 19); therefore, this section refers mostly to empirical works addressing educational outcomes among children of immigrants. Moreover, our article search carried out in Scopus (compare to section one) revealed that the topic of education was primarily addressed in 45 percent of all the identified articles.

FURTHER READING Crul, M., Schneider, J., & Lelie, F. (Eds.) (2012). The European second generation compared: Does the integration context matter? Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kalter, F., Jonsson, J. O., van Tubergen, F., & Heath, A. (Eds.) (2018). Growing up in diverse societies: The integration of the children of immigrants in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Published for the British Academy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kasinitz, P., Waters, M. C., Mollenkopf, J. H., & Holdaway, J. (2008). Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reichl-Luthra, R., Soehl, T., & Waldinger, R. (2018). Origins and destinations. The making of the second generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Schneider, J., Crul, M., & Pott, A. (Eds.) (2022). New social mobility: Second generation pioneers in Europe. Cham: Springer.

REFERENCES Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2015). Mixed unions and immigrant-group integration in North America and Western Europe. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 662(1), 38–56. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31(4), 826–874. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Azzolini, D., Schnell, P., & Palmer, J. R. (2012). Educational achievement gaps between immigrant and native students in two “new” immigration countries: Italy and Spain in comparison. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 643(1), 46–77. Batram, D., Poros, M. V., & Monforte, P. (2014). Second generation. In D. Batram, M. V. Poros, & P. Monforte (Eds.) Key concepts in migration (pp. 124–127). London: Sage.

202  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Beck, A., Corak, M., & Tienda, M. (2012). Age at immigration and the adult attainments of child migrants to the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 643(1), 134–159. Becker, B. (2010). Equal chances by the third generation? Cognitive and language skills of second and third generation children of Turkish origin in Germany. Paper for the Final EQUALSOC Conference, 4–5 June 2010, Amsterdam. Böhlmark, A. (2008). Age at immigration and school performance: A siblings analysis using Swedish register data, Labour Economics, 15(6), 1366–1387. Caron, L. (2020). An intergenerational perspective on (re) migration: Return and onward mobility intentions across immigrant generations. International Migration Review, 54(3), 820–852. Chimienti, M., Guichard, E., Bolzman, C., & Le Goff, J.-M. (2021). How can we categorise “nationality” and “second generation” in surveys without (re)producing stigmatisation? Comparative Migration Studies, 9(1), 1–17. Chiswick, B. R., & DebBurman, N. (2004). Educational attainment: Analysis by immigrant generation. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 361–379. Crul, M., & Schneider, J. (2010). Comparative integration context theory: Participation and belonging in new diverse European cities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1249–1268. Crul, M., Schneider, J., & Lelie, F. (Eds.) (2012). The European second generation compared: Does the integration context matter? Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Durmelat, S., & Swamy, V. (2013). Second-generation migrants: Maghrebis in France. In I. Ness (Ed.) The encyclopedia of global human migration. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1002/​9781444351071​.wbeghm599. Esser, H. (2006). Migration, language and integration. AKI Research Review – WZB Berlin, 4. Fekjær, S. N. (2007). New differences, old explanations: Can educational differences between ethnic groups in Norway be explained by social background? Ethnicities, 7(3), 367–389. Fibbi, R., Midtbøen, A. H., & Simon, P. (2021). Migration and discrimination. IMISCOE Short Reader. Cham: Springer. Furtado, D., & Song, T. (2015). Intermarriage and socioeconomic integration: Trends in earnings premiums among US immigrants who marry natives. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 662(1), 207–222. Gans, H. J. (1992). Second‐generation decline: Scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post‐1965 American immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15(2), 173–192. Glick, J. E., & White, M. J. (2003). The academic trajectories of immigrant youths: Analysis within and across cohorts. Demography, 40(4), 759–783. Gonzales, R. G., & Chavez, L. R. (2012). “Awakening to a nightmare”: Abjectivity and illegality in the lives of undocumented 1.5-generation Latino immigrants in the United States. Current Anthropology, 53(3), 255–281. Heath, A. F., and Brinbaum, Y. (Eds.) (2014). Unequal attainments: Ethnic educational inequalities in ten Western countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heath, A. F., & Cheung, S. Y. (Eds.) (2007). Unequal chances: Ethnic minorities in Western labour markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heath, A., & Kilpi-Jakonen, E. (2012). Immigrant children’s age at arrival and assessment results. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 75. Paris: OECD Publishing. Heath, A. F., Rothon, C., & Kilpi, E. (2008). The second generation in Western Europe: Education, unemployment, and occupational attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 211–235. Heath, A. F., & Schneider, S. L. (2021). Dimensions of migrant integration in Western Europe. Frontiers in Sociology, 6. Kalmijn, M. (2015). The children of intermarriage in four European countries: Implications for school achievement, social contacts, and cultural values. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 662(1), 246–265. Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1995). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76(1), 1–19. Kasinitz, P., Waters, M. C., Mollenkopf, J. H., & Holdaway, J. (2008). Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Children of immigrants and the second generation  203 Kristen, C., Edele, A., Kalter, F., Kogan, I., Schultz, B., Stanat, P., & Will, G. (2011). The education of migrants and their children across the life course. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14(2), 121–137. Lee, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). The Asian American achievement paradox. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lutz, A. (2007). Barriers to high-school completion among immigrant and later-generation Latinos in the USA: Language, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Ethnicities, 7(3), 323–342. Muttarak, R. (2013). Is it (dis)advantageous to have mixed parentage? Exploring education & work characteristics of children of interethnic unions in Britain. Vienna Institute of Demography, WP 1/2013. Myers, D., Gao, X., & Emeka, A. (2009). The gradient of immigrant age-at-arrival effects on socioeconomic outcomes in the US. International Migration Review, 43(1), 205–229. Ortiz, V., & Telles, E. (2017). Third generation disadvantage among Mexican Americans. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 3(4), 441–457. Park, J., & Myers, D. (2010). Intergenerational mobility in the post-1965 immigration era: Estimates by an immigrant generation cohort method. Demography, 47(2), 369–392. Patler, C. (2018). Citizen advantage, undocumented disadvantage, or both? The comparative educational outcomes of second and 1.5‐generation Latino young adults. International Migration Review, 52(4), 1080–1110. Portes, A., & Fernández-Kelly, P. (2008). No margin for error: Educational and occupational achievement among disadvantaged children of immigrants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 620(1), 12–36. Portes, A., Fernández-Kelly, P., & Haller, W. (2009). The adaptation of the immigrant second generation in America: A theoretical overview and recent evidence. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35, 1077–1104. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530(1), 74–96. Ramakrishnan, S. K. (2004). Second-generation immigrants? The “2.5 generation” in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), 380–399. Rothon, C. (2007). Can achievement differentials be explained by social class alone? An examination of minority ethnic educational performance in England and Wales at the end of compulsory schooling. Ethnicities, 7(3), 306–322. Rumbaut, R. G. (1997). Assimilation and its discontents: Between rhetoric and reality. International Migration Review, 31(4), 923–960. Rumbaut, R. G. (2004). Ages, life stages, and generational cohorts: Decomposing the immigrant first and second generations in the United States. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1160–1205. Santagati, M. (2021). Writing educational success: The strategies of immigrant-origin students in Italian secondary schools. Social Sciences, 10(5), 180. Schneider, J. (2016). First/second generation immigrants. NESET II ad hoc question No. 4/2016. Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) University of Osnabrück, Germany. Retrieved from NESET2_AHQ4.pdf (nesetweb.eu). Schnell, P. (2014). Educational mobility of second-generation Turks: Cross-national perspectives. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Schnell, P., & Azzolini, D. (2015). The academic achievements of immigrant youths in new destination countries: Evidence from southern Europe. Migration Studies, 3(2), 217–240. Spörlein, C., & Kristen, C. (2019). Educational selectivity and language acquisition among recently arrived immigrants. International Migration Review, 53(4), 1148–1170. Tepecik, E. (2009). Educational success and intergenerational transmission: Educational advancement among migrants of Turkish descent in Germany. In G. Rosenthal & A. Bogner (Eds.) Ethnicity, belonging and biography: Ethnographical and biographical perspectives (pp. 371–386). Berlin: Lit Verlag. Zhou, M., & Gonzales, R. G. (2019). Divergent destinies: Children of immigrants growing up in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 383–399.

204  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Zhou, M., & Kim, S. (2006). Community forces, social capital, and educational achievement: The case of supplementary education in the Chinese and Korean immigrant communities. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 1–29. Zuccotti, C. V., Ganzeboom, H. B., & Guveli, A. (2017). Has migration been beneficial for migrants and their children? Comparing social mobility of Turks in Western Europe, Turks in Turkey, and Western European natives. International Migration Review, 51(1), 97–126.

PART II METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

17. Secondary analysis of government and official data on international migration Corrado Bonifazi

INTRODUCTION Issues of availability, quality, and comparability of statistical data are particularly important in migration studies. The earliest discussions concerning the improvement of statistics on international migration can be traced back to the First International Statistical Congress held in Brussels in 1853 (Congrès Général de Statistique, 1853). The fact that, after all this time, debates about migration data persist, highlights the difficulty (or even the impossibility) of resolving the relevant issues once and for all. It is well known that ‘Migration statistics are probably the most complex element in the field of social statistics, not only from an operational point of view, but also from a conceptual point of view’ (UNECE, 2019, p. 45). In the last decades, the growing political importance of migration-related phenomena has contributed to intensifying the efforts of international organizations and national statistical offices to increase the quantity and improve the quality of migration data, a process propelled by the approval of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, the adoption of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants in 2016, and the development of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) (Global Migration Group, 2017). The results have been remarkable—data on international migration have never been so abundant and easily accessible. A visit to the data portals of many international organizations reveals how widely available they are today. Despite these improvements, migration data are only partially able to respond to the needs of researchers and policy makers. Bonifazi and Strozza (2006) have alluded to problems of comparability and coverage, linked to difficulties in defining migration and migrants and finding effective collection systems. However, since the 1990s, statisticians have usually opted for a pragmatic approach aimed at using and developing already-existing data rather than addressing issues of definition (Bilsborrow, Hugo, Oberai, & Zlotnik, 1997; Folden, Manke, & Mortensen, 2006). Paradoxically, the greater wealth of information makes the secondary analysis of official data even more difficult, especially if the user does not have adequate knowledge of the characteristics and limitations of migration statistics. This knowledge gap cannot always be bridged by the information provided in publications or on websites that provide data. Within this context, the aim of this chapter is to provide basic information on government and official data on international migration. For the sake of clarification, we refer primarily to data published by international organizations1 that generally utilize national-level statistics and seek to ensure the highest possible level of comparability between countries.

206

Secondary analysis of government and official data on international migration  207

GOVERNMENT AND OFFICIAL DATA ON MIGRATION The Global Migration Data Portal of the International Organization for Migration’s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC)2 and the Data Catalogue of the Knowledge Portal of the European Commission’s Knowledge Centre on Migration and Demography (KCMD)3 offer good overviews of the wealth and variety of data currently available on international migration. I focus on the statistics available from what I consider the three most important international organizations collecting this type of data: the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and EUROSTAT, the statistical office of the European Union (EU). Each offers data for different groups of countries: the UN collects data for the entire world, the OECD for developed countries, and EUROSTAT for EU and EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries. The Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) produces estimates for the number of international migrants at the global, regional, and national levels. The dataset, called ‘International Migrant Stock’,4 is updated on a regular basis and contains estimates for the number (or ‘stock’) of international migrants disaggregated by age, sex, and country or areas of origin and destination. The estimates are based on official statistics on the foreign-born or the foreign population and are often the only available data on the number of migrants at the global level and for many countries. As a result, these estimates are probably the most-cited data in the field. Additionally, in the framework of the World Population Prospects, the Population Division of the UN estimates net migration rates and the net number of migrants for all countries of the world, covering the period from 1950 to 2020.5 Finally, UNDESA makes available a dataset on international migration flows to and from selected countries, with annual data on the flows of international migrants as recorded by destination countries.6 The OECD International Migration Statistics database contains data on migration flows, foreign and foreign-born populations, naturalizations, and labor market outcomes.7 In particular, it presents data on inflows and outflows of foreigners, inflows of asylum seekers, foreign workers, and seasonal foreign workers, stocks of the foreign-born and foreign populations, together with data on the acquisition of citizenship. As regards labor market data, the OECD database presents participation, employment, and unemployment rates of the population by gender and place of birth (foreign-born and native-born), as well as employment rates by educational attainment and place of birth. Data are generally supplied for the 37 OECD countries for the period from 1995 to 2020, while labor market outcomes cover the years from 2000 to 2020. In the case of EUROSTAT, data on migration are on its database web page, in the sections ‘Demography & Migration’, ‘Asylum & Managed Migration’, and ‘Labour Market’, under the theme ‘Population and Social Conditions’. The section entitled ‘Migrant Integration and Children in Migration’ is included under ‘Cross-Cutting Topics’.8 The Demography & Migration section contains data on population by citizenship and country of birth, immigration and emigration flows, acquisition and loss of citizenship. The section on Asylum & Managed Migration presents information on the number of asylum applicants and decisions on applications, residence permits, statistics on the enforcement of immigration legislation, and children in migration. In the section entitled ‘Labour Market’, the user finds data on the labor market situation of foreigners and foreign-born populations, drawn from the EU Labour Force Surveys (EU-LFS), as well as information on labor mobility within EU and recent immigrants.

208  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Finally, the Migrant Integration and Children in Migration section provides information on the integration of migrants in the destination country, in terms of specific aspects of employment, education, health, social inclusion, and active citizenship, with data from the EU-LFS and the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Survey (EU-SILC) complemented by administrative data sources. Data are generally published for EU and EFTA countries from 1998 to 2020.

CRITICAL ANALYSES OF AVAILABLE DATA The richest and most detailed information framework for statistics on international migration is produced by EUROSTAT, not least because the level of statistical production and the management of migratory flows, as well as the integration of migrants, represent two important goals of EU policies (Geddes, Hadj-Abdou, & Brumat, 2020; Geddes, 2021). Overall, the availability of migration data is obviously greater for more developed countries, while for the others, only estimates of basic indicators made by the United Nations are available. However, before analyzing the situation described in the introduction, I offer some general observations on the main characteristics and limits of official data on migration. Issues Concerning the Definition of Concepts The first aspect to consider is the difficulty in defining migration. Migration has been called a fuzzy concept (Willekens, 1984) and varying definitions are used in national-level statistics. This type of problem is generally not encountered within demographic analysis because it is based on events (births and deaths) which are much simpler to identify and only occur once in the entire life of each individual. In contrast, an individual may never migrate or may migrate many times. There is, therefore, no univocal relationship between events (instances of migration) and the individuals (migrants). From a practical point of view, five criteria are used to define an international migrant: residence, citizenship, time or duration of stay, purpose of stay, and place of birth (UNDESA, 2012). Currently, the following UN definition of a long-term migrant is taken as a reference point: ‘A person who moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so that the country of destination effectively becomes his or her new country of usual residence’ (UNDESA, 1998, p. 10). Official data do not always respect this definition and social scientists should be aware that the content of statistics can change between countries, sometimes within the same country, and, frequently, between different statistical sources. A second point to be considered is that migration data can refer to ‘flows’ or ‘stocks’. Migration flows are the number of international migrants arriving into (immigrants) or departing from (emigrants) a country over a certain period of time and migration stocks are the number of immigrants living in a country at a specific moment. These two types of data can be collected from different statistical sources and respond to different research and political questions. Interest in flows generally concerns the size, origin or destination, timing, and characteristics of migration and is strictly related to the management of arrivals. Flows can refer to the entire population or to some specific group, defined according to criteria such as country of birth, citizenship, or place of residence. With stocks, the focus is on the size and characteristics of immigrant populations or populations with an immigrant background. In this case, research

Secondary analysis of government and official data on international migration  209 questions fall into the domain of integration and are connected to the measurement of the impact of migration in destination societies. The impacts of migration can be considered from different points of view (economic, demographic, social, etc.), taking into account different groups of migrants (workers, refugees, students, etc.), and different types of migration (labor, family, forced, seasonal, etc.). The main sources of migration stock data consist of population censuses, population registers, and surveys, while flow data are primarily collected from administrative sources (UNDESA, 2012). Stock data are the easiest to collect and are available in all countries that conduct a census. Generally, data on flows enable the study of migration in a continuous manner while data on stocks are useful for measuring the impacts of migration in a specific reference period. The first thing to look for with regard to stocks is the incidence of migration over a given period of time, while the collection of data on migratory flows requires a well-organized and structured statistical system which can be very difficult to operationalize. This situation has led to the widespread use of migratory statistics of stocks, not only jointly but also occasionally as an alternative to compensate for the unavailability of statistics on flows. In reality, however, these are two radically different ways of conceptualizing the phenomenon and provide different kinds of information on migration. It is crucial to avoid the improper use of migration data, especially when information gaps on flows necessitate the extensive use of available data on stocks. For example, data on stocks depends not only on the past dynamics of flows, but also on the effects of mortality; certainly, some migrants die during their stay in the destination country. In addition, data on stocks rarely cover the concept of migration comprehensively because of the very different statuses accorded to different categories of migrants. In most cases, the emphasis is on the population born in a foreign country (‘foreign-born’ population); in other cases, individuals with another citizenship are considered (‘foreign’ population). United Nations Migration Data Moving on to a more detailed examination of the three international data sources highlighted in this chapter, it is evident that UN data contain the minimum level of information currently available in almost all the countries of the world. Specifically, the UN provides estimates on stocks of international migrants and net migration (as absolute values and rates), publishing data on migration flows for a limited number of countries. The estimates of international migrant stocks are largely based on census data, covering the foreign-born population, as well as the foreign population in a limited number of cases. In fact, even today, the goal of estimating migration at the global level can only be achieved by bringing together non-homogeneous data. Researchers must be aware of this point, especially when they perform comparisons between countries. Notably, the United Nations is unable to use their definition of ‘long-term migrant’ for estimates; they must rely on the two basic reference populations for migration statistics (‘foreign-born’ and ‘foreign’ populations). The foreign-born population includes all individuals born in another country (nationals and foreigners), even if birth outside the country is incidental, based on a short length of stay. This type of data is also affected by changes in nation-state borders that transform internal migrants into international migrants. For instance, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia transformed many internal migrants into international migrants. Estimating the

210  Research handbook on the sociology of migration foreign population presents a host of other problems. Such estimates include the children of immigrants born in the receiving country, who are not migrants. They exclude nationals that have migrated into the country, as well as foreign immigrants that have acquired citizenship of the destination country, which are undoubtedly two distinct groups of migrants. As regards estimates of net migration, they are calculated as residual, using the population at two points in time and an evaluation of natural increases. The net number of migrants is the difference between immigration and emigration; consequently, it does not provide any information on the size of the two flows. Regarding migration flows, the UN reports data for some countries for the period from 1980 to 2013, for citizens, foreigners, and total flows. OECD Migration Data Migration data published by the OECD include statistics on flows and stocks. This dataset is strictly related to International Migration Outlook, the report of the OECD’s Continuous Reporting System on Migration, whose 44th edition was published in October 2020 (OECD, 2020). In the case of migration flows, the variables include the inflows and outflows of foreigners, as well as the inflow of specific categories of immigrants (asylum seekers, foreign workers, and seasonal foreign workers). Researchers must keep up front the fact that only a part of the flows is measured since nationals are not included in the statistics published by the OECD. However, we must also consider that the main concern of statistical offices is to measure the presence and the movements of foreigners. This emphasis reflects the demands of policy makers and governments. Moreover, it is generally easier to statistically measure the movement of foreigners than that of nationals because of the many administrative traces that foreigners (at least those who move legally) are obliged to leave in their wake (Bonifazi and Strozza, 2002). As far as data on stocks are concerned, the OECD takes into account measures based on both the foreign and the foreign-born populations, national statistics permitting. The two measures reflect different research traditions and approaches. In the United Kingdom, and in countries with high levels of permanent immigration (North America and Oceania), the primary emphasis has usually been on the population born in another country. In continental Europe, in contrast, the foreign population is highlighted, with a vast range of criteria arising from the various legislative frameworks governing entry and conditions of residence for foreigners, as well as access to naturalization. The OECD website also provides information on some aspects of the integration of immigrants into the labor market. In this case, data are drawn from the current population surveys for the United States and from labor force surveys for other countries. They include comparisons between foreign-born and native populations, and the use of survey data improves the quality and the timeliness of information. The OECD and the EU jointly produce a highly useful report entitled Indicators of Immigrant Integration, published in its third edition in 2018 (OECD/EU, 2018). The publication offers a large-scale comparison of the integration processes of immigrants and their children in EU and OECD countries, and in some other G20 countries. The first two chapters of the report introduce the topic of integration, elaborating its indicators and the composition of the immigrant population. The following chapters directly address the issue of integration, analyzing its various aspects: the labor market situation, living conditions, civic engagement and the social situation, gender differences, the situation

Secondary analysis of government and official data on international migration  211 of young people with a migratory background, and the conditions for third-country nationals in the EU. EU/EUROSTAT Migration Data The website of the EU contains the most in-depth and detailed migration statistics, compared to the UN and the OECD. In 2007, a specific regulation by the European Parliament and the Council on Community Statistics on Migration and International Protection was adopted.9 The regulation stimulated EU countries to seek out and implement new data sources, to collect new data, and to improve the quality of already-existing data. The regulation was amended in June 2020.10 Integration has become a key priority for the European Commission and has gained importance on the European agenda, from the Tampere Programme of 1999 to the most recent Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021–2027,11 adopted in November 2020. From a statistical point of view, a decisive step was taken through the Declaration of the European Ministerial Conference on Integration of Zaragoza in April 2010, in which it was established. to promote the launching of a pilot project with a view to the evaluation of integration policies, including examining the indicators proposed … and analysing the significance of the defined indicators taking into account the national contexts, the background of diverse migrant populations and different migration and integration policies of the Member States, and reporting on the availability and quality of the data from agreed harmonised sources necessary for the calculation of these indicators.12

The results of these initiatives have been very impressive, and, currently, many EU countries produce statistics on the foreign-born population or on the flows of nationals, a scenario fostered by the entry in force of the 2007 regulation. The new rules approved in 2020 will probably have a similar effect, with further expansion and improvement of migration statistics in EU countries. In the case of the EU, the relationship between political choices and migration statistics is very clear and direct. The production of migration statistics has been organized to meet the specific knowledge needs of European and national policy makers and stakeholders. The structure of the sections on the EUROSTAT website devoted to migration has been created to best achieve this goal, dividing the subjects according to political themes. Following a section devoted to the general characteristics of the phenomenon of migration, there are sections dedicated to asylum, managed migration, the labor market situation, labor mobility within the EU, and the integration of third-country nationals, all reflecting the specific goals of EU migration policies.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS In recent years, the quantity and quality of governmental and official data available on the various aspects of migration have significantly increased, as evidenced by an examination of the statistics available on the websites of three major international organizations: the UN, the OECD, and EUROSTAT. In addition, at the country level, many national statistical offices make large datasets available. Despite this remarkable and steady progress, the question of

212  Research handbook on the sociology of migration whether and to what extent available data actually meet information needs remains open for debate. Without a doubt, migration is a particularly complex social phenomenon, the effects of which can reverberate even after years or in subsequent generations; thus, information coverage is necessarily partial. In particular, the need to follow particular groups of the population, collectives whose link with migration does not concern only the individual, is becoming increasingly pressing. Among these groups, we must certainly include the second generation, the naturalized, and people with a migratory or foreign background. To meet these knowledge needs, research is moving towards the use of micro-data, which allow greater flexibility and allow for defining the most suitable target population for answering different research questions (OECD/EU, 2018). A critical point concerns the reference populations used in migration statistics that, in most cases, utilize either the country of birth or the citizenship of individuals. In the former case, the immigrant population consists of those who no longer live in the country of birth, but the data bring together, given the variability of the reference period, people who have moved over a period of nearly 100 years. In the latter case, the data may have a precise temporal reference, generally that covered by the survey, but they embody a major limitation, namely, bringing together migrants (i.e., foreigners born in a country other than the one in which they reside) and non-migrants (foreign citizens born in the destination country). To overcome these limitations, a solution is to combine this (and other) information to identify the various populations of interest. At the individual level, for example, it is possible to combine current citizenship with previous (or at birth) citizenship and country of birth. This merging represents a first step towards determining populations with a foreign or migratory background, which are further defined by also taking into account the characteristics of the parents. The possibility of considering not only current citizenship, previous citizenship, and place of birth, but also the same information relating to parents allows us to highlight the heterogeneity of some aggregates and, at the same time, to bring out categories that would otherwise have remained hidden within the majority group of the population (Bonifazi, Cappelli, De Angelis, Mastroluca, & Strozza, 2008). Bonifazi and Strozza (2006, p. 543) articulate such a proposition: ‘At the European level, the concept of population of foreign origin has been proposed. The concrete determination of this should be based on the combination of many criteria, which should enable a real comparison between the data from various countries and at the same time make it possible to monitor the whole social process associated with immigration’. Country of birth, citizenship at birth, year of immigration, previous country of residence or current citizenship are essential data for analyzing population groups with migratory and foreign backgrounds. An individual’s origin, migratory history, and family origins define that person’s background. Therefore, the need to adopt a multidimensional approach is clear, involving the cross-use of multiple demographic variables, of multiple forms of information which, used simultaneously, prove to be decisive in identifying migratory targets (Paoluzzi et al., 2021). The field of the production of statistics on international migration continues to evolve. Political demands for more information on migration are in fact stimulating the search for new sources and solutions. In particular, there are three promising directions for the future of the field: data integration, the use of big data, and longitudinal data. Data integration is considered an effective solution to improve and enrich migration statistics. Data integration can assume different forms and can have different characteristics, but, overall, it represents a path currently being explored with greater conviction (UNECE, 2019). Data integration can concern

Secondary analysis of government and official data on international migration  213 both macro- and micro-level data, and it can ensure the enrichment of traditional sources by adding socio-demographic or economic information to currently available datasets. Big data represent another important area at the frontier of knowledge about migration: Mobile phones, online tools and platforms such as social media or online payment services, and digital sensors and meters such as satellite imagery represent potential innovative, ‘big data’ sources of migration data. Rapid technological advancement coupled with emerging socioeconomic trends has contributed to generating an unprecedentedly large, detailed, and complex data flow from these sources, which keeps being fed at a rapid pace. (Global Migration Group, 2017, p. 22)

Big data, in addition to helping improve the quality of statistical information in more developed countries, can be decisive in reducing the knowledge gap in less developed countries. Especially in places where traditional sources are not available or are more difficult to implement, big data can make an important contribution towards improving migration statistics. Longitudinal data are another promising direction in the development of statistics on international migration: Longitudinal data refers to information which is collected from the same units of analysis, such as individuals or households, over time. Longitudinal analysis can uniquely and accurately describe individual trajectories through time. Longitudinal data allow us to study and understand life events and transitions, over the life course and inter-generationally. This is particularly useful for the study of international migration, since settlement into a new country is a long-term process. (UNECE, 2020, p. 3)

In other words, the use of longitudinal data allows us to take into account changes at the individual and family levels, considering migration as a long-term process, aspects generally not captured by traditional statistical sources. Ultimately, notwithstanding future developments in the field of the production of statistics on international migration, it appears likely that in the coming years, the secondary analysis of government and official data will become even more compelling and full of possibilities than it is today.

NOTES 1. Access to the websites occurred in March 2021. 2. See https://​gmdac​.iom​.int/​migration​-data​-portal. 3. See https://​bluehub​.jrc​.ec​.europa​.eu/​catalogues/​data/​. 4. See https://​www​.un​.org/​development/​desa/​pd/​content/​international​-migrant​-stock. 5. See https://​population​.un​.org/​wpp/​Download/​Standard/​Migration/​. 6. See https://​www​.un​.org/​development/​desa/​pd/​data/​international​-migration​-flows. The 2015 Revision of the dataset presents data for 45 countries. 7. See https://​www​.oecd​-ilibrary​.org/​social​-issues​-migration​-health/​data/​oecd​-international​-migration​ -statistics​_mig​-data​-en​#archive. 8. See https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​eurostat/​web/​main/​data/​database. 9. See https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​?uri​=​CELEX​%3A02007R0862​-20200712. 10. See https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​?uri​=​CELEX​%3A32020R0851​&​qid​=​ 1616500132680. 11. See https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​home​-affairs/​sites/​homeaffairs/​files/​pdf/​action​_plan​_on​_integration​_and​ _inclusion​_2021​-2027​.pdf.

214  Research handbook on the sociology of migration 12. See https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​migrant​-integration/​librarydoc/​declaration​-of​-the​-european​-ministerial​ -conference​-on​-integration​-zaragoza​-15​-16​-april​-2010.

REFERENCES Bilsborrow, R. E., Hugo, G., Oberai, A. S., & Zlotnik, H. (1997). International migrations statistics: Guidelines for improving data collection systems. Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO). Bonifazi, C., Cappelli, C., De Angelis, S., Mastroluca, S., & Strozza, S. (2008). Popolazioni straniere e immigrate: Definizioni, categorie e caratteristiche. Studi Emigrazione, 171, 519–548. Bonifazi, C., & Strozza, S. (2002). International migration in Europe in the last fifty years. In C. Bonifazi & G. Gesano (Eds.) Contributions to international migration studies (pp. 33–105). Rome: IRP-CNR. Bonifazi, C., & Strozza, S. (2006). Conceptual framework and data collection in international migration. In G. Caselli, J. Vallin, & G. Wunsch (Eds.) Demography: Analysis and synthesis, Vol. IV (pp. 537–554). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Congrès général de statistique (1853). Compte rendu des travaux du Congrès général de statistique réuni à Bruxelles les 19–22 septembre 1853. Brussels: M. Hayez. Folden, C., Manke, M., & Mortensen, T. (Eds.) (2007). Sharing Data: Where to start. An emerging approach to migration data management. Vienna: International Organization for Migration. Geddes, A. (2021). Governing migration beyond the state: Europe, North America, South America, and Southeast Asia in a global context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geddes, A., Hadj-Abdou, L., & Brumat, L. (2020). Migration and mobility in the European Union (2nd Edition). London: Red Globe Press. Global Migration Group (2017). Handbook for improving the production and use of migration data for development. Washington, DC: Global Knowledge Partnership for Migration and Development (KNOMAD), World Bank. OECD (various editions). International migration outlook. Paris: OECD. OECD/EU (2018). Settling in 2018: Indicators of immigrant integration. Paris: OECD Publishing/ Brussels: European Union. Paoluzzi, E., Biasciucci, F., Ciccaglioni, C., Gallo, G., Bonifazi, C., & Strozza, S. (2021). Italiani, stranieri e immigrati: Le popolazioni di riferimento nello studio dei processi di integrazione al Censimento del 2011. Studi Emigrazione, 222, 198–228. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (1998). Recommendations on statistics of international migration. Revision 1. Statistical Papers, Series M, 58, Rev. 1. New York: United Nations. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2012). Toolkit on international migration. Retrieved from https://​www​.un​.org/​en/​development/​desa/​population/​migration/​ publications/​others/​docs/​toolkit​_DESA​_June​%202012​.pdf. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2019). Guidance on data integration for measuring migration. New York and Geneva: United Nations. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2020). Guidance on the use of longitudinal data for migration statistics. Geneva: United Nations. Willekens, F. (1984). Comparability of migration: Utopia or reality? Working paper Nidi, 47. Voorburg: Nidi.

18. Ethnography in migration studies: an everlasting love? Martina Cvajner

INTRODUCTION In 1936, a young (22-year-old) member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, William Foote Whyte, decided to spend his fellowship in a much maligned and overcrowded Italian-American neighborhood in Boston. He moved, together with his wife, to a small flat above a local trattoria, and spent three-and-a-half years quietly entering the field. Having befriended a local young man, he was introduced to some local groups, participating in their (not always legal) activities. Whyte went bowling, visited the gambling joints, helped write letters, drank beer, witnessed voting fraud, was enrolled in one of the baseball teams, listened to endless hours of gossip and small talk, and chronicled the usually unsuccessful attempts by the local young men to find a job (Whyte, 1994). He designed several (rather ingenious) techniques for recording the dynamic developments within the social interactions among the people he was studying. He clashed with the local gender norms and made a huge number of naïve mistakes. After a while, he achieved the most he could have hoped for, to be judged ‘just as much as a fixture around this street corner as that lamppost’ (Whyte, 1993, p. 306). In July 1940, William Foote Whyte was able to leave the field to spend two further years analyzing his data and writing a monograph. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum was published, without much fanfare, by University of Chicago Press in 1943. Within just a decade, the book was unanimously considered a sociological classic. In his book, Whyte advanced a bold claim regarding distinctive, and superior, knowledge, a claim that was, and still is, a main feature of the ethnographic tradition: a slum district known as Cornerville is inhabited almost exclusively by Italian immigrants and their children. To the rest of the city, it is a mysterious, dangerous, and depressing area … The only way to gain knowledge is to live in Cornerville and participate in the activities of its people. … The middle-class person looks upon the slum district as a formidable mass of confusion, a social chaos. The insider finds in Cornerville a highly organized and integrated social system. (Whyte, 1993, pp. xv–xvi)

Whyte was convinced that participant observation was the most rigorous way to observe social processes. He understood ethnography on the basis of a clear-cut distinction between ‘observations’ and ‘interpretations of observations’. He suggested that unfamiliar reality had to be studied as an altogether different society, withholding moral judgments, and concentrating on observing and recording what went on in the community. The researcher should repress his own opinions, focusing instead on how the people themselves explained events (Andersson, 2014; Platt, 1983). 215

216  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Albeit many, maybe most, contemporary ethnographers would not adopt Whyte’s language or share his idea of ethnography as a behavioral science, most of them still share his attraction for deep engagement with the observation of actual interaction. To use Elijah Anderson’s famous dictum, ethnography is first and foremost a mission to apprehend local knowledge, comprehend it and describe it. Like Whyte, contemporary ethnographers have the ambition to show how what may seem chaotic and meaningless to an outsider can be shown to be ‘a highly organized and integrated social system’ (even if most ethnographers would today feel more comfortable calling it a ‘field’ rather than a ‘system’). Ethnography’s capacity to find a method in the (alleged) madness is particularly important when dealing with migration issues. In public discussions of migration issues, superficial descriptions of huddled masses moving in desperate Brownian motions unfortunately abound. It is not surprising that ethnographies of migration have mushroomed in recent years (FitzGerald, 2006). In the following section, I provide a basic introduction to the ethnographic method, focusing on the main methodological choices in the design of any ethnographic project. I then utilize my personal research experience to provide an example of how such choices are made in concrete migration projects. To follow, I provide some select examples of contemporary ethnographies by migration scholars.

VARIETIES OF ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACHES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Ethnography (from Greek ἔθνος ethnos, ‘folk, people, nation’ and γράφω grapho, ‘I write’) is the systematic study of people and cultures. Ethnography is likely the oldest social scientific method: some trace it back to Greek and Roman historians, others cite early eighteenth-century scientific expeditions, and still others reference the very birth of contemporary social science in the long nineteenth century. No matter how old, ethnography has proven strongly adaptable. Today, it is able to interact with computational social science (Brooker, 2022), human-computer interaction, and even design (Crabtree, Rouncefield, & Tolmie, 2012; Pink et al., 2022). Ethnography is also quite stretched across disciplines. It is often, even if not always, regarded as deeply intertwined with anthropology (Ingold, 2017). It is considered a standard, although sometimes maligned (Goldthorpe, 2000), tool in sociology. It is frequently adopted in criminology and geography (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, & Lofland, 2001). It has seen growth within political science, in which there is talk of an ‘ethnographic turn’ (Brodkin, 2017). Some ethnographic currents can be detected even in economics (Henrich et al., 2004; Lowes, 2021) and in history (Isaac, 1980). Nor should it be forgotten that ethnography has a strong practical side: ethnography is frequently used in marketing and consumer research, for the design of new technologies, in communication studies, and in political consultancy (Elliott & Jankel-Eliott, 2003; Howard, 2002). Given its history, spread, and variety of uses, it is not surprising that ethnography comes in different shapes and shades, approaches and standards. Ethnographers often appear divided by strong cleavages, even with regard to basic terminology. There are decade-long ethnographic projects and snapshot ethnographies lasting just a few weeks, if not days. There are ethnographies strictly based on what has been observed or heard directly and personally, and others relying on vast doses of retrospective accounts. There are ethnographic projects that confine

Ethnography in migration studies: an everlasting love?  217 themselves to rigidly delimited sites (so-called ‘island ethnographies’) and others follow people along long territorial corridors. There are ethnographers highly suspicious of whatever seems subjective, as well as adepts of ‘auto-ethnographies’. There are ethnographies based on long periods of physical co-presence and others in which most observation is carried out through online channels. Finally, there are ethnographies meant predominantly as an analytic exercise and others targeted toward social critique or civil repair (Burawoy, Burton, Ferguson, & Fox, 1991). To further intensify the fog surrounding this methodology and method of social scientific inquiry, there has been an increasing tendency to define as ‘ethnographic’ whatever product relies on one or another so-called ‘qualitative’ methods. Over the decades, these differences have triggered a steady stream of secondary literature. Most of it, unfortunately, has been framed in terms of the search for some abstract criteria able to distinguish ‘true’ ethnographic projects from ‘fake’ ones. Unsurprisingly, most of them have quickly turned into dialogues among the seemingly deaf. A more fruitful approach is to survey the ethnographic ‘field’ to identify a set of choices/alternatives that make it possible to classify different types of ethnographic projects (Katz, 2019). Before discussing the various types of ethnography, it is important to stress that, regardless of their differences, they share a common core. It is this common core, namely, observation, that allows us to distinguish the broad family of ethnographic approaches from other research methods and techniques, including other ‘qualitative’ ones. Ethnography is, first and foremost, the systematic study of people, sites, and cultures through direct observation. The core of any serious ethnographic project is spending a sizeable amount of time in the field, observing closely (and recording) what is going on (Nippert-Eng, 2015). Without such sustained observational activity, with all its accompanying pleasures and boredoms, calling one’s work ‘ethnographic’ is—at best—a misnomer. Within the boundaries of ‘observation’, however, there is room for a large variety of research designs. Three key distinctions are worth mentioning. The first concerns the differences between observing a site (or several, in the case of multi-sited ethnographies) or focusing on the lives of one or more social actors. In the first case, the ethnographer selects one or more spatially and socially bounded environments in which a set of social interactions deemed of interest takes place with a certain level of regularity. Well-known examples of such an approach include studies carried out in specific neighborhoods (Duck, 2015; Goffman, 2016) or in smaller sites such as the ‘corner’ studied by Liebow (1967), the liquor store studied by Anderson (2003) or the dilapidated commercial structures analyzed by Mathews (2011). While clearly providing readers with a great deal of biographical information, the dominant focus is clearly on group activities. These studies may be focused on a single site, or be designed to be explicitly comparative (Anderson, 2012). In the latter case, although many observations are inevitably spatial, the main focus of the ethnography is on recounting and following the lives of certain subjects as they navigate their social world. These subjects are chosen because their experiences are rare and endangered, as in the famous case of Ishi (Kroeber, 2004) or Ogotemmeli (Griaule, 2014), because they belong to social categories that represent victims of urban prejudice, as in the case of the street book-seller studied by Duneier (2000), or because their lives are considered as exemplifying particular biographical careers or lifestyles (Wilkins, 2008; Willis, 1981). While each concrete ethnography is likely to involve a mix of the two approaches, the emphasis is nearly always on one or the other. A second, and most well-known, cleavage divides observer and participant observer ethnographies. The former implies that the researcher tries to acquire a legitimate presence,

218  Research handbook on the sociology of migration a membership, in the group. Most of the time, this is the status of a novice, of someone included through some kind of probationary status. More rarely, it is the status of a ‘regular’, a full-fledged member. In both cases, as already seen in the case of Whyte’s work, participant observation requires getting involved in as many activities as possible, and establishing important personal connections with at least a few of the members studied. Non-participant observation, in contrast, implies that researchers want, as much as it is possible, to observe people and environments without their presence being noticed. Observation is carried out, as the classic saying goes, by becoming a ‘fly on the wall’. Although participant observation has been traditionally the most popular of the alternatives, the growing, and often obstructive, role of institutional review boards (IRBs) and the pervasiveness of digital life—making available large bodies of recorded interactional materials—have made also the second alternative more appealing. A final important distinction concerns the reliance on, or avoidance of, triggered accounts, such as those resulting from interviews or focus groups. In a strictly ‘naturalistic’ design, an ethnography relies mostly, if not exclusively, on direct observation. Verbal accounts are usually taken with suspicion; they count as hard data only if naturally occurring, without the intervention of the researcher (DiMaggio, 2014; Jerolmack & Khan, 2014). In other research designs, on the contrary, observation is regularly accompanied by interviews or other forms of planned conversations. In some cases, the ethnographer also collects retrospective accounts such as life histories. The choice of site vs. people and of participant and non-participant observation, together with the selection of secondary techniques, may be contingent upon a variety of biographical and situational considerations. In the best cases, it depends on the research question. If we want to observe social interactions among a number of individuals occupying or crossing a public space, we might easily choose observation, rather than participant observation. The focus of our work will be on gathering copious field notes describing accurately walking paths, interactions among groups of passersby, the observable technology they use, and the many other organized features of their endeavors. The materials most often useful to complement such observations will be equally non-intrusive: archived items, visual materials, maps, and newspaper articles. Conversely, if we are interested in processes of group-formation or dissolution, if we want to explore how members of a certain group endogenously define the meaning of their own practices, there are few suitable alternatives to participant observation. To learn how people’s practices are socially enacted and observed, it is necessary to participate in the group dynamics and interact with the other participants. It is often necessary to complement such participant observation with the elicitation of other biographical information, through interviews, structured conversations, or even questionnaires, as in the well-known case of the ethno-survey (Kaczmarczyk & Massey, 2019; Massey, 1987).

METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES IN ETHNOGRAPHIES OF MIGRATION: A PERSONAL EXAMPLE How do the differences outlined above affect the design and the development of an ethnographic project on migration? I will address the practicalities of the method by talking about my own first ethnographic project, on Eastern European female migrants in a Northeastern Italian town. As with many ethnographic projects, it did not start as a project at all. In the

Ethnography in migration studies: an everlasting love?  219 second half of the 1990s, I overheard in the street, while window-shopping, some women speaking in a language that reminded me of Russian, a language I had studied many years before. I started a conversation, through which I quickly discovered they were some of the very first women arriving from Ukraine to work as care workers for elderly people. We started meeting regularly, so that they could practice some Italian and I could learn a new language. After some years, once I entered graduate school, those contacts were a key resource to enter the field as a full-fledged member of the expanding group of women joining the early pioneers in the niche of elderly care work. The original timeline placed the end of my project in 2008, when I was going to defend my doctoral dissertation. Soviet Signoras: Personal and Collective Transformations in Eastern European Migration, the monograph synthesizing what I had learned during the project, was actually published more than a decade later (Cvajner, 2019). When I started preparing my project in graduate school, I encountered some of the problems that most ethnographers face when they must frame their work in the mainstream and dominant language of ‘projects’, ‘milestones’, and ‘feasibility’. I had some vague ideas—based on the background knowledge I had accumulated through my walks and talks—on what I was interested in. I wanted to know how a loose network of middle-aged women, who had experienced a set of rather traumatic experiences (among them the loss of social status during the economic transition and the breakup of their marriages) would—after arriving in a new (and often perceived as hostile) social environment—manage their social, emotional, and sexual lives. Moreover, I wanted to understand how the first wave of migrants, the pioneers with no previous experience of international migration, that had moved to a new context with no previous history of immigration from their lands, succeeded (or failed) in gaining a foothold in the new social space. Even if a bit murky, the research questions and the research subjects were there. The pressing problem, however, was to find a research site. It became clear from the ethnographic monographs I was reading, that I had to choose between two strategies: finding one or more specific sites where my subjects congregated on a regular basis (the parking lot, the bus station, the benches in the city main square, a park), or to follow some of the migrants in their daily lives, in and out of the myriad chores they attended to. The first allowed for a ‘naturalistic’ observation of repeated sequences of actual interactions over time and place; the second would grant more richness and depth to the biographical careers of some of the women. Both had pitfalls: the first would have forced me—as it did—to rely on retrospective accounts for whatever happened to the women in their workplaces, in public offices, and—in general— whenever they were not with the group. The second would sharply reduce my capacity to observe the development of the dynamics of the group, the ways in which they would both create relationships in and across the group and establish their own narratives. Choosing to use specific spatial sites as the focus of observation, however, was only a part of the problem. Even considering the severe austerity in which the women migrants were living, there were often several possibilities competing for attention. During spring, going to Sunday Mass would imply missing the group of women who would congregate at the same time in the park along the river. These different venues engendered stressful selections. Each of the sites, moreover, requested an adjustment in the modes of observation. In large public spaces—like the parking lot or the park—I was able to interact with fewer women, but I could observe large numbers of them. I could see who arrived with whom, who shared a meal with whom, etc. More cozy, private discussions would develop only among smaller groups of self-selected women that gathered for a drink and a chat. The ability to observe different settings came only

220  Research handbook on the sociology of migration with some practice. Luckily, it is an incremental process: the more you engage in ethnography, the more proficient and satisfying it becomes. The fieldnotes also improved over time and the general take on what was in front of me started slowly emerging. The second choice I had to make was between observation and participant observation. As I already had a (somewhat tacit) membership in the group and I had already been drawn in to some of their activities, the former was not an option. I also considered that none of the spaces the women used to meet, although public and easily accessible, would have allowed any form of ‘indirect’ observation. Above all, however, what I wanted was to understand the dynamic process of ‘making sense’ of a new situation while at the same time building from scratch a new migration infrastructure. This required strolling and window-shopping regularly with the crew of the women. I helped in selling the items of direct sales companies (mainly cosmetics and underwear) and in organizing initiatives in the associations. I traveled back to the homeland with the minivans. I acted as a chaperone on some women’s first dates, participated in barbecues in mountain parks, attended church functions and disco nights, brokered medical appointments, provided ad hoc legal counsel, visited dime-stores and discount supermarkets, and participated in the informal Eastern European open-air market supplied by the regular minivan traders. I hosted women in my apartment and I was hosted by the few that—in due course—had a place to receive guests. Like most ethnographers, I quickly discovered that the main challenge in participant observation was to find a way to keep an accurate record of what was happening, not to mention how to be able to maintain some sort of private life during fieldwork. Finally, I had to choose the type of secondary evidence that would complement my direct (participant) observations. I considered the adoption of an ‘instrumental’ strategy, in which participant observation could be considered, inter alia, as a way to build trust and gain access to potential interviewees. In the end, however, I decided to adopt a rather strict conception of ‘naturalistic’ ethnography. I did not conduct any interviews or structured conversations, retaining in my notes only information that had emerged spontaneously from the conversation flows (Jerolmack & Khan, 2014). I have never regretted this decision, particularly because the sustained experience of participant observation makes an ethnographer quite aware of one of the most important, and most forgotten, truths of empirical research: what we say is not what we do (Deutscher, 1973; LaPierre, 1935). Similar doubt-filled situations are common among ethnographers, not only at the beginning of our careers, but whenever we start a new project. As ethnography is largely a craft, none of them may be easily solved by looking at an instruction manual. Help comes primarily from mentorship, discussions with peers, and reading. Each ethnographer, for example, has to struggle to find an adequate way to take notes (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011), to engage with the field (Fine, 2003), and to frame adequately the actual empirical details in light of broader concerns (FitzGerald, 2014), not to mention how to use one’s body and persona in a way that is suitable to the context and, at the same time, comfortable (Willis & Trondman, 2000). Planning and implementing an ethnographic project also requires confronting other more practical decisions. It is often unclear what precisely the ethnographer should observe. Which activities provide important information and which ones will turn out to be simple background noise? Each ethnographer has to deal with frequent periods of inactivity and has to learn how to deal with boredom. Chances of offending important informants are always lurking. During ethnography, it is difficult, but necessary, to learn that the observational schedule is contingent upon the availability of the subjects, not the ethnographer. Observation must become the prime

Ethnography in migration studies: an everlasting love?  221 interest, with reading, writing, and studying (not to mention family obligations or hobbies) fitting in the remaining available slots. The first phase of any ethnography is consequently often difficult, until the ethnographer gets somewhat accustomed to what Nippert-Eng (2015) has masterfully described as the ‘field rhythm’. It is important to note that ethnographic projects do not end with fieldwork. Endless projects have failed at the last stage: writing. In contrast to other forms of social research, ethnographic data collection has no clear-cut end. When writing starts, data suddenly turn out to be over-abundant or scarce. Doubts come to the surface. No matter how sophisticated the epistemologies ethnographers think they have mastered, the interplay of description and explanation during writing becomes a minefield (Katz, 2001, 2002). Bridging, connecting, and making sense of the data requires enormous effort. A main challenge in ethnographic writing is balancing the voice of the ethnographer with the voice of the subject: it is here that an important maxim must be remembered, namely, that empathy does not mean sympathy (Katz, 1988). An equally important challenge is finding the right story to tell; it may sometimes be quite different from the one that triggered the fieldwork. In my case, Soviet Signoras became the story of the role played by sociability in the fragmentation of a relatively homogeneous (in socio-economic terms) group of women migrants. I had discovered that personal networks, friendships, and love were important factors in the evolution of their lives, ultimately shaping a distinctive migration pattern, a self-reproducing, women-led migration system. Was it worth it? Any ethnographic project is tiresome (we’re expected to spend a lot of time with our subjects, who are not always interesting, and surely—as any human being—never interesting 24/7), difficult (unexpected events and surprises will request a spirit of adaptability and much imagination), and complicated (for it to work, one needs to be involved). It should also be acknowledged that ethnographic knowledge is incremental and difficult to defend from a variety of critiques. Ethnography embodies little of the purity found in other methods. Still, it offers a unique opportunity to observe behaviors directly, instead of relying on retrospective accounts. It further allows us to observe and participate in representation from within, understanding the practical difficulties of migrants. Finally, it provides access to the process of representation in its development, both procedurally and sequentially: the ethnographer can have a glimpse of the ‘backstage’ of life (Goffman, 1959).

ETHNOGRAPHY IN MIGRATION STUDIES The development of ethnography as a sociological method is deeply intertwined with the development of the sociology of migration. The Chicago School, based at the University of Chicago (and sometimes also known as the Ecological School), rose to international prominence in the early twentieth century, championing a new vision of urban life based on naturalistic observation (Bulmer, 1986). At the core of their vision of sociological research was an opposition to both armchair theorizing and secondary analysis. To study social phenomena, in Park’s famous dictum, was ‘getting the seat of your pants dirty in real research’ (Kivisto, 2017). For the Chicago tradition, the landmark migration study is surely The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, authored in 1918 by W. I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki. It is considered one of the first classics of both sociology and migration studies (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918).1 Although often referred to as the origin point for the ethnography of migration, the

222  Research handbook on the sociology of migration book is actually not an ethnography at all. It is based on collected personal documents, primarily letters but also life histories, brochures, newspaper articles, parish records, and court documents. Its ‘ethnographic’ importance lies rather in the capacity to shape a fully naturalistic approach to urban phenomena, ethnic diversity, and migration. The ‘naturalistic’ approach to migration—the consideration of migration as a ‘normal’ social process rather than a pathology—has been adopted by a large number of ethnographic studies, both in sociology and anthropology (FitzGerald, 2006). And it is still at the core of contemporary ethnographic research on migration, although very often carried out with different ambitions and techniques. It is impossible to fully survey the richness of the contemporary ethnographic work on migration. In the remaining pages, I will briefly summarize five ethnographic monographs that will give the reader an idea of its wealth. The choices, of course, are arbitrary and highly personal, if not idiosyncratic: many readers could easily consider other works much more interesting or innovative. I will introduce them in alphabetical order by the author surname. Romanians in Western Europe, by Remus Gabriel Anghel, is a monograph published in 2013 on the basis of lengthy fieldwork with Romanian migrants in Germany and Italy (Anghel, 2013). It is multi-sited research on the Romanians who relocated as ‘ethnic Germans’ to Nuremberg from Timiș oara, and the migrants from Borș a, who migrated as irregular migrants to Milan. In both cases, Anghel wants to show how social prestige is actively constructed by migrants in a continuous process of repositioning in their origin and destination societies (Anghel, 2013, p. 12). The ethnic Germans, once they arrived in Germany, felt they were not ‘really’ recognized as Germans by the native population. Such an unexpected misrecognition triggered frustration and a shift in their identity as they started to socialize with ethnic Romanians or other immigrants. The more traditional labor migrants from Borș a to Milan, albeit highly marginalized and legally excluded, could rely on informal local networks to build a foothold in the new environment, coming to see their experience in Milan in highly positive terms. The work is thus explicitly comparative, both in terms of emigration dynamics and contexts of reception. Anghel bases his analysis on extended observation in the places where the two migrant populations socialize. His sites are discos, bars, train stations, and parks. He uses, however, his presence within these sites to build trust with—and gain access to—a large number of Romanian migrants, thus being able to collect a rich corpus of life histories and interviews describing the life of the migrants both in the sending and receiving contexts. Also set in Europe, Milena Belloni’s The Big Gamble: The Migration of Eritreans to Europe provides a study exploring the blurred boundaries between forced and voluntary migration (Belloni, 2019). It may be defined as the ethnography of a migration corridor, as the author spent a considerable amount of time in several sites along the path traveled by migrants, from their homes in Eritrea to Ethiopia, Sudan, and Italy (and further north). She is thus able to document the sequential nature of the migration process of the Eritreans, in which any step makes a further movement forward, no matter how difficult, more likely. The kind of ethnography reported in The Big Gamble highlights several important challenges in migration ethnography. First, it implies dealing with vulnerable subjects feeling a deeply rooted (and often well deserved) distrust of strangers, including researchers. A second source of difficulties derived from the extremely sensitive and politically charged nature of migration research in many of the countries she operated in. Secrecy and suspicion had to become a part of her everyday life as a researcher. Within such constraints, even writing fieldnotes was particularly challenging: it was, in fact, potentially risky both for her informants and herself.

Ethnography in migration studies: an everlasting love?  223 Moving to the other side of the Atlantic, Mexican New York: Transnational Lives of New Immigrants, by Robert Smith, draws on more than fifteen years of research both in New York and in Mexico (Smith, 2006). Smith’s work is a rare combination of life-course analysis and ethnography, aiming to produce a longitudinal study. The book highlights the importance of participant observation, as Smith stresses that his participation in the Ticuani transnational community, both in New York and Ticuani, allowed him access to knowledge that he would not have been able to learn about through other techniques, such as interviews. His subjects were sensitive to the fact that he wanted to learn about Ticuani life and to ‘actively participate in its rituals and collective life in New York and Ticuani’. An interesting methodological aspect of Mexican New York is that Smith has changed his ethnographic strategy over the years. For a long stretch of work, he worked alone. As the research extended over decades, he experimented with two techniques for collective ethnography—‘piggybacking’ and the ‘Rashomonic team approach’2—which acknowledged the ways in which the quality of ethnographic analysis is nearly always contingent upon the relationship ethnographers develop with their informants (Smith, 2006). Beside observation, Smith used grounded ethnographic interviews in which he asked informants about particular events or themes that had emerged in the past within the research. He also carried out ‘grounded group interviews’3 that enabled him to gain access to social dynamics among informants. A Courtship After Marriage: Sexuality and Love in Mexican Transnational Families, by Jennifer Hirsh, is a second landmark ethnographic study of Mexican transnational communities in the United States (Hirsh, 2003). Hirsh focuses on the transformations in marriage, sexual intimacy, and courtship that are a consequence of both socio-cultural change in Mexico and the experiences emerging in the context of settlement among migrants. Hirsh observes how migration has strengthened the evolution of a new notion of companionate marriage, that does not, however, merely reproduce or copycat the North American ideal. Through interviews and observations carried out both in Atlanta (US) and Jalisco (Mexico), Hirsh shows how the cultural changes associated with migration do not operate only on migrants themselves. Geographical mobility operates complex feedback also on those who remain in the sending villages. A final example may be selected from the growing number of ethnographies of Asian migration. Nicole Constable (1997) provides an historically sensitive ethnographic study of the lives of Filipina domestic workers. Maid to Order in Hong Kong deals with the multiplicity of ways bureaucracy, rules, and regulations discipline the life of domestic workers. The book, first published in 1997, has seen a second edition with Constable returning to her original site after a decade (Constable, 2007). The circumstances of Constable’s work have a certain degree of initial serendipity. She moved with her family to Hong Kong in 1993, subletting a minuscule apartment that happened to be close to a shelter for Filipinas. The rental also included the services of a part-time domestic worker, Acosta, who proved a wonderful key informant for the research. Constable describes the endless hours spent sitting with Acosta, listening to her concerns or looking at photos of her home, her children, and the house she had built. Acosta also played an important role in securing potential interviewees and ‘guaranteeing’ Constable’s trustworthiness to them. In addition to these sources, Constable drew on archival materials, popular literature, editorials, and news in local magazines, newspapers, and newsletters. Constable’s work and her already rich corpus of data is further supported by a large-scale, comprehensive quantitative study conducted among Filipina domestic workers in Hong Kong, providing background and useful ‘facts and figures’ to substantiate her observations.

224  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

CONCLUSION In this chapter, I have utilized ethnographic literature and my own experiences to provide an introductory understanding of the actual (and potential) uses of ethnography in migration studies. Even if the body of migration ethnographies has grown remarkably in recent years, there is still room for ambitious research projects in the field. The potentialities of multi-sited ethnography—particularly if carried out with attention to justifying the choice of sites—remain far from being exhausted. Ethnographers of migration may also rely on the new recording possibilities opened up by current technological developments to explore more ambitious ways to treat increasingly large masses of data, often in different languages and media forms. The ethnographic tradition in migration studies, moreover, has grown in diversity, exploring a variety of ethnographic projects that are (and have been) carried out to study human mobility in all its forms. It is crucial to remember, however, that such variety must always be understood as grounded in a shared activity: direct observation. Although observation may be, and often is, complemented by other activities, what makes ethnography special is the commitment—some would say the devotion—of the ethnographer toward directly observed social interactions in natural settings.

NOTES 1. For subsequent debates on The Polish Peasant, see the landmark critique by Blumer (1939) and the contemporary interpretation by Kaczmarczyk (2018). A lesser known but equally interesting migration related study is The Unadjusted Girl (Thomas, 1923). 2. The author had researchers working with him on this research project. He personally introduced the researchers to the research communities and their work facilitated by drawing—‘piggybacking’— on his longstanding relationships. All accounts the researcher collected benefited from a pluralistic (with more researchers involved), sometimes contradictory—Rashomonic—view of the event. 3. The technique entails the participation of several informants to discuss a specific (past) event in which they had differing reactions. For details, see Smith (2006, p. 269).

REFERENCES Anderson, E. (2003). A place on the corner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Anderson, E. (2012). The cosmopolitan canopy: Race and civility in everyday life. New York: W. W. Norton. Andersson, O. (2014). William Foote Whyte, street corner society and social organization. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 50(1), 79–103. Anghel, R. (2013). Romanians in Western Europe: Migration, status dilemmas, and transnational connections. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage. Belloni, M. (2019). The big gamble: The migration of Eritreans to Europe. Berkeley: University of California Press. Blumer, H. (1939). An appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki’s ‘The Polish peasant in Europe and America’. New York: Social Science Research Council. Brodkin, E. Z. (2017). The ethnographic turn in political science: Reflections on the state of the art. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(1), 131–134.

Ethnography in migration studies: an everlasting love?  225 Brooker, P. (2022). Computational ethnography: A view from sociology. Big Data & Society, 9(1). https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​20539517211069892. Bulmer, M. (1986). The Chicago school of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological research. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Burawoy, M., Burton, A., Ferguson, A. A., & Fox, K. J. (1991). Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Constable, N. (1997). Maid to order in Hong Kong: Stories of Filipina workers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Constable, N. (2007). Maid to order in Hong Kong: Stories of migrant workers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2012). Doing design ethnography. London: Springer. Cvajner, M. (2019). Soviet signoras: Personal and collective transformations in Eastern European migration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Deutscher, I. (1973). What we say/what we do: Sentiments and acts. Boston: Scott, Foresman. DiMaggio, P. (2014). Comment on Jerolmack and Khan, ‘Talk is cheap’: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(2), 232–235. Duck, W. (2015). No way out: Precarious living in the shadow of poverty and drug dealing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Duneier, M. (2000). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Elliott, R., & Jankel-Eliott, N. (2003). Using ethnography in strategic consumer research. Qualitative Market Research, 6(4), 215–223. Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic field notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fine, G. A. (2003). Morel tales: The culture of mushrooming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. FitzGerald, D. (2006). Towards a theoretical ethnography of migration. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 1–24. FitzGerald, D. (2014). A comparativist manifesto for international migration studies. In A. Amelina, T. Faist, & D. D. Nergiz (Eds.) Methodologies on the move (pp. 19–34). London: Routledge. Goffman, A. (2016). On the run: Fugitive life in an American city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books. Goldthorpe, J. H. (2000). On sociology: Numbers, narratives, and the integration of research and theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Griaule, M. (2014). Dieu d’eau: Entretiens avec Ogotemmêli. Paris: Fayard. Henrich, J. P., Boyd, R., Fehr, E., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., & Gintis, H. (2004). Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies: Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirsh, J. S. (2003). A courtship after marriage: Sexuality and love in Mexican transnational families. Berkeley: University of California Press. Howard, N. P. (2002). Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: New media, new organizations, new methods. New Media & Society, 4(4), 550–574. Ingold, T. (2017). Anthropology contra ethnography. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(1), 21–26. Isaac, R. (1980). Ethnographic method in history: An action approach. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 13(1), 43–61. Jerolmack, C., & Khan, S. (2014). Talk is cheap: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(2), 178–209. Kaczmarczyk, M. (2018). When philosophy met social psychology: An interpretation of The Polish peasant in Europe and America. European Journal of Sociology, 59(2), 257–299. Kaczmarczyk, P., & Massey, D. S. (2019). The ethnosurvey revisited: New migrations, new methodologies? Central and Eastern European Migration Review, 8, 9–38. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New York: Basic Books. Katz, J. (2001). From how to why: On luminous description and causal inference in ethnography (Part 1). Ethnography, 2(4), 443–473.

226  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Katz, J. (2002). From how to why: On luminous description and causal inference in ethnography (Part 2). Ethnography, 3(1), 63–90. Katz, J. (2019). On becoming an ethnographer. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 48(1), 16–50. Kivisto, P. (2017). The anthem companion to Robert Park. London: Anthem Press. Kroeber, T. (2004). Ishi in two worlds: A biography of the last wild Indian in North America. Berkeley: University of California Press. LaPierre, R. T. (1935). Attitudes vs action. Social Forces, 13, 230–237. Liebow, E. (1967). Tally’s corner: A study of Negro streetcorner men. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Lowes, S. (2021). Ethnographic and field data in historical economics. In A. Bisin & G. Federico (Eds.) The handbook of historical economics (pp. 147–177). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Massey, D. S. (1987). The ethnosurvey in theory and practice. International Migration Review, 21(4), 1498–1522. Mathews, G. (2011). Ghetto at the center of the world: Chungking Mansions, Hong Kong. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nippert-Eng, C. (2015). Watching closely: A guide to ethnographic observation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pink, S., Fors, V., Lanzeni, D., Duque, M., Sumartojo, S., & Strengers, Y. (2022). Design ethnography: Research, responsibilities, and futures. New York: Routledge. Platt, J. (1983). The development of the ‘participant observation’ method in sociology: Origin myth and history. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 19(4), 379–393. Smith, R. C. (2006). Mexican New York: Transnational lives of new immigrants. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Thomas, W. I. (1923). The unadjusted girl. Boston: Little, Brown. Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918). The Polish peasant in Europe and America: Monograph of an ethnic group. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Whyte, W. F. (1993). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Whyte, W. F. (1994). Participant observer: An autobiography. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Wilkins, A. C. (2008). Wannabes, Goths, and Christians: The boundaries of sex, style, and status. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press. Willis, P., & Trondman, M. (2000). Manifesto for ethnography. Ethnography, 1(1), 5–16.

19. Quantitative surveys on migration Erik Vickstrom and Cris Beauchemin1

INTRODUCTION: WHY SPECIALIZED SURVEYS ON MIGRATION? This chapter will focus on social surveys of international migration, i.e. surveys designed specifically to study the causes and consequences of this form of mobility. By ‘social surveys’, we mean quantitative surveys, which generally use a standardized questionnaire administered to a sample of individuals selected from the overall population under investigation (Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & Warner, 2015). These surveys most often employ random statistical sampling procedures to ensure the representativity of the sample and to allow inferences about the population to be made from the sample (Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & Warner, 2015). Sociologists rely on many kinds of sample surveys for their research: large-scale household surveys (such as the American Community Survey in the United States); labor force surveys; and thematic specialized social science surveys (such as surveys focusing on education, health, income, budget, or other topics), among others. All these surveys are potentially of interest for studying migrants if they address two requirements: they need to allow for the identification of international migrants in their questionnaire and to include a sufficient number of these migrants in their sample. Until now, these requirements have rarely been met. Another limitation is that these surveys do not usually include specific questions about experiences specific to migrants. There are some exceptions, however. Some existing standard surveys, for some waves, oversample migrants (e.g. the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions) and some include specific modules on migrants (e.g. EU labor force surveys, conducted in 2008, 2014, and 2021, on migrant economic integration). The limitations facing most existing surveys have led to the design and fielding of specialized surveys on migration. While the design of most surveys is contained by national boundaries, a major feature of these migration surveys is that they must address the fact that international migration is by definition a phenomenon that involves several countries. This basic fact has enormous implications for both sampling methodology and questionnaire content. Migration surveys must also adopt a geographic point of view: they may tackle migration either from the origin country (looking at departures and, potentially, returns) and/or the destination country (looking at arrivals). This chapter will review some of the main questions sociologists should ask when conceptualizing or using such migration surveys, with a critical view intended to identify trade-offs in survey design and possible biases in data analysis. We focus on surveys that have the goal of measuring migration, explaining its determinants, and/or analyzing its consequences. The first section explores definitions with which survey designers must grapple. The second section makes the case for the importance of a multi-sited approach to surveys of migration, reviews practical options for collecting multi-sited data, and outlines some of the sampling challenges associated with such an approach. The third section discusses the importance of longitudinal survey designs for the study of migration, focusing 227

228  Research handbook on the sociology of migration on comparing the strengths and limitations of panel and retrospective approaches. The fourth section reviews considerations for the design of questionnaires in migration surveys. The fifth section offers some concluding thoughts, and is followed by a section with some resources for further exploration of specialized surveys on migration.

MIGRANTS AND MIGRATION: WHAT ARE THE SURVEYS REFERRING TO? Sociologists interested in carrying out or analyzing a specialized survey of international migration must first define the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘migration’. A first distinction must be established between migration and other forms of mobility. Second, it must be clear that every migrant is simultaneously both an immigrant/in-migrant in their receiving country and an emigrant/out-migrant in their sending country. How do we identify international migrants? Migration and Other Forms of Mobility The United Nations defines an ‘international migrant’ as ‘any person who changes his or her usual country of residence’ (United Nations, 1998, p. 9). While crossing a political border may be a straightforward concept to capture in a survey, the idea of ‘usual residence’ requires substantial additional definition. According to the UN recommendations for population and housing censuses (UNDESA, 2017, p. 183), a usual place of residence is defined as ‘the place at which the person lives at the time of the census, and has been there for some time or intends to stay there for some time’. The recommendation is set at a threshold of at least 12 months of residence since arrival, to distinguish between short stays and migration per se. Many specialized surveys adopt a different threshold. For instance, in their guide to designing migration surveys, Bilsborrow and colleagues (Bilsborrow, Hugo, Oberai, & Zlotnik, 1997) suggest a threshold of six months. In practical terms, sociologists contemplating a survey of migration should be careful in defining the interviewees’ place of residence and the conceptual limits between migration and other forms of short-term mobility. Depending on their research question, they may want to include (or not) in their sample persons who have moved internationally without changing their place of residence, such as so-called seasonal ‘migrants’ (who are not migrants per se according to the standard United Nations definition). If survey designers decide to sample only those who have changed their country of residence, they still must decide whether they wish to collect information on the possible short-term movements of their interviewees. For example, the individual questionnaires of the Migration Between Africa and Europe (MAFE) surveys follow such a combined approach. Immigrants at Destination Immigrants at destination are usually defined simply as foreign-born persons, i.e. persons who were born in a country different from their residence country. They can easily be identified with a question on birth country. However, depending on the context and their interest, some surveys may adopt more restrictions to define their population of interest. Some may focus on those who do not have the citizenship of their receiving country either at birth or at the time of the survey. For instance, in France, immigrants are officially defined as people who

Quantitative surveys on migration  229 were born abroad without French citizenship, a definition that was adopted in the nationally representative Trajectoires et Origines (TeO) survey (Beauchemin, Hamel, & Simon, 2018). Other surveys focus on foreigners at the time of data collection, especially those interested in the process of integration of recent immigrants such as the New Immigrant Survey (NIS), a nationally representative multi-cohort longitudinal study of new ‘legal’ immigrants to the United States. On the other hand, some surveys designed to study immigrant assimilation at the destination have an extensive and intergenerational definition of the migrant population, using a somewhat misleading concept. So-called ‘second generation immigrants’ are commonly defined as persons who were born in a given country to immigrant parent(s), without being born abroad themselves. Considering their family history, they are the second generation to live in the country of measurement (their parents’ destination country), but—strictly speaking—they are not immigrants themselves. Such surveys include, for instance, the TeO survey in France, the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey (CILS) in the United States, and the Investigación Longitudinal sobre la Segunda Generación (ILSEG) survey in Spain. Emigrants at Origin Collecting information on emigrants in their place of origin is less straightforward. The fundamental challenge is that, by definition, emigrants are absentees: they no longer reside in their country of origin. Any data on emigrants must thus be provided not by the migrants themselves but by a proxy respondent, usually a member of their former household (Bilsborrow, 2016). Such data are usually collected in household surveys that complement the household roster with a module on emigrants. To avoid any confusion, it is important to keep in mind that emigrants—by definition—are not household members in their place of origin. In practice, surveys have employed a variety of different definitions of the emigrant population, most of which are based on previous or ongoing connections to the surveyed household (Beauchemin, 2020; Beauchemin & Tovey, 2015). Some surveys, such as those from the Push-Pull project (Groenewold & Bilsborrow, 2008), use a social obligation criterion, which captures ‘those who currently live elsewhere but whose main commitments and obligations concern this household and who are expected to return to this household or be joined by their family in the future’. Others use a residence criterion to capture people who had previously lived in the surveyed household, some without any restriction (e.g. the Household International Migration Surveys in Mediterranean countries), others with time limits (e.g. in the Network of Surveys on Migration and Urbanization in West Africa, emigrants were registered if they had lived at least three months in the household and were abroad for at least six months at the time of data collection; see Bocquier & Traoré, 1998). Some censuses follow a similar approach, such as the ‘Emigration’ module of the 2013 Senegalese census. This option is similar to the one proposed in the seminal International Labour Organization/United Nations Population Fund (ILO/UNFPA) guidelines for surveys on international migration, which recommend defining an international migrant as follows: ‘a person who used to live in the country in which the interview is being conducted and was a member of the household of the person being interviewed but who left at some point during the five years preceding the interview to live abroad for at least six months’ (Bilsborrow et al., 1997, p. 247). Still other surveys, such as the Mexican Migration Project (MMP), focus on family relationships by identifying all the children of the household head regardless of

230  Research handbook on the sociology of migration their place of residence, whether in Mexico or abroad, and whenever they left their parents’ household. A mixed approach can be adopted to broaden the scope of the emigrant population. For instance, the Migration between Africa and Europe (MAFE) household surveys in origin countries capture the following absentees: (1) all children of the household head living outside the household, independently of their place of residence; (2) current household members’ partners, mothers and fathers living abroad; (3) all the other people related to the household head or their partner living abroad and in regular contact with the household in the 12 months preceding the survey (Beauchemin, 2020; Beauchemin & Tovey, 2015). This broad definition leads to a very heterogeneous population, among which individuals must be selected according to the objectives of the analysis. For instance, Group 1 is useful for computing trends of outmigration and return (Beauchemin & Schoumaker, 2016; Willekens, Zinn, & Leuchter, 2017); Group 3 is useful for analyzing the composition of transnational families (Mazzucato, Schans, Caarls, & Beauchemin, 2015); all groups are useful for measuring the connection of the household with international emigrants. The MAFE project exemplifies the fact that there are many ways of recording emigrants in a household survey and that the potential for analysis depends on this choice. Data users must be aware of the potential limitations. Typically, depending on the survey design and criteria for inclusion of emigrants (e.g. only the head’s children or a larger group), analyses focused on remittances, for example, could end up with very different results.

MULTI-SITED APPROACHES TO COLLECTING MIGRATION DATA: WHY AND HOW TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON MULTIPLE PLACES By definition, international migration connects different countries. Migration surveys thus need to take into account this multi-country dimension of the phenomenon they want to measure and explain. This fact has led migration scholars to call for and implement multi-sited approaches (MSAs) to designing specialized surveys of migration (Beauchemin, 2014; Bilsborrow et al., 1997; Massey, 1987; Rallu, 2008). Unfortunately, this imperative is still largely overlooked (Bilsborrow, 2016, p. 126). This section explains why a multi-sited approach is necessary and reviews some methodological strategies for incorporating multi-sited approaches to the design of specialized surveys on migration. Migration Surveys Are Not Only About Migrants A fundamental idea holds that to measure migration, to analyze its causes, and to study its consequences, it is necessary to collect information not only on migrants themselves, but also on non-migrants. For a start, simple measures of migration require comparing the number of migrants to a reference population, either the population of the destination country, to compute the percentage of immigrants in the total population, or the population of the origin place, to measure rates of out-migration (Beauchemin & Schoumaker, 2016; Willekens et al., 2017). Similarly, studying the determinants of out-migration necessitates comparing those who have migrated with those who have not, in order to identify to what extent these two groups differ from each other. In the same vein, analyzing the causes of return involves comparing migrants

Quantitative surveys on migration  231 who have returned to their origin country with those who are still abroad. Finally, cross-border comparison is also necessary for assessing the consequences of migration for migrants. For instance, to study whether emigrants can find a better job thanks to migration, they must be compared to those who stayed at origin (Beauchemin, 2014; Bilsborrow, 2016). In all these cases, groups of interest are in different countries. Exceptions are surveys on migrant integration in receiving countries, which commonly compare immigrants with host country natives. This kind of survey is at risk of being biased in the sense that it ignores migrants who have left the country and who may have specific profiles. Practical Options for Producing Multi-Sited Data Collecting comparable data on people living in different countries is a challenging objective with important methodological and financial implications. Importantly, multi-sited data does not necessarily mean multi-sited surveys (Beauchemin, 2014). Two options must be considered: first, collecting data in a single country and asking for information on absentees or, second, collecting data in several countries from all groups of interest. Both options can be combined, as is the case, for instance, in the MMP and MAFE projects: surveys were carried out both at origin and destination and, in both places, questions were asked to interviewees about their relatives living in a different country. The absentee approach consists of interviewing respondents about persons related to them and who are absent because they live in a different country. In origin countries, as exemplified above, questions may be asked of respondents about persons who are connected to them and who live abroad. Depending on the type of information collected, this approach can be used for measuring out-migration, studying the determinants of departure or the impact of migration on the well-being of those left behind. In destination countries, information collected about those left behind is instrumental for measuring the prevalence of transnational families, describing their functioning and analyzing the process of (non-) reunification. This option relies on information collected through proxy respondents. As a result, its main limitation is that the data cannot be too detailed and is subject to error declarations or missing information. On the other hand, it has the advantage of being economical. The multi-sited option involves using or generating data collected in different countries. Theoretically, it is possible to assemble data from different surveys independently collected in different countries (the ex-post merging approach). For instance, to study the determinants of out-migration from Ghana to Europe, it could be possible to assemble data from an existing survey in Ghana (among non-migrants and returnees) and surveys in Europe. However, such an approach is more often than not impeded by at least two issues. First, subsamples of Ghanaians in European surveys may be too small to allow for statistical analysis. Second, surveys in origin and destination countries rarely contain the same variables and are thus often hardly comparable. The ideal alternative is to organize a multi-sited survey (Bilsborrow, 2016). The Mexican Migration Project’s ‘ethnosurvey’ pioneered this approach by collecting data in Mexican communities and among Mexican migrants in the United States (Massey, 1987). This influential project has inspired multi-sited surveys focused on a number of other origin countries and regions, such as China, Poland, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa (Sana & Conway, 2012). Another multi-sited survey is the Push-Pull project, which collected data from five origin countries—Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Ghana, and Senegal—and two destination

232  Research handbook on the sociology of migration countries—Italy and Spain (Bilsborrow, 2016; Groenewold & Bilsborrow, 2008). Other examples of multi-sited quantitative surveys include the US–Nigeria Migration Study (Osili, 2007), the Philippine Migration Study (Arnold, 1987), and the Gender, Migration and Health among Hispanics study (Parrado, McQuiston, & Flippen, 2005). The main advantage of multi-sited surveys is that they collect data directly from migrants and non-migrants without relying on proxy respondents, generating much more information and greater accuracy than the absentee approach. Furthermore, when samples are matched at the family level (i.e. with people interviewed at destination and origin belonging to the same family), the information can be triangulated, yielding more reliable data (Mazzucato, 2008; Osili, 2007; Seror, 2012). Despite these advantages, multi-sited surveys also grapple with a number of logistical and methodological challenges. They are costly, they require a strong effective international collaboration in all phases of the survey lifecycle, starting from the questionnaire design (that must be adapted to all possible contexts) until fielding (that involves coordination of researchers, institutes, and survey firms in each data-collection location), and they raise specific sampling issues. Sampling Issues Multi-sited surveys also face difficulties in drawing representative samples in all of their data-collection locations, giving rise to challenges concerning their representativity. An ideal sample for a multi-sited survey would include a sub-sample representative of the population of the origin country along with dispersed sub-samples representative of the entire migrant population from that origin country in the rest of the world (Beauchemin & Tovey, 2015). This ideal sample would require a sampling frame that would cover a population from a given origin country, whatever the location on the planet of its members (Beauchemin, 2014). Such sampling frames are (currently) non-existent, making the ideal sample impossible. What, then, are the options for sampling this population? When all data are collected in a single country, the objective is to obtain a representative sample of the population of interest in this country (households with returnees or migrants abroad in sending countries, households with migrants at destination). In the case of migrants, for different reasons, this objective may be challenging. First, migrants (and even more return migrants) constitute a rare population in most countries of the world (Bilsborrow et al., 1997; Groenewold & Bilsborrow, 2008; McKenzie & Mistiaen, 2009). Second, part of the migrant population may be hard to reach because they are deprived of secure legal status or live in non-standard housing. In many countries, sampling migrants at destination or migrant families at origin is further complicated by the lack of appropriate national sampling frames. When a completely random sample cannot be drawn from a national sampling frame, the best option to deal with the rarity issue is certainly a two-stage stratified random sampling (Bilsborrow et al., 1997; Groenewold & Bilsborrow, 2008). This technique first consists of ranking primary sampling units (PSUs) according to the prevalence of (return) migration, using available information from censuses, administrative registers, or other available sources, such as mobile phone usage. Then PSUs can be randomly selected according to the prevalence of migration, oversampling those with a high proportion of migrants. The second step involves identifying households of interest in the selected PSUs through a screening survey. This surveying allows the elaboration of a list from which households with and without migrants can be drawn separately, oversampling the former. This procedure can yield a larger and more representative

Quantitative surveys on migration  233 sample of migrants (or households with migrants) and allow for comparison of their situation with the rest of the population. A strategy based on two-stage stratified random sampling is, unfortunately, not always possible. In some countries, there is not enough information to stratify PSUs. And in some cases (for instance, surveys on returnees), the population of interest is so rare that this sampling strategy does not yield a sufficient number of individuals. Since the early 2000s, many experiments have been carried out to assess the quality of diverse non-probabilistic methods to select migrants, still allowing the computation of weights under certain conditions. Although they convey more reliable estimates than convenience samples, they suffer from the limited generalizability of their results (McKenzie & Mistiaen, 2009). The two main non-probabilistic techniques are ‘intercept point sampling’ (Baio, Blangiardo, & Blangiardo, 2011) and ‘respondent-driven sampling’ (Tyldum, 2021). When data are collected in several countries, the above-mentioned techniques can be used as well. If they are performed in all countries of interest, the sub-samples are independent from one another. Some multi-sited surveys opt for a different strategy that consists of linking samples in sending and receiving countries. Matched samples may follow a transnational-snowballing approach: contacts are first collected in one location (either the origin or the destination country), then individuals are surveyed in the other location. This approach can be useful for studying specific topics requiring multi-sited information on the same family, for example, information on remittances (Mazzucato, 2008; Osili, 2007; Seror, 2012). In some cases, the transnational snowballing approach may facilitate access to more vulnerable or reluctant individuals or households. The MMP has shown that initiating the survey in Mexico facilitates the identification and response of undocumented Mexican migrants in the United States (Massey, 1987). But, in the case of the MAFE survey, collecting contacts in Senegal had proven inefficient for reaching Senegalese undocumented migrants in Europe (Beauchemin & González-Ferrer, 2011). Furthermore, analyses have shown that the transnational snowballing method also biases the sample towards those migrants more connected to the origin (Beauchemin & González-Ferrer, 2011). Another challenge to the representativity of multi-sited surveys data arises from the selection bias due to the practical impossibility of covering all destination countries of migrants from a given origin. One of the major compromises that multi-sited surveys must make is thus choosing a limited set of destinations. The choice of one or multiple destination depends on the features of the migration system under study. In the case of Mexican migration, for example, the binational approach adopted by the MMP was appropriate given that the main destination of Mexican migrants is the United States and no transit countries intervene. In the case of the MAFE surveys, however, it was essential to include multiple European countries, given the large number of destinations of African migrants and the complexity of migration paths between Africa and Europe (Beauchemin, 2012). Incorporating multiple destinations into the design of a multi-sited survey can thus reduce selection biases by capturing greater heterogeneity in migration experiences. Moreover, including multiple destinations creates opportunities for comparative analyses focusing on contextual effects. Multi-sited surveys that include several destination countries offer the opportunity to study how migrant trajectories and strategies vary depending on facets of the different destinations, such as migration policy regimes (González-Ferrer et al., 2014; Vickstrom, 2014). Multi-sited surveys that include several origin countries, such as the Latin American Migration Project (Massey, Durand, & Pren, 2014) or the MAFE Project, allow for the analysis of variations in migration processes by

234  Research handbook on the sociology of migration context at origin. These sampling and selection issues underline that the samples of multi-sited surveys are never strictly representative of the general ‘population at risk’ migrating out of a community, region, or country of origin. Despite a lack of representativity, multi-sited surveys can permit the in-depth study of social processes underlying international migration using quantitative methodologies and measurement (Beauchemin, 2014).

MIGRATION, A MATTER OF TIME: WHY AND HOW TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON DIFFERENT MOMENTS2 In addition to the imperative of collecting data from multiple sites, specialized surveys of migration must grapple with an additional epistemological principle, namely, collecting data at multiple points in time. It is, for instance, impossible to properly study the determinants of migration by comparing migrants at destination and non-migrants at origin at the time of the survey (which is often years after the departure), because personal characteristics evolve over time, especially in the case of migration (Beauchemin & Tovey, 2015; Bilsborrow, 2016; Bilsborrow et al., 1997). Studying the determinants of migration thus requires comparing the situation of migrants just before their departure to the situation of non-migrants at the exact same time. The fact that all migrants do not have the same migration schedule multiplies the number of observation points in time. For this reason, a longitudinal approach that follows individuals over time is especially powerful for studying the causes and consequences of migration. This section will review two solutions for collecting longitudinal data: panel surveys and retrospective life histories. While both of these survey designs collect time-varying data that allow for the comparison of individuals at a point of time in the past, they have different advantages and limitations for specialized surveys of migration. Panel Surveys A panel survey involves repeated observations of the same households and individuals. This is a prospective design; the survey starts with a sample and then follows up the sample members as time passes. There have been a number of successful panel surveys focusing on migrants in countries of destination. Black and colleagues (Black, Fielding, King, Skeldon, & Tiemoko, 2003) review a number of such surveys that have employed a cohort follow-up approach, including the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia, the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to New Zealand, and the New Immigrant Survey in the United States. These surveys use the administrative records of newly arrived immigrants as their sampling frames and follow up their samples over time. Black et al. (2003) also review long-running panel surveys in countries of destination that over-sample immigrant groups to ensure a large enough sample for meaningful analysis, including the German Socioeconomic Panel Survey (GSEOP) and the US Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID). Panel designs have some advantages for surveying migration. In terms of content, panel surveys may be especially suited to collecting information that is difficult to recover retrospectively, such as values, norms, intentions, perceptions, detailed income and expenditures, and community characteristics (Beauchemin & Schoumaker, 2016). In addition, items in panel surveys that refer to the moment of the survey do not suffer from recall bias. Panel surveys

Quantitative surveys on migration  235 can also rely on standard sampling methodologies and can control for biases due to attrition because information is available on interviewees that are not followed up (Beauchemin & Schoumaker, 2016). Panel designs also have a number of drawbacks. Some migrants are especially difficult to follow over time, such as those without secure legal status. More generally, panel surveys are not usually designed to study migration, and geographic mobility between waves of data collection poses serious challenges to sample follow-up. Indeed, very few panel surveys attempt to follow migrants.3 Panel surveys must thus be careful to distinguish migration from attrition due to other sources. In the case of panel surveys focusing on migration, attrition may be especially problematic as the more mobile interviewees are lost, except in cases of special efforts to recover information on them through proxies or to track them (Black et al., 2003). In terms of data content, another issue arises; the information collected by panel surveys is discontinuous. First, panel surveys have more often than not short periods of observation (panel surveys on migrants rarely exceed ten years). Second, if no retrospective data are collected, panel data miss important information on migrants (i.e. all events before the first round, as well as all events occurring between rounds). Finally, panel surveys are quite expensive due to repeated field work and the large sample size of the initial sample necessary in planning for attrition. They require a long-term investment, which may be threatened by perturbations in funding. Hence, panel surveys have been rare in developing countries, including many countries of origin for migrants. The Retrospective Approach An alternative survey design for longitudinal data is to collect detailed retrospective life histories, permitting the collection of data on events from a specified point of time in the past (such as birth) up to the time of the survey. Surveys that employ this questionnaire design are often called biographic surveys. These surveys often cover not only residential mobility (i.e. change of usual place of residence, including international migration) but also family formation (marriages and fertility) and socio-economic trajectories (education and employment). Such a life course approach helps to answer questions about how migration relates to other life trajectories. This approach makes it possible, for instance, to analyze to what extent family changes explain and/or result from the experience of migration. If biographic surveys include both migrants and non-migrants in their sample (often as a result of multi-sited data collection; see above), they are well suited for studying the causes and consequence of migration as they allow for comparisons of these two groups at the correct time (i.e. just before migration, as opposed to the time of the survey). Furthermore, the life-history approach can help answer questions about patterns of migration, including descriptions of migrant itineraries and rates of in‐ and out‐migration (Beauchemin & Schoumaker, 2016). Biographic surveys have many advantages for collecting longitudinal data compared to panel surveys. In terms of content, the life-history approach allows for the collection of full and rich life histories in a continuous fashion. The small time intervals—usually a year—allow an exhaustive accounting of changes in characteristics over time. Measures do not change over time because the survey collects all of the data at once. Left-censoring is not a concern as information is usually collected from birth. Regarding sampling, biographic surveys do not face the challenge of attrition. A further advantage is that they permit the comparison of multiple cohorts with only one survey round (though only on a limited span of age groups).

236  Research handbook on the sociology of migration The logistics of biographic surveys are also simpler than those of panel surveys. The collection of data is less expensive as there is only one survey round, which yields full life histories and several cohorts. The resulting data are available quickly. The same kind of data would take decades and frequent rounds with a panel approach. Finally, biographic surveys are generally less intrusive than panel surveys as they do not follow up their samples. Despite the advantages of the life-history approach, biographic surveys have some important limitations. Perhaps the most important criticism of life-history surveys is that the data are prone to recall bias as the approach asks respondents to recollect their whole life. This can be a difficult undertaking, subject to errors, omissions, and distortions. Beauchemin and Schoumaker (2016) review studies that assess the validity of retrospective data, finding that the accuracy of the data varies according to the domain: respondents are better able to report dates in the family domain (marriage, births) than in residential histories, and schooling dates are better reported than work periods. Accuracy also depends on the characteristics of the respondent, with women and respondents with higher education reporting more exact dates. Regarding migration, respondents are better able to recall recent, long-term, or long-distance moves. In addition, certain variables may be difficult to collect retrospectively, such as intentions, norms, and detailed household or community characteristics. Despite these concerns about data quality, these studies have shown that the life-history approach produces data of sufficient quality for analyses of migration and also tends to preserve the order of events even when there is misdating (e.g. marriage before migration, change of job afterward, etc.). To reduce recall errors, specific tools can be used, such as age-event grids or calendars to help respondents anchor events in personal and historical time. Further, retrospective surveys can have high levels of respondent burden: the interviews can be long, often lasting more than an hour. These surveys are also very demanding on interviewers, who require special training. Finally, sampling also poses problems for the life-history approach to longitudinal data. The samples of biographic surveys can be representative of the population at the time of the survey if specialized sampling techniques are used to capture enough rare elements (see above), but cannot be completely representative of the population in the past: only survivors at the time of the survey can be interviewed, and not deceased individuals or emigrants (unless they are sought out). Biographic surveys do not usually have information with which to assess the potential biases stemming from this issue. Retrospective data are thus more useful for analysis of the trajectories of the current population than characteristics of the past population. To reduce survey burden, sampling issues, and recall errors, an option is to limit data collection to the last migration, potentially within a window of five or ten years (e.g. as in the Push-Pull surveys). This option has the weakness of reducing the number of recorded events (the larger the period, the higher the number of migration spells). In order to allow for the analysis of the determinants and/or consequences of migration, it is important to keep in mind that the same information must be collected both on migrants and non-migrants at the same time (at least approximately). To this end, to study the determinants of migration, Bilsborrow (2016) suggests collecting detailed information on migrants’ characteristics just before their last migration in a fixed period of time (e.g. ten years) and to interview non-migrants at origin about their characteristics at the mid-term of this period (e.g. five years). To limit the survey burden, an alternative—especially useful for estimating migration trends (see section 1)—is to collect information on the first migration (e.g. the household questionnaire of the MAFE

Quantitative surveys on migration  237 surveys; or the sections of the MMP questionnaire that are dedicated to the household head relatives).

WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION IS NEEDED IN AND AROUND MIGRATION SURVEYS? As with any survey, the questionnaire content of migration surveys depends on the research objectives. Some specific aspects must, however, be taken into account when designing a migration survey. General Requirements As suggested in the previous sections, specialized surveys of migration must design questionnaires that have meaning for all respondents in varied contexts—across countries and over time. In the case of the MAFE surveys, for example, the concepts used in the questionnaire had to apply equally well to a Congolese man living in his country in the 1970s and a Senegalese woman living in Italy in the 1990s (Beauchemin & Tovey, 2015). Ensuring comparability in such different contexts necessitates adopting a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution questionnaire design. This task may prove challenging. Some concepts can be easily transposed because they are universal or because researchers or international organizations have developed methods of comparison that are widely recognized and used. Such international standards exist in the fields of education (the international standard classification of education, or ISCED), occupations (the international standard classification of occupations, or ISCO), and socio-economic status (the international socio-economic index of occupational status, or ISEI). Other concepts make comparison more difficult because they are closely associated with a specific context, even if they appear to be universal. Developing appropriate questions thus involves assessing how respondents understand the questions and then identifying the categories and terms that have the same meaning across time and space for all respondents. A further complication is that questionnaires may need to be translated into several languages. Thorough preparation is thus required for such questionnaire development, with numerous survey tests and in-depth discussions among national teams. Beauchemin and Tovey (2015) detail how the MAFE survey designers found practical and conceptual solutions that could fit the contexts of the three African origin and six European destination countries involved in the project4 to collect information in a uniform way. Beauchemin and Tovey further discuss the openings for national specificities in the design of the MAFE questionnaires and the common conceptual bases that had to be found to collect matrimonial histories or migrants’ legal status histories. Beyond the need to collect comparative multi-sited data, migration surveys must also adopt a multi-level approach. The theoretical literature on migration in sociology and other fields has clearly demonstrated that migration decision‐making is not a purely individual-level phenomenon (Massey et al., 1993). Beyond individual determinants, migration depends not only on family factors but also institutional and structural factors at the community, regional, national, and international levels (Beauchemin & Schoumaker, 2016). At the same time, migration may also transform these aspects of migrant environments. Researchers can only understand the interplay between these factors through the collection of multi-topic and multi‐level data. Four

238  Research handbook on the sociology of migration levels of information are of special interest for specialized surveys of migration: the individual level, the respondent’s social circle, the local context (which commonly refers to the community level), and the macro‐level. Individual-Level Data At the individual level, migration surveys may need to collect information on the migration experience itself and also on other socio-economic aspects that would allow for the study of the effects of the causes and/or consequences of migration on individual trajectories and situations (education, occupation, assets, etc.). Regarding the experience of migration, surveys may tackle different topics. Some detail the conditions of migration, i.e. the various facets related to the logistics surrounding the move. These items can include, for example, the itinerary taken, persons who decide on the journey, persons who finance the journey, and persons accompanying the traveler (see, for instance, the questionnaire of the MAFE life-history surveys, which were inspired by the MMP surveys). Others broach conditions of adaptation at destination. Questions can focus on migrant adaptation at destination. The survey can ask whether the migrant visited the place of destination before changing residence. Questions on economic adaptation can include how long it took for the migrant to find a job and the means of finding the first job. Additional questions on integration can include proficiency in the language of the destination, measurement of legal status, and use of public services. Migration-specific questions may also be addressed to non-migrants in relation to their aspiration to migrate. Carling and Mjelva (2021) provide a comprehensive review of over 200 surveys that collect data on migration aspirations, and include 11 recommendations for designing the survey instrument and five recommendations for collecting data. They recommend being wary of attempting to capture migration intentions, as this concept ‘blurs elements of desirability, feasibility, and personality in unpredictable ways’ (Carling & Mjelva, 2021, p. 33). Meso-Level Data on Social Networks The respondent’s social circle (which includes social networks) is potentially important for studying both the causes and consequences of migration, both because migration often relies on the support of social networks already established at the destination and because migration may also affect the well‐being of those left behind at the origin. Surveys wishing to collect data on the respondent’s network must first define the boundaries of the relevant social circle. While the household would seem to be a natural choice for such a boundary, the temporal and social instability of this entity make it especially unsuitable for use in longitudinal surveys. One possibility is to define a respondent’s social circle as the group of relatives, friends, and other persons who may (or may not) influence the respondent’s mobility patterns and who may (or may not) benefit from the respondent’s potential migration experience (Beauchemin & Schoumaker, 2016). This definition of the social circle may encompass a large number of persons. A more restrictive approach to defining a respondent’s social circle can be guided by the survey’s objectives. Surveys interested in migration decision‐making (chain migration, migrant networks) typically refer to specific kin relationships (e.g. ascendants, descendants, siblings), which present the advantage of being fixed over time (see, for instance, the MMP questionnaire). Surveys interested in migrants’ residential arrangements may adopt a different approach to recording a respondent’s social circle, by focusing on people co‐residing with the

Quantitative surveys on migration  239 respondent at any point in time as the main criterion for including a person as a member of the interviewee’s social circle. Surveys aiming at collecting data on remittances between origin and destination countries may be interested in defining the migrant’s social circle in their own way, either by focusing on close family members or by extending the collection of information on all possible recipients or senders, depending on the viewpoint they adopt.5 Community- and National-Level Contextual Data Migration is potentially determined by contextual factors. Conversely, the departure or arrival of migrants may influence their environment. Analyzing these relationships necessitates combining individual data with contextual information, from the local level to the national level. This contextual information may be external to the survey project when data are available (e.g. remote sensing data on soil quality or rainfall; local indicators based on census; existing international databases on economic or policy indicators6). When external data are used, it is important to include in the survey design enough information to merge the survey and the contextual data (including, at least, the exact name of the settlement, or possibly a geo-localized information). Directly collecting contextual data may also be part of the survey project. One option is to include questions in the household or individual survey to characterize the respondent’s current and past places of residence. The MMP used this approach to calculate a longitudinal indicator of community ‘migration prevalence’, which led to the ‘cumulative causation’ theory (Fussell & Massey, 2004). Another rarer approach involves carrying out a community survey along with the individual or household survey. Nonetheless, relatively few surveys have collected community-level data and they are mostly interested in domestic migration, perhaps because of the complicated practical and conceptual issues involved (Beauchemin & Schoumaker, 2016).

CONCLUSION: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF SPECIALIZED SURVEYS ON MIGRATION Quantitative surveys are an important tool for sociologists interested in studying the causes and consequences of migration. While many general individual and household surveys exist across a variety of settings, most of these surveys are ill-suited to capturing migration phenomena because of conceptual, measurement, and sampling difficulties. Sociologists and other researchers have thus turned to specialized surveys on migrants and migration. While these surveys offer advantages compared to general surveys in their ability to capture migration processes, they must be carefully designed in order to ensure comparability across space and time. In the end, because international migration involves several countries, because it is fundamentally a time-varying matter, and because it is a rare phenomenon, migration surveys are complex to carry out. Ensuring representative samples in migration surveys remains the biggest challenge. Migration surveys are so demanding that they are often far from being perfect. Working with quantitative data on migration often necessitates accepting the idea that it is better to have imperfect data rather than no data at all. To make progress in the matter, it is crucial for survey designers and researchers to be honest in documenting both the advantages and limitations of both surveys and analyses of the data they produce.

240  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

NOTES 1. Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the US Census Bureau. 2. This section is largely inspired by Beauchemin and Schoumaker (2016). 3. Beauchemin and Schoumaker (2016) identify four panels that attempt to trace domestic or international migrants: the Malaysian Family Life Survey; the Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS), a nationally representative panel of Mexican households that traces Mexican migrants in the United States; the Kagera Health and Development Survey (Tanzania), a household panel in the Kagera region, which traces migrants not only in the rest of Tanzania but also in neighboring countries; and the Nang Rong Project, a panel conducted in 51 Thai villages that included two tracking rounds. 4. Senegal, Ghana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. 5. Brown and colleagues (Brown, Carling, Fransen, & Siegel, 2014) provide key insights on the complexities and the challenges associated with the design of surveys on migrant remittances. 6. Databases on migration policies flourished in the 2010s (Beine et al., 2016; De Haas, Natter, & Vezzoli, 2015; Helbling, Bjerre, Römer, & Zobel, 2017; Mezger & González-Ferrer, 2013). For an application of the method consisting of combining individual and national level policy data to analyze international migration, see, for instance, Flahaux (2017).

FURTHER READING Websites of Selected Specialized Surveys on Migration LAMP (Latin American Migration Project): https://​lamp​.opr​.princeton​.edu/​. MAFE (Migration between Africa and Europe): https://​mafeproject​.site​.ined​.fr/​. MED-HIMS (Household International Migration Surveys in the Mediterranean countries): https://​ec​ .europa​.eu/​eurostat/​web/​european​-neighbourhood​-policy/​enp​-south/​med​-hims. MMP (Mexican Migration Project): https://​mmp​.opr​.princeton​.edu/​. NIS (New Immigrant Survey, USA): https://​nis​.princeton​.edu/​index​.html. Push-Pull Project: https://​www​.nidi​.nl/​shared/​content/​output/​2000/​eurostat​-2000​-theme1​-pushpull​.pdf. TeO (Trajectories and Origin survey, France): https://​teo​.site​.ined​.fr/​.

REFERENCES Arnold, F. (1987). Birds of passage no more: Migration decision making among Filipino immigrants in Hawaii. International Migration, 25(1), 41–61. Baio, G., Blangiardo, G. C., & Blangiardo, M. (2011). Centre sampling technique in foreign migration surveys: A methodological note. Journal of Official Statistics, 27(3), 451. Beauchemin, C. (2012). Migrations between Africa and Europe: Rationale for a survey design. Methodological Note 5. Paris: INED. Beauchemin, C. (2014). A manifesto for quantitative multi-sited approaches to international migration. International Migration Review, 48(4), 921–938. Beauchemin, C. (2020). Towards migration modules for the 50x2030 survey: Literature review and recommendations. Rome: FAO. Beauchemin, C., & González-Ferrer, A. (2011). Sampling international migrants with origin-based snowballing method: New evidence on biases and limitations. Demographic Research, 25, 103–134. Beauchemin, C., Hamel, C., & Simon, P. (Eds.) (2018). Trajectories and origins: Survey on the diversity of the French population. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.

Quantitative surveys on migration  241 Beauchemin, C., & Schoumaker, B. (2016). Micro methods: Longitudinal surveys and analyses. In M. J. White (Ed.) International handbook of migration and population distribution (pp. 175–204). Dordrecht: Springer. Beauchemin, C., & Tovey, J. (2015). Migration between Africa and Europe (MAFE): Advantages and limitations of a multi-site survey design. Population, 70(1), 13–37. Beine, M., Boucher, A., Burgoon, B., Crock, M., Gest, J., Hiscox, M., … Thielemann, E. (2016). Comparing immigration policies: An overview from the IMPALA database. International Migration Review, 50(4), 827–863. Bilsborrow, R. E. (2016). Concepts, definitions and data collection approaches. In M. J. White (Ed.) International handbook of migration and population distribution (pp. 109–156). Dordrecht: Springer. Bilsborrow, R. E., Hugo, G., Oberai, A. S., & Zlotnik, H. (1997). International migration statistics: Guidelines for improving data collection systems. Geneva: International Labour Office. Black, R., Fielding, T., King, R., Skeldon, R., & Tiemoko, R. (2003). Longitudinal studies: An insight into current studies and the social and economic outcomes for migrants. Brighton: Sussex Centre for Migration Research. Sussex Migration Working Paper No. 14. Bocquier, P., & Traoré, S. (1998). Migration and urbanization in West Africa: Methodological issues in data collection and inference. In E. D. Bilsborrow (Ed.) Migration, urbanization, and development: New directions and issues (pp. 249–273). Norwell, MA: United Nations Population Fund/Kluwer Academic Publishers. Brown, R. P., Carling, J., Fransen, S., & Siegel, M. (2014). Measuring remittances through surveys: Methodological and conceptual issues for survey designers and data analysts. Demographic Research, 31, 1243–1274. Carling, J., & Mjelva, M. B. (2021). Survey instruments and survey data on migration aspirations. Oslo: Peace Research Institute. De Haas, H., Natter, K., & Vezzoli, S. (2015). Conceptualizing and measuring migration policy change. Comparative Migration Studies, 3(1), 1–21. Flahaux, M. L. (2017). The role of migration policy changes in Europe for return migration to Senegal. International Migration Review, 51(4), 868–892. Fussell, E., & Massey, D. S. (2004). The limits to cumulative causation: International migration from Mexican urban areas. Demography, 41(1), 151–171. González-Ferrer, A., Baizán, P., Beauchemin, C., Kraus, E., Schoumaker, B., & Black, R. (2014). Distance, transnational arrangements, and return decisions of Senegalese, Ghanaian, and Congolese migrants. International Migration Review, 48(4), 939–971. Groenewold, G., & Bilsborrow, R. (2008). Design of samples for international migration surveys: Methodological considerations and lessons learned from a multi-country study in Africa and Europe. In C. Bonifazi, M. Okólski, J. Schoorl, and P. Simon (Eds.) International migration in Europe: New trends and new methods of analysis (pp. 293–312). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Helbling, M., Bjerre, L., Römer, F., & Zobel, M. (2017). Measuring immigration policies: The IMPIC database. European Political Science, 16, 79–98. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. P., & Warner, U. (2015). Data bases and statistical systems: Sociology. In J. D. Wright (Ed.) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd edition) (pp. 844–850). Oxford: Elsevier. Massey, D. S. (1987). The ethnosurvey in theory and practice. International Migration Review, 21(4), 1498–1522. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, 431–466. Massey, D. S., Durand, J., & Pren, K. A. (2014). Explaining undocumented migration to the US. International Migration Review, 48(4), 1028–1061. Mazzucato, V. (2008). The double engagement: Transnationalism and integration. Ghanaian migrants’ lives between Ghana and the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(2), 199–216. Mazzucato, V., Schans, D., Caarls, K., & Beauchemin, C. (2015). Transnational families between Africa and Europe. International Migration Review, 49(1), 142–172. McKenzie, D. J., & Mistiaen, J. (2009). Surveying migrant households: A comparison of census‐based, snowball and intercept point surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 172(2), 339–360.

242  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Mezger, C., & González-Ferrer, A. (2013). The ImPol database: A new tool to measure immigration policies in France, Italy and Spain since the 1960s. Paris: INED. Osili, U. O. (2007). Remittances and savings from international migration: Theory and evidence using a matched sample. Journal of Development Economics, 83(2), 446–465. Parrado, E. A., McQuiston, C., & Flippen, C. A. (2005). Participatory survey research: Integrating community collaboration and quantitative methods for the study of gender and HIV risks among Hispanic migrants. Sociological Methods & Research, 34(2), 204–239. Rallu, J. L. (2008). One-way or both-ways migration surveys. In C. Bonifazi, M. Okólski, J. Schoorl, and P. Simon (Eds.) International migration in Europe: New trends and new methods of analysis (pp. 273–292). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Sana, M., & Conway, B. (2012). Surveys and ethnosurveys. In S. J. Gold & S. J. Nawyn (Eds.) Routledge international handbook of migration studies (pp. 498–507). London: Routledge. Seror, M. (2012). Measuring information asymmetries and modeling their impact on Senegalese migrants’ remittances. Master’s thesis, École normale supérieure, Paris. Tyldum, G. (2021). Surveying migrant populations with respondent-driven sampling: Experiences from surveys of east–west migration in Europe. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(3), 341–353. United Nations (1998). Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration. New York: United Nations. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (Ed.) (2017). Principles and recommendations for population and housing censuses: 2020 round. Revision 3. New York: United Nations. Vickstrom, E. (2014). Pathways into irregular status among Senegalese migrants in Europe. International Migration Review, 48(4), 1062–1099. Willekens, F., Zinn, S., & Leuchter, M. (2017). Emigration rates from sample surveys: An application to Senegal. Demography, 54(6), 2159–2179.

20. Connecting with connected migrants: exploring the field of digital migration studies Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky

INTRODUCTION The fact that migrants increasingly use digitally based tools to stay connected, actualize network ties, and gain migration-related information is hardly news. Already in 2008, writing about ‘connected migrants’, Diminescu had noted that ‘today’s migrants are the actors of a culture of bonds’, which ‘[becomes] visible and highly dynamic once migrants began massively to use modern information and communication technologies’ (Diminescu, 2008, p. 567, emphasis in original). Such visibility is only increasing. Borkert, Fisher, and Yafi (2018) reveal that a strong majority of the Arab refugees they surveyed in Berlin (85.5 percent) had discovered the best route to Europe via Facebook, WhatsApp, or Viber. Digital remittances, or the ‘cross-border money transfers made over the internet by the migrant population’, are growing at an unprecedented rate, more than 10 percent annually and projected to reach US$107,051 million in 2021 (Statista, 2021). Pesando and colleagues (Pesando, Rotondi, Stranges, Kashyap, & Billari, 2021, p. 79) speak about the ‘internetization’ of migration, pointing to the ‘consistently positive relationship between the diffusion of the internet, migration intentions, and migration behaviors’. These assertions lead us to think about the digital aspects of migrants’ social lives. The ways in which scholars explore what Leurs and Prabhakar (2018) refer to as ‘digital migration studies’ (DMS) or researching migration ‘in, through and by means of the internet’, are numerous. Leurs and Prabhakar (2018) offer an excellent mapping of methodologies in the field of DMS, and they express concern that literature on this topic at the end of the 2010s is ‘virtually non-existent’ (Leurs & Prabhakar, 2018, p. 249; cf. Smets, 2018). As I write this chapter, I find the body of methodological elaboration and reflection in DMS is, in fact, expanding considerably, and it is my aim not only to map the existing and newest terrain, but also to outline the contours of a plan for the future of the field. I argue that the prevailing trend toward ‘big data’ methodologies1 in DMS should be accompanied by qualitative interpretive approaches that enhance our understanding of online texts, practices, and experiences. Further, I argue that the methodology of the strong program in cultural sociology (Alexander & Smith, 2003, 2018), which treats culture as an analytically autonomous and independent realm composed of structures of meaning, is particularly suited for this task.

MAPPING DIGITAL MIGRATION STUDIES The field of DMS is inevitably interdisciplinary, home to sociologists, anthropologists, and geographers, traversing media, internet, and communication studies, diaspora studies, and transnational studies, among others (Andersson, 2019; Leurs & Smets, 2018). In addition to 243

244  Research handbook on the sociology of migration the idea of ‘connected migrants’ that I call upon, a plethora of concepts have been coined to describe the online and digitally enabled worlds within migration, including ‘digital diasporas’ (Brinkerhoff, 2004, 2009; Everett, 2009; Gajjala, 2008), ‘mediatized migrants’ (Hepp, Bozdag, & Suna, 2011), ‘e-diasporas’ (Diminescu, 2012), migrant ‘polymedia’ (Madianou & Miller, 2013), ‘transnationalism online’ (Sahoo & De Kruijf, 2016; Starikov, Ivanova, & Nee, 2018), ‘smart refugees’ (Dekker, Engbersen, Klaver, & Vonk, 2018), ‘transglocalization’ (Kok & Rogers, 2017), and ‘mobile methods’ (Kaufmann, 2020). Additionally, the field of DMS has been typologized in different ways. Drawing on Candidatu, Leurs, and Ponzanesi (2019), Leurs and Prabhakar (2018) usefully map the territory by distinguishing between three methodologies: (1) migrants in cyberspace; (2) everyday digital migrant life; and (3) migrants as data. These three paradigms reflect their varying ‘digital-mediacentric-ness’ (Leurs & Smets, 2018). Andersson (2019) builds upon Ardévol and Gómez-Cruz’s (2014) distinction between three methodologies: (1) virtual ethnography, developed from the beginning of the internet era through to the late 1990s; (2) connective approaches that emerged with the World Wide Web; and (3) studies of the internet in everyday practices, evolving alongside Web 2.0 and social media, to which she includes a fourth category—digital humanities and big data research. Although these typologies are useful heuristics, in this chapter, I return to a somewhat conventional categorization of DMS, based on methodology: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method. In the next section, I critically engage with the online techniques within each type, looking at how such methodologies are applied to the specific circumstances of migration research. I also examine an exemplary study in each category. I conclude by advocating for mixed-method online research that privileges culture as an explanatory variable.

ONLINE METHODOLOGIES IN DIGITAL MIGRATION STUDIES Qualitative Approaches Qualitative methodologies within DMS can be loosely divided into ethnographic approaches (participant observation, interviews, and focus groups), mobile methods (following people in their consumption of digital technologies such as smartphones), and social network analysis (examining social ties digitally). Of course, there is overlap in these methodologies and they can only be separated analytically. Ethnography is perhaps the most ‘classic’ of qualitative methodologies in DMS. In his seminal article, ‘Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the anthropology of cyberculture’, Arturo Escobar lays out the principles of cyber-ethnography as a means to explore ‘cyberculture’: While any technology can be studied anthropologically from a variety of perspectives – the rituals it originates, the social relations it helps to create, the practices developed around them by various users, the values it fosters – ‘cyberculture’ refers specifically to new technologies in two areas: artificial intelligence (particularly computer and information technologies) and biotechnology. (Escobar, 1994, p. 214)

His delineation of five ethnographic research domains (Escobar, 1994, pp. 217–221) remains salient for the study of migration today. His first suggestion includes the production and use of new technologies, with a ‘focus on scientists and experts in sites such as genetic research

Connecting with connected migrants: digital migration studies  245 labs, high-technology corporations, and virtual reality design centers, on the one hand, and the users of these technologies, on the other’ (p. 217). As I discuss below, the position of migrants in a ‘surveillance culture’ (Diminescu, 2008) prompts us to study the high-tech ways in which it is actualized. Second, studying the emergence of computer-mediated communities, or virtual communities, allows for highlighting the digital patterns of sociability among migrants, non-migrants, and others. Third, studies of the popular culture of science and technology, help disentangle the effects of social imaginaries concerning places both far away and close (Appadurai, 1996). Fourth, ‘[t]he growth and qualitative development of human computer-mediated communication, particularly from the perspective of the relationship between language, communication, social structures, and cultural identity’ (Escobar, 1994, p. 219) remains relevant in studying migrants’ online communicative practices. Finally, unpacking the political economy of cyberculture helps to elucidate the geo-political forces and contexts that affect and determine migration flows. On the heels of Escobar’s work, virtual ethnography (Hine, 2000), netnography (Kozinets, 1998), and digital ethnography (Murthy, 2008) have followed. Shortly after Escobar, another classic, about ‘multi-sited ethnography’ (Marcus, 1995) would have a profound effect on DMS. Literally based on ‘following the people’, multi-sited ethnography (MSE) is particularly appropriate for tracking the patterns, processes, and practices of migration, especially through combining online and offline approaches (Murthy, 2008, p. 839): ‘[A] balanced combination of physical and digital ethnography not only gives researchers a larger and more exciting array of methods to tell social stories, but also enables them to demarginalize the voice of respondents in these accounts’. Marino (2021) nicely situates digital MSE in relation to three theoretical considerations: (1) the relationship between MSE and transnationalism; (2) the application of ethnography to the study of digital diasporas; and (3) ‘how MSE should not simply “follow” but rather, deeply engage with, and learn from, the contested meanings, appropriations and everyday uses of technology by migrants as they evolve over time’ (Marino, 2021, p. 78). Finally, ‘trajectory ethnography’ (Schapendonk, 2011) seems particularly promising with its call to move past a ‘multi-local’ design like MSE and toward a ‘translocal’ design, sensitive to movements through places. The collection of data consisting of migration biographies combines with a longitudinal research strategy that follows migrants in ‘real time and space’ (see also the exemplary study featured below, by Zijlstra & van Liempt, 2017). A trajectory ethnography can also be seen as a ‘mobile method’, in which the researcher physically travels along with research subjects. This approach is often focused on smartphones or other software-based devices. Boase and Humphreys (2018) highlight three themes of such methods: (1) they are field-based; (2) they result in ‘controlled complexity’, a scenario in which the researcher can choose from a complex dataset precisely which data they wish to use and how; and (3) they raise important ethical issues, related to the potentially sensitive data researchers are exposed to. Kaufmann (2020) argues that qualitative smartphone methods are ‘a natural fit’ for migration research, she highlights their transformative and emancipatory potential: migrants are no longer research objects, but ‘contributing subjects in the research process who are given the means to voice their own interpretation and contextualization’ (p. 168). She divides mobile methods into two research strands: those that accompany migrants in their mobile digital spaces, giving researchers access to their daily doings, often in unstable living conditions, and those that allow researchers to reconstruct the meanings and practices in ‘co-productive data elicitation’, in which migrants are active participants. Mobile

246  Research handbook on the sociology of migration methods represent a ‘small data’ approach that focuses on meaning-making and reflection, and empowers migrants to maintain their sovereignty. Social network analysis (SNA) is often considered the provenance of quantitative or ‘big data’ methodologies. I wish to highlight some points about qualitative social network research approaches, as featured in a special issue of Global Networks edited by Ryan and Dahinden (2021). They argue that qualitative SNA can address the ‘epistemological pitfalls’ in migration research, by ‘overcoming the metaphoric use of networks as well as nation-state and ethnicity-centred epistemologies’ (Ryan & Dahinden, 2021, p. 459, emphases in original). Hearkening back to early, classic, anthropological approaches, they emphasize meaning making and agency. Further, and most importantly, embracing a reflexive approach enables researchers to ‘de-migranticise’ their studies, they talk of ‘turning the role of migration and ethnicity for social networks into an empirical question rather than taking them as an essentialist starting point for investigation’ (Ryan & Dahinden, 2021, p. 459): It is herein where the potential of SNA lies … The specific methodological instruments that are used in qualitative network analysis – name generators, network maps, visualizations of networks, often combined with other types of interviews, narratives or observations – support this investigation of relevant ties, first independently of their ethnic, migratory or racialised character. Only in a second step does the role of ethnicity, migration, religion, class or gender emerge out of the network structure and composition and can be investigated. (Ryan & Dahinden, 2021, p. 465)

Exemplar #1, Zijlstra and van Liempt (2017), ‘Smart (phone) travelling: Understanding the use and impact of mobile technology on irregular migration journeys’ I have chosen Zijlstra and van Liempt’s (2017) trajectory ethnography with migrants moving from the Middle East to north-western Europe in 2015 as an exemplar of qualitative methodology in digital migration studies. As the authors point out, trajectory ethnography is an excellent approach to studying ‘irregular’ migration, or the unauthorized movement of migrants and refugees.2 The study also exemplifies what Leurs and Prabhakar (2018, p. 254) suggest as a pillar of a ‘relational’ approach to DMS, namely, combining online and offline methods to capture the processual nature of migration. Moreover, at the time of publication, it represented one of the first attempts at elaborating the ways in which internet-enabled mobile technology transforms ‘irregular’ migration flows, by investigating how such technology shapes decisions regarding: (1) migration routes and methods; (2) destinations; and (3) the financing for the journey (Zijlstra & van Liempt, 2017, pp. 175–176). By physically and digitally traveling with the ‘irregular’ migrants, the researchers are able to offer an idea of how they travel through space and time. The only seeming challenge to this methodology is that a focus on the individual journey, rather than interactions between places, doesn’t allow for a nuanced examination of the broader social contexts through which migrants travel. Zijlstra and van Liempt (2017) conduct repeated interviews and observation among 11 Afghan, Iranian, and Syrian migrants in Turkey, Greece, Germany, and the Netherlands, for an intensive period of four to eight months, also speaking informally with one smuggler and 34 other migrants, and meeting with representatives of seven Turkish and Greek NGOs working on migration and asylum (p. 180). In addition to detailing their sample, they also reflect on the unequal positioning between themselves as researchers and the migrants, describing the challenges of wanting to help (and sometimes doing so) but also refusing to give or lend large sums of money to the migrants, or offering advice in how to reach the intended destination.

Connecting with connected migrants: digital migration studies  247 By employing the methodology of trajectory ethnography, Zijlstra and van Liempt (2017) are able to elucidate the dynamics and processes involved in an ‘irregular’ migration journey, including choices regarding transportation (plane, boat, train, or foot) or decisions about using smugglers, or forged documents (p. 181). Of course, certain factors make a difference in how well migrants can make use of mobile technologies, such as education, digital literacy, and language skills. Finally, there exists a ‘hierarchy of trustworthiness’, with migrants trusting their social networks more than media or state-sponsored sources (Zijlstra & van Liempt, 2017, pp. 176–177). Quantitative Approaches Quantitative content analysis and social network analysis have a long history in migration studies, using statistical data, administrative data,3 and collected data. Increasingly, such analyses utilize ‘big data’, which can be defined as ‘anonymized data that are generated by users of mobile devices, internet-based platforms, or by digital sensors and meters, for example, satellite imagery’ (Migration Data Portal [MDP], 2021). The advantages of utilizing innovative big data sources in the study of migration processes are multiple. They can overcome the limitations of traditional data sources: ‘national population censuses are costly and infrequent, migrants may be hard to sample in household surveys, and they may be undercounted in administrative records if they are not able to access services in the host country’ (MDP, 2021). They further offer ways to fill important knowledge gaps, not least because of their up-to-date nature, their wide coverage, and their level of detail, which allow for the study of temporary or circular migration, public opinion, and media discourse (MDP, 2021). Some big data can also be obtained inexpensively, but access to the massive datasets collected by commercial entities is often limited due to the high cost (Lupton, 2015). Computational methods have variously included issue mapping (Diminescu, 2012; Diminescu & Loveluck, 2014), actor mapping (Smoliarova, Platonov, Sharkova, & Gromova, 2020), hyperlink analysis (Kok & Rogers, 2017; Messias, Benevenuto, Weber, & Zagheni, 2016), content analysis (Mancini, Mazzoni, Barbieri, Damiani, & Gerli, 2021; Sarah Liu, 2021) and network analysis (Herdağdelen, State, Adamic, & Mason, 2016; Verdery, Mouw, Edelblute, & Chavez, 2018). There exist numerous tools for gathering data, including Issue Crawler (https://​www​.issuecrawler​.net/​), Gephi (https://​gephi​.org/​), and Chorus for Twitter data (http://​chorusanalytics​.co​.uk/​), among many others. One of the most recent and ambitious efforts in the use of big data to understand the phenomenon of migration comes from Sîrbu et al. (2020). They examine migration through its various phases, moving from traditional data sources and models, through to state-of-the-art approaches in each. The first phase includes the journey, with a focus on ‘flows and stocks’. The greatest emphasis is on the second phase, integration, for which they construct a ‘multi-level integration index’ that utilizes retail data, mobile call data records, and online social network data (Sîrbu et al., 2020). The third phase covers return migration. The authors also recommend the SoBigData project, sponsored by the EU, which undertakes the ‘adaptation of the general migration models to understand scientific migration’ (https://​sobigdata​.d4science​.org/​catalogue​-sobigdata). Many of the big data methodologies mentioned above have been subsumed under the field of ‘digital humanities,’ which, as Andersson (2019, p. 165) argues, ‘renders the possibility for researchers to access huge digital databases with the goal of archiving information, visualizing networks, designing cartographies, and plucking, systematizing, and creating typologies for

248  Research handbook on the sociology of migration user-generated content produced in social platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia, and Flickr’ (cf. Ponzanesi & Leurs, 2014). The idea is to combine methodologies from the humanities with computational and digital methods. ‘Postcolonial digital humanities’, a more critical approach, highlights that ‘technology is not neutral, and that it contains global structures of inequality, that the internet is not genderless and postracial and that new hierarchies are created online that reproduce colonial and racial dynamics’ (Ponzanesi & Leurs, 2014, p. 16; see also http://​dhpoco​.org/​). Critical approaches also emerge when we conceptualize the ‘technologization’ of border controls, or migrants as existing within a ‘surveillance culture’, which ‘ICT extends largely beyond national territories in both its hard version (retention centers) and its soft version (electronic surveillance via databases …)’ (Diminescu, 2008, p. 567). These scenarios reflect the fact that ‘datafication’, or the ‘transforming all things under the sun into a data format and thus quantifying them’, is at the heart of networked contemporary society (Schäfer & van Es, 2017, p. 11). Leurs and Prabhakar (2018, p. 253) point out the ways in which migrants are ‘datafied’: ‘European governments aiming to manage migration top-down are increasingly tapping into big data; not only are biometric databases augmented and interconnected with the aim of more efficient border control, authorities also scrape and analyse social media data to predict migrant flows and circulate specifically targeted deterrent information campaigns’ (cf. Broeders & Hampshire, 2013). They further propose an ‘ethics of care’, to help overcome the fact that computational methods are ‘incompatible’ with researching the marginalized and vulnerable, such as migrants (Leurs & Prabhakar, 2018, pp. 260–261). Candidatu et al. (2019, p. 39) criticize the ‘flat’ ontology4 of big data: Mirroring the seductive scalability of big data, these flat ontologies risk implying a God-trick (view from nowhere) in their aim for comprehensiveness … Furthermore, the radical, unlimited scope and distributed sensitivity promised by flat ontologies is difficult to align with inductive, and empirically grounded activist, anti-oppressive and/or emancipatory research ideals of critical digital diasporas.

Indeed, there are significant challenges that exist alongside the benefits of big data, which reach beyond ethical and privacy issues. Some argue that big data are ‘inherently biased’ and not necessarily representative (MDP, 2021). In other words, due to the ‘digital divide’ based on factors such as economic development, sex, age, and residence in urban/rural areas, the users of the social media or mobile phones that comprise much of big data are not necessarily representative of the broader population. Leurs and Prabhakar warn against blindly accepting the ‘objectivity’ of big data methods and datafication, asserting that ‘one must keep in mind that data based technology and human experience are mutually constituted’ (2018, p. 259). Notwithstanding some of these challenges, big data are here to stay and as I will discuss in the Conclusion, working with rather than against them may be the best alternative. Exemplar #2, Ferra and Nguyen (2017), ‘#Migrantcrisis: “Tagging” the European migration crisis on Twitter’ Ferra and Nguyen’s (2017) study of Twitter discourse on the migrant ‘crisis’ in Europe represents an exemplar of a smaller-scale study using a big data source. Two separate research questions guide the analysis, one concerning the groups and organizations that participated in debates on the hashtag #migrantcrisis on February 26, 2016, and the other concerning the frames that emerged in the discourse. It is thus a study of both structure (mapping the networks) and content (elucidating the frames). What sets it apart from many other big data

Connecting with connected migrants: digital migration studies  249 studies is the solid theoretical grounding in a multistranded framework, consisting of public sphere theory, the transnationalization of media communication, framing research, and social media and web sphere theory (Ferra & Nguyen, 2017, pp. 412–417). The data collection and analysis involved the use of the open-source tool NodeXL, an add-in for Microsoft Excel, which, according to the authors, facilitates ‘exhaustive’ network analysis using various visualization features (Ferra & Nguyen, 2017, p. 417). The date around which the data were collected—February 26, 2016—represents the closing of borders along the ‘Balkan route’ used by migrants to reach Europe. Beyond the social network analysis, the 4,277 items in the dataset were subjected to a semantic content analysis, creating a semantic network graph that revealed the frames present in the top hashtags, top words, and word pairs. Ferra and Nguyen acknowledge that they have used a ‘limited dataset, both in its temporal scope and content’, a mere ‘snippet’ of the online discourse, but also point out that it nevertheless allows for an adequate exploratory mapping (2017, p. 418). Ferra and Nguyen (2017) articulate their preliminary conclusions of the social network analysis as follows: ‘first, the discourse on #migrantcrisis has indeed a transnational-global reach, as indicated by the diverse geographical distribution of participants in the network; second, “traditional” media organisations and other professional communicators appear to dominate the discourse’ (p. 419). They point out that the network position may not reflect the quality of relations among the nodes; for example, interactions such as retweets can be uncommented, positive, or negative. As regards the content (Ferra & Nguyen, 2017, pp. 420–421), the semantic network consists of 11 sub-groups. In the first and largest group (G1), the terms ‘migrantcrisis’ and ‘Europe’ are the most relevant/frequent nodes, which also serve as ‘connecting hubs’ to other clusters, such as the right-wing frames in G3 (‘collapsing’ or ‘invasion’), and the positive solidaristic campaigns (‘pray’) in G2. The peripheral nodes, G4, G5, and G6 concern simultaneous events such as France’s closing of the ‘Calais jungle’. G7, also peripheral, is related to the ‘tragedy of sinking refugee boats in Greek waters’. The remaining clusters are not central to the discourse. Overall, Ferra and Nguyen find the discourse tends to be ‘dehumanizing’. The take-away messages of this study suggest two important considerations. First, the dominant actors in the discourse are traditional news sources that also dominate the offline public sphere, implying that its hierarchical structures resonate in the digital public sphere. Second, Ferra and Nguyen assert, ‘[T]he refugee crisis is not per se a primary concern, in terms of displaced population or poverty and human suffering, etc. Instead, the main concern implied in the data is related to EU politics, indicating Germany’s position in this structure … The role of dominant actors in the EU politics, the future of Europe, and the EU policies are key issues’ (2017, p. 421). Interestingly, there is also a link between the EU politics and international political crisis events, including the hashtags #brexit and #trump2016, and Trump’s migration discourse related to #buildthewall. Mixed Method Research Proponents of mixed method research (MMR) can be very passionate about their position. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005, p. 375) declare, ‘Mono-method research is the biggest threat to the advancement of the social sciences’. They advocate for a ‘pragmatic researcher movement’, using quantitative and qualitative methodologies within the same framework, to overcome the ‘false dichotomy’ between the two approaches (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005,

250  Research handbook on the sociology of migration p. 385). Instead, they place the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research methodologies on continua, for example: (1) between situations in which the investigator is the ‘agent of change’ in the treatment of an independent variable and those in which the investigator has no control; (2) between natural and controlled research settings; and (3) between exploratory and confirmatory hypotheses (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005, pp. 384–385). For ‘pragmatists’, the research question should drive the method(s) used. In the words of Miles and Huberman, they suggest that ‘epistemological purity doesn’t get research done’ (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p. 21, quoted in Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005, p. 377). There has been considerable development in the field of MMR since the mid-2000s, as reflected by Timans, Wouters, and Heilbron (2019), not least through the emergence of the Journal of Mixed Method Research in 2007. While Timans et al. (2019, p. 212) laud the ways in which MMR challenges the still predominant mono methods as ‘both refreshing and important’, they point to three concerns: First, MMR scholars seem to be committed to designing a standardized methodological framework for combining methods. … Second, MMR constructs methods as unproblematic representations of an epistemology. … By this logic, combining quantitative methods with other quantitative methods, or qualitative methods with other qualitative methods, cannot offer the same benefits: they originate from the same way of viewing and knowing the world, so it would have the same effect as blending two gradations of the same colour paint … [which] leads to the third problem: the black boxing of methods as neutral mediators between these epistemologies and data.

I quote this passage at length to underscore that MMR is not a methodological panacea, but instead a provocative realm for questioning the relationship between epistemology and data. The ‘anthropology of data’ seeks to interrogate the very nature of data; e.g., see the special issue of the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (Douglas‐Jones, Walford, & Seaver, 2021): From a position that takes data to be a competitor epistemology, ethnography is either at risk of losing its epistemic territory or an under-appreciated corrective that can balance out the reductionism of large-scale, quantitative methods. A now familiar critical stance is that big data simply misses out all that is human, and embodied, about living in the world. (Douglas‐Jones et al., 2021, pp. 11–12)

One way to reclaim the humanity of big data is through the notion of ‘thick big data’, the ‘conscious, programmatic combination of Big Data (highly quantified datasets) with thick data (deeply qualitative fieldwork)’ (Jemielniak, 2020, p. 23; see also Latzko-Toth, Bonneau, & Millette, 2017). Often, this ‘thickening’ hearkens back to Geertz’s (1973) formulation of ‘thick description’. In the specific realm of digital migration studies, Leurs and Prabhakar (2018, p. 255) conceptualize MMR as exemplary of the principle of ‘relationality’ they advocate for achieving ‘greater sensitivity in our research for how practices of migrant connectivity are often paradoxical, and always processual and interlinked’. They cite the example of the Mapping Refugee Media Journeys project, in which Gillespie et al. (2016) combined interviews with Syrian and Iraqi refugees about their social media and smartphone use during their journeys to Europe with quantitative social network analysis of Facebook groups and Twitter networks. Indeed, as the following exemplar demonstrates, social network analysis is one of the most promising areas for MMR in digital migration studies. Mazzucato (2021, p. 553) defines mixed-method SNA as a combination of ‘quantitative SNA, collected through questionnaires,

Connecting with connected migrants: digital migration studies  251 and qualitative SNA that is usually based on narrations about relationships stimulated through a diversity of methods, including concentric circle mapping, thematic interviews, participatory mapping, communication diaries and the like’. She further calls for adding observational studies to address three challenges facing transnational migration research: (1) designing a research project; (2) studying how transnational relationships are ‘worked at’; and (3) capturing the dynamic nature of transnational relationships over time and their embeddedness in multiple social, cultural, legal, economic, and political environments (Mazzucato, 2021, p. 553). Exemplar #3, Wissink and Mazzucato (2018), ‘In transit: Changing social networks of sub-Saharan African migrants in Turkey and Greece’ The exemplary mixed-method study by Wissink and Mazzucato (2018) utilizes multi-sited transnational migration research to investigate why migrant networks change. It makes an important contribution to the literature on transnational social networks by looking at the factors affecting the relationship between ‘critical events’ and network changes. The study is situated in the ‘highly volatile’ social and institutional environment of two transit migration hubs, Istanbul and Athens, and follows 40 sub-Saharan African informants for a period of 17 months between early 2012 and late 2013, and some of them up to four years starting from early 2009 (Wissink & Mazzucato, 2018, p. 30). The methods (Wissink & Mazzucato, 2018, pp. 32–33) include extensive participant observation and in-depth interviews, which, along with the topical literature, then inform the social network survey. For the survey, Wissink and Mazzucato (2018) use a multiple name generator questionnaire with questions that would identify the persons with whom the informants exchanged four types of support: emotional/affective, instrumental, informational, and financial. The authors note that triangulation of these methods helped to minimize measurement and interpretation errors in the reconstruction of network change. To visualize the network change, they utilize EgoNet (http://​sourceforge​.net/​projects/​egonet) software, presenting the results and discussing them with each informant to assess the accuracy and meaning of each relationship. A follow-up with 17 of the informants still in Turkey and Greece asks them to reflect on the presence and/or changes in the relationships within their networks. Wissink and Mazzucato (2018) present the findings of the study through two in-depth case studies, which encompass the full range of factors across all the cases. The ‘critical events’ occurring inside the network are related to communication and exchanges, as well as life-course events, such as marriage, children, and death, while those external to the network include events related to the asylum procedure, traveling, work and residence, and the societal environment (racist violence, solidarity movements, receiving [or not] support from organizations) (Wissink & Mazzucato, 2018, p. 35, Table 2). In terms of ‘individual opportunity structures’, three factors explain the association between critical events and network changes: communication venues and infrastructures, available resources, and relationship preferences. Critical events affect changes in these structures through: (1) direct impact, ‘for example, when critical events directly impede or enhance the access to communication infrastructures, such as arrests, imprisonments and referrals to satellite cities’; (2) how migrants choose to respond to events and exert agency; and (3) by introducing new constraints and opportunities (Wissink & Mazzucato, 2018, pp. 38–39). The analytical model they develop aims not at prediction, like most prior studies, but at revealing the elements that explain network change

252  Research handbook on the sociology of migration (Wissink & Mazzucato, 2018, p. 40). Ultimately, the combination of mixed methods allows them to highlight the individual variation and dynamism of migration processes.

CHARTING A (CULTURAL) PATH FORWARD FOR DIGITAL MIGRATION STUDIES In this chapter, I have mapped out the field of digital migration studies through a discussion of three methodological approaches—qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method. In this final section, I would like to add another layer applicable to all three approaches, namely a cultural sociological perspective. I echo the call made more than 15 years ago by Levitt (2005, p. 49), who asserts that ‘more intensive exchanges between migration scholars and cultural sociologists would yield greater analytical purchase in both fields’. She argues that migration scholars must take culture seriously and look at the meaning-making and boundary construction in cross-border processes, as well as what is inside the cultural ‘black box’ (2005, p. 50). Seven years later, Levitt reasserts that ‘migration is an inherently cultural act’ (Levitt, 2012, p. 497). There has been considerable work in this direction since then (see, for example, Rétiová, Rapoš Božič, Klvaňová, & Jaworsky, 2021; Sciortino, 2012; Vega, 2019; Voyer, 2013), but I believe Levitt’s advice is still applicable today, especially in the field of DMS. Are cultural sociological approaches compatible with the ‘phenomenon of the decade’, which has ‘invaded our daily world’ (Favaretto, De Clercq, Schneble, & Elger, 2020), namely, big data? Along with the push toward digital humanities, there have been efforts to promote computational data approaches to the sociology of culture and cultural production (Martinho, 2018; Schäfer & van Es, 2017). But to take culture as an independent variable, a thread that runs through every realm of social life, we can call upon the premises of the strong program in cultural sociology: (1) the relative analytical autonomy of culture, and the bracketing out of purely cultural material from other social structures; (2) a commitment to Geertzian (1973) thick description, or the rich reconstruction of systems of meaning and cultural structures; and (3) a dedication to causal specificity: ‘[W]e suggest that a strong program tries to anchor causality in proximate actors and agencies, specifying in detail just how culture interferes with and directs what really happens’ (Alexander & Smith, 2003, p. 14). It is a matter of embracing a ‘meaning first’ epistemology (Alexander & Smith, 2018). There have been several steps to integrate approaches that take meaning seriously (not only the strong program) with computational data methods. Bail strongly believes there is room for big data in the field of cultural sociology, even in the face of ‘formidable obstacles’: [I]nattention to big data among cultural sociologists is doubly surprising since it is naturally occurring—unlike survey research or cross-sectional qualitative interviews—and therefore critical to understanding the evolution of meaning structures in situ. That is, many archived texts are the product of conversations between individuals, groups, or organizations instead of responses to questions created by researchers who usually have only post-hoc intuition about the relevant factors in meaning making—much less how cultural evolves in ‘real time.’ (Bail, 2014, p. 467)

But empirical examples are scant. Bail (2015) uses automated text analysis to look at the transformation of discursive fields in Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream, and develops a theory of cultural resonance. More recently, Kozlowski, Taddy and Evans (2019) employ a word-embedding model, looking at millions of books, to

Connecting with connected migrants: digital migration studies  253 conduct a historical analysis of how collective understandings of social class have evolved. As regards digital migration studies, qualitative approaches using cultural sociology are more common (e.g., Jaworsky, 2016). But methodological discussions are increasing in number; see, for example, the mid-2010s discussions in the American Journal of Cultural Sociology (see, among others, Lee & Martin, 2015; Reed, 2015), the Annual Review of Sociology piece by Edelmann and colleagues (Edelmann, Wolff, Montagne, & Bail, 2020), or Measuring Culture, a book by nine prominent cultural sociologists (Mohr et al., 2020). The authors of that book argue that ‘interpretation is necessarily patterned, and can be analytically captured and translated into measurable form’: ‘[E]ven data produced within the most qualitative traditions in cultural sociology – such as ethnographic observation or qualitative interviews – become amenable to more quantitative techniques, as soon as they are externalized in the form of field notes or interview transcriptions’ (Mohr et al., 2020, p. 4). In the end, big data appear to be the future of both cultural sociology and digital migration studies. Even more pessimistic, anthropologically oriented, views—‘Data now motivates a sweep of dystopian visions, from rampant commodification to the invasion of privacy, political manipulation, and shadowy data doubles’—simultaneously suggest that engaging with the ‘data moment’ may be ‘not only politically important but also conceptually generative’ (Douglas-Jones et al., 2021, p. 9). I’d like to close on a more optimistic note, about migrants themselves. I agree with Leurs and Prabhakar (2018) that it represents an ‘emancipatory starting point’ to acknowledge that migrants are ‘digital agents of change’ (Borkert et al., 2018): ‘Although digital divides alongside axis of geography, gender, age, class, race, nationality, and generation persist and unevenly shape access, ownership and use, attention for the situated everyday experiences of migrants is vital to bring about societal change’ (Leurs & Prabhakar, 2018, p. 249). The question is thus: how can we, as socially conscious researchers, draw attention to the role of migrants as digitally enabled agents of social change?

NOTES 1. The reader will encounter different terms for the justification of research approaches and data collection techniques (known as ‘methods’), including epistemology, methodology, methodological epistemology, and paradigm. All refer to the ways in which a particular justificatory scheme sees the production of knowledge and how researchers can ‘know’ social life. In this chapter, I use ‘methodologies’ as a catch-all term. 2. Although I believe that ‘unauthorized’ is a more neutral term, I use ‘irregular’, as the authors do, but enclose it in quotes. 3. Administrative data may also be statistical, but they are collected from administrative records rather than direct contact with respondents (OECD, 2001). 4. According to Ash Kramer (n.d.), ‘Flat ontology is a model for reality that says that all objects, even those that are imagined, have the same degree of being-ness as any other object’. Such a view may lead to the implication that there is an ‘objective’, unbiased view (i.e., the ‘God-trick’).

254  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

REFERENCES Alexander, J. C., & Smith, P. (2003). The strong program in cultural sociology: Elements of a structural hermeneutics. In J. C. Alexander (Ed.) The meanings of social life (pp. 11–26). New York: Oxford University Press. Alexander, J. C., & Smith, P. (2018). The strong program in cultural sociology: Meaning first. In L. Grindstaff, M.-C. M. Lo, & J. R. Hall (Eds.) Handbook of cultural sociology (pp. 13–22). London: Routledge. Andersson, K. B. (2019). Digital diasporas: An overview of the research areas of migration and new media through a narrative literature review. Human Technology, 15(2), 142–180. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ardévol, E., & Gómez-Cruz, E. (2014). Digital ethnography and media practices. In A. N. Valdiva (Ed.) The international encyclopedia of media studies (pp. 498–518). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bail, C. (2014). The cultural environment: Measuring culture with big data. Theory and Society, 43(3–4), 465–482. Bail, C. (2015). Terrified: How anti-Muslim fringe organizations became mainstream. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Boase, J., & Humphreys, L. (2018). Mobile methods: Explorations, innovations, and reflections. Mobile Media & Communication, 6(2), 153–162. Borkert, M., Fisher, K. E., & Yafi, E. (2018). The best, the worst, and the hardest to find: How people, mobiles, and social media connect migrants in (to) Europe. Social Media + Society, 4(1). https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1177/​2056305118764428. Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2004). Digital diasporas and international development: Afghan-Americans and the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Public Administration and Development, 24(5), 397–413. Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2009). Digital diasporas: Identity and transnational engagement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Broeders, D., & Hampshire, J. (2013). Dreaming of seamless borders: ICTs and the pre-emptive governance of mobility in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(8), 1201–1218. Candidatu, L., Leurs, K., & Ponzanesi, S. (2019). Digital diasporas: Beyond the buzzword: Toward a relational understanding of mobility and connectivity. In J. Retis & R. Tsagarousianou (Eds.) The handbook of diasporas, media, and culture (pp. 31–47). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Dekker, R., Engbersen, G., Klaver, J., & Vonk, H. (2018). Smart refugees: How Syrian asylum migrants use social media information in migration decision-making. Social Media + Society, 4(1). https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1177/​2056305118764439. Diminescu, D. (2008). The connected migrant: An epistemological manifesto. Social Science Information, 47(4), 565–579. Diminescu, D. (2012). Introduction: Digital methods for the exploration, analysis and mapping of e-diasporas. Social Science Information, 51(4), 451–458. Diminescu, D., & Loveluck, B. (2014). Traces of dispersion: Online media and diasporic identities. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 5(1), 23–39. Douglas‐Jones, R., Walford, A., & Seaver, N. (2021). Introduction: Towards an anthropology of data. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 27(S1), 9–25. Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne, D., & Bail, C. A. (2020). Computational social science and sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 61–81. Escobar, A. (1994). Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the anthropology of cyberculture [with comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, 35(3), 211–231. Everett, A. (2009). Digital diaspora: A race for cyberspace. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Favaretto, M., De Clercq, E., Schneble, C. O., & Elger, B. S. (2020). What is your definition of Big Data? Researchers’ understanding of the phenomenon of the decade. PloS One, 15(2), e0228987. Ferra, I., & Nguyen, D. (2017). #Migrantcrisis: ‘Tagging’ the European migration crisis on Twitter. Journal of Communication Management, 21(4), 411–426. Gajjala, R. (2008). South Asian technospaces and ‘Indian’ digital diasporas. In R. Gajjala & V. Gajjala (Eds.) South Asian technospaces (pp. 37–48). New York: Peter Lang. Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

Connecting with connected migrants: digital migration studies  255 Gillespie, M., Ampofo, L., Cheesman, M., Faith, B., Illiadou, E., Issa, A., Osseiran, S., & Skleparis, D. (2016). Mapping refugee media journeys. Research report. Retrieved from https://​www​.open​.ac​.uk/​ ccig/​research/​projects/​mapping​-refugee​-media​-journeys. Hepp, A., Bozdag, C., & Suna, L. (2011). Mediatized migrants: Media cultures and communicative networking in the diaspora. In L. Fortunati, R. Pertierra, & J. Vincent (Eds.) Migration, diaspora and information technology in global societies (pp. 190–206). London: Routledge. Herdağdelen, A., State, B., Adamic, L., & Mason, W. (2016). The social ties of immigrant communities in the United States. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage Publications. Jaworsky, B. N. (2016). The boundaries of belonging: Online work of immigration-related social movement organizations. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Jemielniak, D. (2020). Thick big data: Doing digital social sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaufmann, K. (2020). Mobile methods: Doing migration research with the help of smartphones. In K. Smets, K. Leurs, M. Georgiou, S. Witteborn, & R. Gajjala (Eds.) The SAGE handbook of media and migration (pp. 167–179). London: Sage Publications. Kok, S., & Rogers, R. (2017). Rethinking migration in the digital age: Transglocalization and the Somali diaspora. Global Networks, 17(1), 23–46. Kozinets, R. V. (1998). On netnography: Initial reflections on consumer research investigations of cyberculture. In J. W. Alba & J. W. Hutchinson (Eds.) ACR North American Advances (Vol. 25, pp. 366–371). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Kozlowski, A. C., Taddy, M., & Evans, J. A. (2019). The geometry of culture: Analyzing the meanings of class through word embeddings. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 905–949. Kramer, A. (n.d.). Philosophical materialism: A study of early modern literature and contemporary theory. Retrieved from https://​scalar​.usc​.edu/​works/​material​_philosophy/​flat​-ontology. Latzko-Toth, G., Bonneau, C., & Millette, M. (2017). Small data, thick data: Thickening strategies for trace-based social media research. In L. Sloan & A. Quan-Haase (Eds.) The SAGE handbook of social media research methods (pp. 199–214). London: Sage Publications. Lee, M., & Martin, J. L. (2015). Coding, counting and cultural cartography. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 3(1), 1–33. Leurs, K., & Prabhakar, M. (2018). Doing digital migration studies: Methodological considerations for an emerging research focus. In R. Zapata-Barrero & E. Yalaz (Eds.) Qualitative research in European migration studies (pp. 247–266). Cham: Springer. Leurs, K., & Smets, K. (2018). Five questions for digital migration studies: Learning from digital connectivity and forced migration in (to) Europe. Social Media + Society, 4(1). https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 2056305118764425. Levitt, P. (2005). Building bridges: What migration scholarship and cultural sociology have to say to each other. Poetics, 33(1), 49–62. Levitt, P. (2012). What’s wrong with migration scholarship? A critique and a way forward. Identities, 19(4), 493–500. Lupton, D. (2015). Digital sociology. Abingdon: Routledge. Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2013). Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(2), 169–187. Mancini, P., Mazzoni, M., Barbieri, G., Damiani, M., & Gerli, M. (2021). What shapes the coverage of immigration? Journalism, 22(4), 845–866. Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1), 95–117. Marino, S. (2021). Multi-sited ethnography and digital migration research: Methods and challenges. In K. Schuster & S. Dunn (Eds.) Routledge international handbook of research methods in digital humanities (pp. 76–90). Abingdon: Routledge. Martinho, T. D. (2018). Researching culture through big data: Computational engineering and the human and social sciences. Social Sciences, 7(12), 264. Mazzucato, V. (2021). Mixed-method social network analysis for multi-sited transnational migration research. Global Networks, 21(3), 551–566.

256  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Messias, J., Benevenuto, F., Weber, I., & Zagheni, E. (2016). From migration corridors to clusters: The value of Google+ data for migration studies. Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). Migration Data Portal (MDP) (2021). Big data, migration and human mobility. Retrieved from https://​ www​.migrationdataportal​.org/​themes/​big​-data​-migration​-and​-human​-mobility. Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Mohr, J. W., Bail, C. A., Frye, M., Lena, J. C., Lizardo, O., McDonnell, T. E., … Wherry, F. F. (2020). Measuring culture. New York: Columbia University Press. Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837–855. OECD (2001). Glossary of statistical terms. Retrieved from https://​stats​.oecd​.org/​glossary/​detail​.asp​?ID​ =​6. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. Pesando, L. M., Rotondi, V., Stranges, M., Kashyap, R., & Billari, F. C. (2021). The internetization of international migration. Population and Development Review, 47(1), 79–111. Ponzanesi, S., & Leurs, K. (2014). On digital crossings in Europe. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 5(1), 3–22. Reed, I. A. (2015). Counting, interpreting and their potential interrelation in the human sciences. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 3(3), 353–364. Rétiová, A., Rapoš Božič, I., Klvaňová, R., & Jaworsky, B. N. (2021). Shifting categories, changing attitudes: A boundary work approach in the study of attitudes toward migrants. Sociology Compass, 15(3), e12855. Ryan, L., & Dahinden, J. (2021). Qualitative network analysis for migration studies: Beyond metaphors and epistemological pitfalls. Global Networks, 21(3), 459–469. Sahoo, A. K., & De Kruijf, J. G. (Eds.) (2016). Indian transnationalism online: New perspectives on diaspora. London: Routledge. Sarah Liu, S. J. (2021). Framing immigration: A content analysis of newspapers in Hong Kong, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 9(4), 759–783. Schäfer, M. T., & van Es, K. (Eds.) (2017). The datafied society: Studying culture through data. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Schapendonk, J. (2011). Turbulent trajectories: Sub-Saharan African migrants heading north. PhD thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen. Sciortino, G. (2012). Ethnicity, race, nationhood, foreignness, and many other things: Prolegomena to a cultural sociology of difference-based interactions. In J. C. Alexander, R. Jacobs, & P. Smith (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of cultural sociology (pp. 365–389). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sîrbu, A., Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Boldrini, C., Conti, M., Giannotti, F., … Sharma, R. (2021). Human migration: the big data perspective. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 11(4), 341–360. Smets, K. (2018). Doing diasporic media research: Methodological challenges and innovations. In J. Retis & R. Tsagarousianou (Eds.) The handbook of diasporas, media, and culture (pp. 97–111). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Smoliarova, A., Platonov, K., Sharkova, E., & Gromova, T. (2020). Defining network borders on Instagram: The case of Russian-speaking bloggers with migration background. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.) Social computing and social media (pp. 647–657). Cham: Springer. Starikov, V. S., Ivanova, A. A., & Nee, M. L. (2018). Transnationalism online: Exploring migration processes with large data sets. Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены, 5(147). Statista (2021). Digital remittances. Retrieved from https://​www​.statista​.com/​outlook/​dmo/​fintech/​ personal​-finance/​digital​-remittances/​worldwide. Timans, R., Wouters, P., & Heilbron, J. (2019). Mixed methods research: What it is and what it could be. Theory and Society, 48(2), 193–216.

Connecting with connected migrants: digital migration studies  257 Vega, I. I. (2019). Toward a cultural sociology of immigration control: A call for research. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(9), 1172–1184. Verdery, A. M., Mouw, T., Edelblute, H., & Chavez, S. (2018). Communication flows and the durability of a transnational social field. Social Networks, 53, 57–71. Voyer, A. (2013). Notes on a cultural sociology of immigrant incorporation. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 1(1), 26–41. Wissink, M., & Mazzucato, V. (2018). In transit: Changing social networks of sub-Saharan African migrants in Turkey and Greece. Social Networks, 53, 30–41. Zijlstra, J., & van Liempt, I. (2017). Smart (phone) travelling: Understanding the use and impact of mobile technology on irregular migration journeys. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 3(2–3), 174–191.

21. Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique for the empirical analysis of migration Elizabeth Aranda, Girsea Martinez Rosas, and Rebecca Blackwell

INTRODUCTION Economic and political analyses, along with rational choice theories, have traditionally dominated migration studies (Hollifield, 2020). However, for migrants, emotional processes are an ambivalent and inevitable complement to instrumental practices of adaptation (Aranda, 2007). The field has consequently seen the integration, in the past fifteen years, of work that recognizes the relevance of emotions in migration and processes of incorporation (Aranda, 2007; Conradson & McKay, 2007; Ewing, 2005). In this chapter, we propose a reflexive and interdisciplinary approach to the study of migration through the use of emotions as a research tool. We make the case that research centering emotions as a methodological technique best addresses the challenges of studying populations that may be in constant circulation through space or that are part of marginalized communities. We build on Prosser’s (2015) work, which argues, on the one hand, that research on emotion is research that centers emotion as a topic of inquiry and that assesses or explains aspects of emotion using a range of well-established methodologies. On the other hand, research with emotion embeds emotions in all aspects of the research process and uses both established and unconventional methodological approaches that intentionally center emotions in their execution. To develop our methodological proposition, we begin by discussing the fundamental epistemological debate in the study of emotions and by reviewing key interdisciplinary studies of emotions. In doing so, we identify calls for reflexivity that have promoted a transition to new methods and approaches for reporting data in the study of emotions. Next, we discuss the theoretical foundations of research at the intersection of migration and emotion. We then lay out empirical research on migration and incorporation that has integrated emotions in order to illustrate how emotions have been studied and to elaborate the methods scholars have used to study ongoing processes and questions of culture. We argue for the use of emotions as a research technique and discuss the challenges and opportunities of adopting research approaches that center emotions as a research tool. We conclude by illustrating how research centering emotions can appear through the various stages of the research process.

258

Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique  259

THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEBATE IN THE STUDY OF EMOTIONS Emotions have been considered fundamental to social interaction since the birth of Western philosophy (Loseke & Kusenbach, 2013) and are pervasive in the classical works of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Cooley, whether observing social order or micro-interaction (Shilling, 2002). However, scholars of emotions have noted that, traditionally, emotions were not sufficiently valued as a formal category of sociological analysis because they were perceived as contrasting with reason (Barbalet, 2002; Becker, 2009). Emotions were not deemed ‘scientific’ enough for empirical observation (for an exception, see Thomas & Znaniecki, 1919). The disdain for the study of emotions was especially true in the postwar era, when the prevalence of functionalism and statistical analysis led sociology through a ‘scientific’ turn that erased emotions from view until ‘found’ again in the late 1970s, when an ‘emotion turn’ took place (Calhoun, 2008). Since the beginning of the emotion turn, sociologists from diverse theoretical backgrounds and epistemological perspectives have claimed that emotions are fundamentally social and have critiqued ‘objectivist’ approaches to their study in social life (Hochschild, 1979; Pawłowska, 2020; Wisecup, Robinson, & Smith-Lovin, 2007). Classical sociologists had argued that objectivity was a vital element of sociology because it provided mental clarity. Through naturalist epistemologies and quantitative methods, a sociologist could ‘be objective, to control his personal preferences, and prejudices, to perceive clearly rather than normatively’ (Berger, 1963, p. 5). As a result, the self is ‘bracketed out’ from all aspects of the research process. Indeed, researchers are asked to control the impact and counteract the intensity of common emotions associated with research practice (Bondi, 2005; Lerum, 2001), for example, when conducting fieldwork (Coffey, 1999; England, 1994). Concerns with objectivity often guide the process of creating the ‘final product’, that is, how we analyze, write about, and present data, with language devoid of emotion (Becker, 2008; Ellis & Bochner, 1996). Still, new theoretical and methodological approaches such as constructivist grounded theory— which emphasizes the importance of sustained reflexivity and analyzing our interpretations of data (Charmaz, 2006)—have shifted the dismissal of emotions as beyond the academy. Further, grouped with constructivist grounded theory approaches, critical feminist methodologies encourage scholars to allow their emotions to redirect their focus towards examining individual agency (Collins, 1999; Hordge-Freeman, 2018). This shift has led to new insights and to the development of new tools to negotiate objectivist critiques. For instance, scholars who themselves are from what Gayatri Spivak (2003) calls ‘subaltern’ groups have reimagined epistemological assumptions in social science training, particularly as they relate to adopting language and tools that embed a scholar within the text (Ábrego, 2024; Collins, 2003; Hordge-Freeman, 2018; Villenas, 1996). At the same time, disciplinary alliances between sociology and psychology have fostered the foundational ideas in today’s sociological study of emotions, leading to the recognition of emotions as multidimensional (Clark, 2007 [1997]; Hochschild, 1979). This disciplinary alliance seems to have responded to a demand for the simultaneous study of the cultural and biological aspects of emotions, even though this epistemological divide is at the core of the debate in the study of emotions (e.g., Barbalet, 2001; Bericat, 2016; Ekman & Friesen, 2003; Gordon, 1990; Scheff, 1983; Tudor, 2003; Turner & Stets, 2005; Turner, 2009; Williams & Bendelow, 1998). A full explication of this debate is beyond the scope of this chapter, and rather than privileging one epistemological standpoint over the other, we take a relational approach to

260  Research handbook on the sociology of migration emotions, which is to say that emotions are expressions of feelings, thoughts, and sensations occurring among people. In this sense, emotions involve thinking, perceiving, and imagining (Hochschild, 1979) and have biological, relational, and discursive dimensions (Burkitt, 1997).

FOUNDATIONS OF THE STUDY OF EMOTIONS AND MIGRATION The literature at the intersection of migration and emotions encompasses both cultural and biological understandings of emotions. Often, migration scholars study emotions as both ‘inter-subjective, and psychological and biologically-driven phenomena’ (Boccagni & Baldassar, 2015, p. 74). However, there has been a strong influence in migration studies from scholars who predominantly treat emotions as socially constructed phenomena. From this cultural perspective, emotions are also connected to meaning-making processes that affect social structures and are present in everyday social interaction (e.g., Boiger, De Deyne, & Mesquita, 2013; Clark, 2007 [1997]; Denzin, 2007; Hochschild, 1979; Lutz & White, 1986). These works encourage an understanding of culture as a system of signs that informs and is, at the same time, affected by our daily symbolic interaction (Knoblauch, 2001, p. 4). These works also recognize that there are cultural emotions tied to cultural beliefs that broadly circulate in social life (Loseke, 2007) and can affect the material lives of people through, for example, public policy (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Skrbiš (2008) and Baldassar (2008) are among the first to theorize the role of emotions in the literature on migration, though they are not the first to examine emotions in studies on migrants, migration, and transnational households (see, for example, Aranda, 2007; Parreñas, 2005; Viruell-Fuentes, 2006). Skrbiš (2008) conceptualizes emotions as the glue that brings together migration and belonging in the transnational family experience. He argues that Thomas and Znaniecki’s (1919) The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, which displays the ‘richness and intensity of emotions’ (Skrbiš, 2008, p. 232), is among the earliest documentations of emotions in transnational family life. Emotions are what he believes form the constitutive part of the transnational family experience, given that (a) emotional ties link individuals to families, and (b) migration fundamentally ‘dissociates individuals from their family and friendship networks as well as from other socially significant referents that have strong emotional connections’ (Skrbiš, 2008, p. 236). In mapping the integration of emotions into the study of migration and transnational family life, Skrbiš identifies five bodies of literature, including emotional labor, emotion and co-presence, emotions and longing, emotionalizing the national family, and migrant writings that include emotional expressions. Skrbiš’s (2008) article is one of several in a special issue of the Journal of Intercultural Studies that focuses on emotions and migration. In the special issue, Baldassar (2008) studies emotions such as missing and longing for kin, arguing that they are crucial aspects of the kinwork and emotional labor that maintain transnational families. She argues that emotions propel kin to construct different forms of co-presence that reinforce family closeness. Ultimately, Baldassar connects the positive feelings that co-presence creates with perceptions regarding health and well-being among older adults with children abroad. Moreover, Baldassar’s work foreshadows emotions as a technique in research, given her argument that the topic of migration is intimate and full of emotions that compel trust between the researcher and participant, with implications for the researcher’s ability to ‘detach’ from informants emotions (Baldassar, 2008, p. 259).

Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique  261

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON EMOTIONS AND MIGRATION Most empirical research on migration and emotions examines diverse areas of analysis through qualitative research tools such as in-depth interviews, life histories, ethnography, and autoethnography (Boccagni & Baldassar, 2015). Based on our review of the migration and incorporation literature, emotions are studied as follows: (1) as lived experience, or subjectivity; (2) as embedded in cultural norms, or emotion culture; (3) as outcomes alongside other incorporation outcomes; (4) as resources; and (5) as products of social inequalities such as those rooted in race, class, and gender structures. Though we categorize the literature on emotions and migration into these five areas, research often touches on more than one. In this section, we provide examples of work in each of these areas; we then focus on the questions about the methodological challenges that these themes unearth. The Subjectivity of Mobility, Incorporation, and Lived Experience We argue that literature and scholarly research that highlight the emotions associated with migration and settlement—such as homesickness or nostalgia—fall under the category of subjectivity (Denzin, 1997), that is, migrants’ lived experiences of migration and incorporation and the meanings they attribute to them. Many scholars focus on these kinds of emotions to uncover how immigrants cope with and manage the displacements of migration (Aranda, Hughes, & Sabogal, 2014; Martinez Rosas, 2020). In a comparative and multimethod study about Latin American immigrants in Miami, which utilized in-depth interviews and statistical analysis of surveys, Aranda et al. (2014) illustrate how (im)migrants experience ambiguous loss and ambivalence upon migration. The authors argue that ambivalence is a product of having to manage the ‘disjuncture between what they had attained and what they had lost’ (Aranda et al., 2014, p. 246), thus often managing mixed emotions about their new lives. In response to these lived experiences, Aranda et al. (2014) argue that immigrants develop strategies to maintain a translocal presence as they engage in social citizenship practices in locales that span borders. Kivisto and La Vecchia-Mikkola (2015) also examine emotions as lived experience in their study on verbal constructions of identity through comparative analysis of 48 open-ended, semi-structured interviews in two European cities. They argue that to understand how and when immigrants become integrated, researchers must study the immigrants’ daily experiences and the identity and emotion work they carry out in their daily practices. Migration, Emotion Culture, and Adaptation Emotional culture (Gordon, 1990) includes broadly shared norms and expectations about how one should feel given a particular situation or status (Hochschild, 1979). Many scholars examine the emotion work among members of transnational families as part of the migratory experience. Cangià (2017) examines the emotional lives of expat spouses to uncover the feeling rules around mobility. Through 12 in-depth, narrative interviews with partners of professionals who have moved for work reasons, she examines the emotion work they engage in to shrink the gap between feeling rules and the lived experiences associated with mobility. Using quasi-life-history interviews with Italian adult migrant children in Australia and their aging parents in Italy, Ryan (2008, p. 311) finds that ‘there was a need to keep up appearances and conform to the ideal of the successful migrant’ through emotion work. As such,

262  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Ryan characterizes migration as an ‘ongoing emotional journey’ (2008, p. 299) and discusses reflexivity as a method to address the emotional experience of the interview encounter for the interviewee and also for the interviewer. Emotions as Outcomes of Mobility and Incorporation Efforts Emotions as outcomes typically reference how migration shapes emotions such as happiness and life satisfaction (Bartram, 2011; Gokdemir & Dumludag, 2012; Vaquera & Aranda, 2017), among others. Migration scholarship shows that immigrants experience acculturation stressors in response to migration, settlement, and adaptation. Hombrados-Mendieta and colleagues (Hombrados‐Mendieta, Gomez‐Jacinto, Dominguez‐Fuentes, & Garcia‐Leiva, 2013) compare natives and immigrants in a random survey of 946 Spanish natives and 700 immigrants to Spain and argue that those who feel a greater sense of community also express greater satisfaction with life, the cognitive dimension of happiness (Vaquera & Aranda, 2017). When members of each group express a low or medium sense of community, life satisfaction is greater in natives than among the immigrant population, though a high sense of community yields similar outcomes for both groups. In addition, the sense of community they feel moderates the effect of adaptation among immigrants, or what can be called acculturation stressors. Emotions as Resources Work in this area highlights the fact that emotions are more than expressions of lived experience; rather, they are resources for an individual or community. Based on 31 months of ethnographic fieldwork in an agrarian Mayan village in Kuchmil, Yucatán, and its migrant community in Cancún, Bianet Castellanos (2009) defines the role of ‘sentient resources’—or sentiments such as love and concern—in the maintenance of Mayan migrant communities. Bianet Castellanos argues that migrants intentionally distribute sentient resources within a migrant circuit to improve the quality of life of members and that feelings ‘have the capacity to produce community’ (2009, p. 164). This line of research shows how migrants sustain affective ties and convert emotional expressions into resources. Viruell-Fuentes (2006), whose study involves 40 in-depth interviews with first- and second-generation Mexican women, argues that among transnational practices in Mexican and Mexican American communities, providing emotional support can serve as a psycho-social resource that enhances feelings of belonging among women who are part of transnational families split across borders. Emotions as Products of Social Inequalities Work in this area includes the analysis of emotions that are part and parcel of the migration and integration experiences but also highlights how inequalities, such as those rooted in race, gender, and class structures (among others), shape emotions. Aranda (2007) centers emotions in the research process and examines Puerto Ricans’ levels of emotional embeddedness in their new communities—in other words, the extent to which they felt like they belong, or could construct a sense of belonging—gauged by their emotional expressions related to migration and adaptation. Using in-depth interviews with Puerto Rican migrants and return migrants, Aranda’s work shows that social and cultural externalities such as ethnoracial discrimination and gendered expectations lead to return migration to Puerto Rico, a place in which Puerto

Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique  263 Ricans feel a greater sense of emotional embeddedness and rootedness than they had found stateside. Altogether, her findings illustrate the social, cultural, and structural forces that result in inequalities that shape the emotions associated with migration and integration. Another example of research that illustrates the relationship between social inequalities and emotions is that of Parreñas (2005), who documents the experiences of children left behind when Filipina mothers migrate internationally. Based on fieldwork with stay-at-home families of Filipina mothers who had migrated abroad, her work reveals the emotional costs of loss of contact with children of emigrants when mothers sought to improve their families’ financial status by emigrating. The loss of mothers to migration is made worse for children by cultural standards that center mothers as the heart of the family in the Philippines and the judgment that others pass on these families. This line of research echoes the idea that migrants may experience ‘adjustment, settlement, nostalgia, a shattered sense of belonging, renewal, loss, discrimination, abrupt endings, new beginnings and new opportunities—all potent sources of emotions’ (Skrbiš, 2008, p. 236). At the heart of the Filipino children’s emotions are responses to patriarchal gender norms and expectations, and economic inequalities that force mothers to leave and work abroad.

EMOTIONS AS TECHNIQUE In many of the studies discussed above, emotions are the topic of the research rather than the mechanism through which scholars garner an understanding of the research question. Among the exceptions to this are the works of Baldassar (2008) and Ryan (2008), which describe their interviews with immigrants as emotive experiences, given the topics discussed. In particular, Ryan (2008) discusses her own reflexivity in the way the interview itself is a social process whereby both the researcher and participant are co-creators of knowledge given the positionality of the researcher, also a migrant. We build on this idea, and the work of Prosser (2015), to propose an approach that places emotions at the core of the research method. Doing so can provide meaningful data, not just about emotions as a topic of study but also about other research questions that may require unique methods and mechanisms to ascertain hidden social phenomena. An emotions-based approach is intricately connected to the idea that research with emotions is distinct from research on emotions. As Prosser (2015, p. 175) evocatively writes, ‘[R]esearch on emotion might detail how crying in certain social contexts can work to underpin emotional resilience, while research with emotion would seek to see the social world anew through those tears’. Indeed, research with emotion embraces emotional knowledge, defined as ‘a way of understanding human experience through emotive and evocative social connections’ (Prosser, 2015, p. 176). To accomplish this, research with emotions uses unconventional methodological approaches, including relying on participants’ emotional reactions as part of the research process and embedding the researcher’s emotional responses in the meaning-making process—which raises questions about the researcher’s positionality, subjectivity, reflexivity, and trust. Moreover, we add that research with emotions analytically focuses attention on immigrants’ embodied experiences of migration and settlement. As interpretive scholars argue, embodied experiences, unearthed through phenomenological accounts of lived experience, ‘depict the self as a complex structure that cannot be reduced to its social roles, its rituals and its acts’ (Denzin, 1985, p. 233). Focusing on embodied experiences yields rich and

264  Research handbook on the sociology of migration evocative accounts that often demand that researchers connect emotionally and cognitively with participants (Bondi, 2014; Hordge-Freeman, 2018). How do researchers grasp and interpret emotions in their observable manifestations among migrant populations? This task could be as simple as observing emotional responses and reactions to questions that may or may not center around immigrants’ emotions. Crying, laughter, longing, excitement, can all be observed in the course of an interview or observation technique. However, it is often the case that research with emotions seeks to unpack migrant emotions from answers and reactions that may seemingly be devoid of emotions. For example, in research that attempts to understand experiences of discrimination or nativism in host societies, migrants answers should be probed from an emotions perspective to ascertain the emotional manifestation of these experiences rather than assume that responses elicit some sort of negative emotion. Intentionally asking about emotions associated with such experiences brings them to the fore of analysis. Other forms of observing and ascertaining emotions include engagement in reflexivity, paying attention to the interactions between researcher and participant, to seek clarification and more information about non-verbal cues and other forms of communication. This approach may involve bracketing research questions to focus on bodily movements and other subtleties that may shed light on the emotions co-created in the research process, hence bringing them upfront to be discussed for what they can reveal about the research questions that had elicited the non-verbal cues to begin with. This technique can involve some discomfort, as researchers may be tempted to ‘stick to the script’ and ignore non-verbal cues. However, leaning into discomfort, probing areas of inquiry that emerge from the researcher–participant interactive flow, may yield valuable information about how emotions are woven into experiences connected to the research questions being asked. The observability of emotions can be challenging, but these examples suggest that going beyond formulaic interview schedules or observations can elicit valuable information simply by probing emotional and non-verbal responses and reactions. There are challenges to adopting an emotions-based approach or using emotions as a research technique, by which we mean a mechanism to uncover hidden social phenomena among migrant populations. For example, this kind of research may face logistical challenges such as the target population buying into the research process and finding settings in which the research can be conducted with privacy. Another challenge is building trust, intricately related to the researcher’s positionality and, relatedly, their subjectivity and how they engage in reflexivity. The researcher–participant relationship is inherently power imbalanced (England, 1994; Pels, 2000; Stanley & Wise, 1983). This power imbalance raises important questions about participant agency (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012) and may heighten the feeling rules associated with migration. As such, building trust with participants is imperative. Once trust is established and space for agency is created, immigrants may feel more willing to share aspects of their lives or experiences that they otherwise would not share out of fear of being judged. Researcher positionality, in terms of the identities they may share with immigrants, can contribute to trust in the co-creation of knowledge, as we see with Ryan (2008), Cangià (2017), and Aranda (2007). But it is not just identities that a researcher and participant may have in common but also the willingness of the researcher to engage with the participant in meaningful knowledge creation (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012) and the pursuit of their well-being. This willingness implies a more engaged approach to research, one that is associated with an activist research agenda. Ábrego (2024) suggests that positionality also ‘entails an emotional

Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique  265 positioning’, namely, that researchers should not deny the emotive aspects of research with migrants to pursue claims of objectivity. Instead, she argues for research to be ‘in accompaniment’, defined as ‘a disposition, a sensibility, and a pattern of behavior. It is a commitment based on a cultivated capacity for making connections with others, identifying with them, and helping them’ (Ábrego, 2024, quoting Tomlinson & Lipsitz, 2019). This perspective departs from research that purports to maintain objectivity and that approaches co-creators of knowledge as objects. It is not that such research is insignificant, but more to emphasize the point that research with emotions transforms the researcher–participant relationship to align with the agenda of maximizing the well-being of the population under study, a more activist approach. Moreover, the idea that research with emotions co-creates knowledge also raises the possibility of bringing up participants’ past migration trauma or ongoing challenges, which raises ethical considerations regarding the costs and benefits of the research to the participants, a subject that we address below. Nonetheless, in the absence of a shared identity, engaging as a researcher-ally builds rapport. This form of participation involves intensive and multilevel fieldwork—such as supporting local immigrant communities by providing rides or attending rallies and joining local and national efforts by attending conferences and trainings aimed at passing pro-immigrant legislation (see, for example, Cabaniss, 2018). What underlies these activities is that they convey care for migrant populations and a concern for their well-being, illustrating that the research is more than a transactional project, rooted in a desire to improve the lives of immigrants as a whole. Research with emotion reimagines the participant–researcher relationship, and rather than taking on the role of ‘objective researcher’, scholars may often function as confidants and collaborators (Prosser, 2015) or advocates (Téllez, 2005). While this relational approach may raise questions about subjectivity, it can bolster trust and, as we have mentioned above, yield stories that otherwise might go untold. Moreover, Ábrego (2024) argues that it yields more ‘honest and ethical research’. Practicing reflexivity, as outlined above, is a way in which emotions can be leveraged, particularly as a means to maintain the integrity of the research and the research process. England (1994, p. 244) defines reflexivity as ‘self-critical sympathetic introspection and the self-conscious analytical scrutiny of the self as researcher’. Reflexivity emerges from an ethical and moral imperative to treat participants humanely and with empathy rather than as objects to be mined for data (Stanley & Wise, 1983, p. 168); yet, the application of reflexivity can vary. One type of reflexivity, for instance, referred to as ‘narrative circularity’, stands radically against objectivity and accepts that the text is but one story out of many (Pels, 2000). Reflexivity means seeing research as an ongoing, intersubjective activity, which ‘involves reflecting on, and learning from past research experiences, being able to re-evaluate our research critically, and perhaps deciding, for various reasons, to abandon [or change] a research project’ (England, 1994, p. 244). Through this example, and others we have shared, we ground our theoretical assumptions in work by Haraway on feminist objectivity as situated and embodied knowledge (Haraway, 1988), and importantly, in the Afrocentric feminist epistemology of Collins, which yields ‘alternative ways of producing and validating knowledge’ (1990, p. 48). The assumptions underlying such an epistemology involve an emphasis on dialogue, connectedness, and an ethics of care that ‘suggests that personal expressiveness, emotions, and empathy are central to the knowledge validation process’ (Collins, 1990, p. 62). Emotions as technique, thus, can be employed and leveraged at various stages of the research process. In the following section, we discuss how to center emotions in these stages

266  Research handbook on the sociology of migration to understand the multilevel aspects of migration and incorporation and to overcome some of the challenges we have identified above.

LEVERAGING EMOTIONS IN THE LIFE CYCLE OF A RESEARCH PROJECT Emotions can be infused throughout the research process by considering emotions as one builds, carries out, and finalizes a research project. In this section, we present concrete strategies for conducting migration research with emotions. To begin, emotions can inform the process of assembling teams and devising the methods for the research. Research with emotions calls for assembling a team that includes researchers who share experiences and identities with the target population. As outsiders within, their marginality provides a distinctive angle of vision on intellectual and political issues (Aguilar, 2019; Collins, 1990; Martinez Rosas, 2020; Villenas, 1996). When this is not possible, we urge scholars to actively consult with members of the target population, as well as service providers and other scholars who work closely with migrant populations, to carefully assess the value of the research and to review and endorse the researcher’s intervention (England, 1994). Regarding typical methods used in qualitative research on migration, such as ethnography, research with emotions can compel a reimagining of ethnography by using nontraditional techniques, including participant-led go-alongs and discussions, as well as the use of photographs. During go-alongs, a researcher joins participants ‘on their “natural” outings’, asking questions, listening, and observing to actively explore participants’ stream of experiences and practices as they move through, and interact with, their environment (Kusenbach, 2003, p. 463). In addition to building rapport, go-alongs add movement to ethnography that allows the researcher to focus on aspects of human experience that often remain hidden to observers and participants, including: (1) environmental perceptions; (2) spatial practices; (3) biographies; (4) social architecture; and (5) social realms (Kusenbach, 2003). Moreover, photo-walking, coupled with participant-led discussions, can offer the participants an opportunity to exert agency in otherwise difficult conversations (Pink, 2008; Wittekind, 2016). This technique can also address the issue of finding spaces to talk that are private, unlike the homes of migrants, where others may be present. Moreover, migration research with emotions carefully considers how one enters, occupies, and leaves the field by examining the project’s potential benefits and harms. A slow and careful rollout of the project, for example, may create the space and time for the researcher to reflect on needed adjustments, such as support strategies for participants and team members who may need them, given the emotional impact of the research (Chang, 2018). Also, an ethical and careful strategy for ‘leaving’ the field can be devised. For example, researchers may incorporate a discussion about participant support systems and the need for and access to counseling at the end of an interview that has been particularly emotionally draining (Prosser, 2015). At the same time, these strategies underline the unique, and possibly intense, relationships forged between researcher and participant during the research process (Lerum, 2001). As such, an emotions-based approach should be considered in the way one exits the field or whether and how one continues relationships with participants beyond the data-gathering stage to support the well-being of the individual as well as the group under study.

Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique  267 The processing and presentation of the research can incorporate and leverage emotions. For example, emotions can be infused into data analysis. Saldaña (2015) and Charmaz (2006) both discuss how participant emotions can guide the coding process. They expand on various coding approaches, such as affective coding, which ‘investigate subjective qualities of human experience (e.g., emotions, values, conflicts, judgments) by directly acknowledging and naming those experiences’ (Saldaña, 2015, p. 105). For example, researchers could use emotions (like ‘confusion’, ‘fear’, or ‘doubt’) to label participants’ stated feelings or feelings inferred by the researcher about the participant based on the written transcript and inferences from the recording’s vocal nuances and field notes. Focusing on participant emotions may be seen as controversial because scholars may run the risk of imposing meanings and, consequently, some may perceive this technique as lacking rigor. Yet, as Saldaña argues, affective qualities should be taken seriously in our investigations of the human condition because they are core motives for human action, reaction, and interaction (2015, p. 105). In doing so, affective coding and detailed field reports are important because they often make for evocative writing which—as Carolyn Ellis (1991) demonstrates—compels readers to feel and act. Following this process may result in the final text contributing to social change. While being attuned to participants’ emotional expressions may foster stress for researchers, constructivist grounded theory (CGT) offers researchers practical tools to interrogate and temper their feelings (Charmaz, 2006). Scholars suggest leaning into one’s own emotions and memories to guide the analysis and the final text (Chang, 2018; Hordge-Freeman, 2018; Martinez Rosas, 2020) through analytic memo-ing, which helps researchers to name and scrutinize their strong emotions (Charmaz, 2006). Analytic memo-ing transforms strong emotions into an asset rather than a liability because they can be a cautionary sign for researchers to slowly and carefully conduct data analysis to ensure that their emotions do not undermine the research (Hordge-Freeman, 2018). For example, Hordge-Freeman’s study on Black girls and women who have moved from countryside villages into urban cities in Brazil under the guise of adoption finds that they experienced exploitation in their white families’ homes—treated like unpaid domestic workers and subjected to slave-like conditions (Hordge-Freeman, 2022). Hordge-Freeman admits that this evocative finding fostered anger and frustration in her, which distracted her early data collection process such that she minimized when participants asserted that they were treated ‘like family’. Yet, she had scrutinized her anger through analytic memo-ing. Ultimately, memo-ing was empirically fruitful; when she recoded the data through her new perspective, Hordge-Freeman identified how structural concerns—such as financial vulnerability, illiteracy, and the potential loss of their social networks—fostered fear that constrained Black domestic workers’ movements. This research provides concrete examples of how leaning into one’s emotions through using novel methodological approaches offers insights about multilevel aspects of social life.

CONCLUSION The field of migration studies constitutes a unique terrain for the study of the sociocultural transformation of emotions (Boccagni & Baldassar, 2015). In this chapter, we have argued that the study of emotions in research on migration can come in the form of not just a topic but also a methodological technique or research tool. As a topic, we have mapped out and reviewed literature in which emotions are integrated into migration scholarship and characterize the

268  Research handbook on the sociology of migration research to date into five categories that include: (1) subjectivity and lived experience; (2) emotion culture; (3) emotions as outcomes; (4) emotions as resources; and (5) emotions as products of social inequalities. We build on Prosser’s (2015) insightful distinction between research on emotions and research with emotions, and argue for an emotions-based approach to data collection, which centers emotional responses from both participants and researchers in the co-creation of knowledge. We further identify the challenges to achieving implementation of this technique, including building trust, positionality, reflexivity, and subjectivity. We discuss specific methodologies most conducive to centering emotions as technique and discuss how emotions can be integrated into various stages of the life cycle of a research project, such as the constitution and management of research teams, the data-collection process, data analysis, and, finally, the language we use when presenting our findings. We have illustrated how migration scholars have already begun centering emotions in their research. We advocate for continued use of emotions to carry out reflexive and interdisciplinary projects that leverage emotions as a mechanism to better understand hidden social phenomena. Research with emotions can be empathic; it promises to be transformative in that it yields powerful, evocative, and undeniable stories; and it prioritizes the well-being of the individual as well as the group under study. This kind of research yields knowledge and tools that will help us better understand the varied and complex realities of migration and that are necessary to bring about equity for marginalized communities. Given historical and recent reports of abuses toward migrant populations (Dickerson, 2020), research that employs emotions as a methodological technique is timely and important and contributes to the protection of vulnerable groups.

REFERENCES Ábrego, L. (2024). Research as accompaniment: Reflections on objectivity, ethics, and emotions. In L. C. Chua & M. Massoud (Eds.) Out of place: Fieldwork and positionality in law and society. Cambridge University Press. Aguilar, C. (2019). Undocumented critical theory. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 19(3), 152–160. Aranda, E. M. (2007). Emotional bridges to Puerto Rico: Migration, return migration, and the struggles of incorporation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Aranda, E. M., Hughes, S., & Sabogal, E. (2014). Making a life in multiethnic Miami: Immigration and the rise of a global city. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Baldassar, L. (2008). Missing kin and longing to be together: Emotions and the construction of co-presence in transnational relationships. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 29(3), 247–266. Barbalet, J. M. (2001). Emotion, social theory, and social structure: A macrosociological approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barbalet, J. M. (Ed.) (2002). Emotions and sociology. Oxford: Blackwell. Bartram, D. (2011). Economic migration and happiness: Comparing immigrants’ and natives’ happiness gains from income. Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 57–76. Becker, H. S. (2008). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Becker, P. (2009). What makes us modern: The place of emotions in contemporary society. In D. Hopkins, H. Flam, H. Kuzmics, & J. Kleres (Eds.) Theorizing emotions: Sociological explorations and applications (pp. 195–219). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. Berger, P. (1963). Sociology as a passion to understand. In J. Charon (Ed.) The meaning of sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.

Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique  269 Bericat, E. (2016). The sociology of emotions: Four decades of progress. Current Sociology, 64(3), 491–513. Bianet Castellanos, M. (2009). Building communities of sentiment: Remittances and emotions among Maya migrants. Chicana/Latina Studies, 8(1/2), 140–171. Boccagni, P., & Baldassar, L. (2015). Emotions on the move: Mapping the emergent field of emotion and migration. Emotion, Space and Society, 16, 73–80. Boiger, M., De Deyne, S., & Mesquita, B. (2013). Emotions in ‘the world’: Cultural practices, products, and meanings of anger and shame in two individualist cultures. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 867. Bondi, L. (2005). The place of emotions in research: From partitioning emotion and reason to the emotional dynamics of research relationships. In J. Davidson, L. Bondi, & M. Smith (Eds.) Emotional geographies (pp. 231–246). New York: Routledge. Bondi, L. (2014). Understanding feelings: Engaging with unconscious communication and embodied knowledge. Emotion, Space and Society, 10, 44–54. Burkitt, I. (1997). Social relationships and emotions. Sociology, 31(1), 37–55. Cabaniss, E. (2018). Pulling back the curtain: Examining the backstage gendered dynamics of storytelling in the undocumented youth movement. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 47(2), 199–225. Calhoun, C. (Ed.) (2008). Sociology in America: A history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cangià, F. (2017). (Im)Mobility and the emotional lives of expat spouses. Emotion, Space and Society, 25, 22–28. Chang, A. (2018). Privileged and undocumented: Toward a borderland love ethic. In The struggles of identity, education, and agency in the lives of undocumented students (pp. 27–46). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clark, C. (2007 [1997]). Misery and company: Sympathy in everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge. Collins, P. H. (1999). Reflections on the outsider within. Journal of Career Development, 26(1), 85–88. Collins, P. H. (2003). Toward an Afrocentric feminist epistemology. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.) Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief, Vol. 2 (pp. 47–72). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Conradson, D., & McKay, D. (2007). Translocal subjectivities: Mobility, connection, emotion. Mobilities, 2(2), 167–174. Denzin, N. K. (1985). Emotion as lived experience. Symbolic Interaction, 8(2), 223–240. Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the twenty-first century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K. (2007). On understanding emotion. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Dickerson, C. (2020). Inquiry ordered into claims immigrants had unwanted gynecology procedures. New York Times, September 6. Retrieved from https://​www​.nytimes​.com/​2020/​09/​16/​us/​ICE​ -hysterectomies​-whistleblower​-georgia​.html. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (2003). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Los Altos, CA: Malor Books. Ellis, C. (1991). Sociological introspection and emotional experience. Symbolic Interaction, 14(1), 23–50. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (1996). Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative writing. Vol. 1. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. England, K. V. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80–89. Ewing, K. (2005). Immigrant identities and emotion. In C. Casey & R. Edgerton (Eds.) A companion to psychological anthropology (pp. 225–240). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gokdemir, O., & Dumludag, D. (2012). Life satisfaction among Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands: The role of absolute and relative income. Social Indicators Research, 106(3), 407–417.

270  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Gordon, S. L. (1990). Social structural effects on emotions. In T. D. Kemper (Ed.) Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 145–179). Albany: State University of New York Press. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Piatelli, D. (2012). The synergistic practice of theory and method. In S. Hesse-Biber (Ed.) The handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 176–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551–575. Hollifield, J. F. (2020). Is migration a unique field of study in social sciences? A response to Levy, Pisarevskaya, and Scholten. Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1), 1–9. Hombrados‐Mendieta, M. I., Gomez‐Jacinto, L., Dominguez‐Fuentes, J. M., & Garcia‐Leiva, P. (2013). Sense of community and satisfaction with life among immigrants and the native population. Journal of Community Psychology, 41(5), 601–614. Hordge-Freeman, E. (2018). ‘Bringing your whole self to research’: The power of the researcher’s body, emotions, and identities in ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1). https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1177/​1609406918808862. Hordge-Freeman, E. (2022). Second-class daughters: Black Brazilian women and informal adoption as modern slavery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kivisto, P., & La Vecchia-Mikkola, V. (2015). The integration of Iraqis in two European cities: Emotions and identity work. Emotion, Space and Society, 16, 90–98. Knoblauch, H. (2001). Communication, contexts and culture: A communicative constructivist approach to intercultural communication. In A. Di Luzio, S. Günthner, & F. Orletti (Eds.) Culture in communication: Analyses of intercultural situations (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 455–485. Lerum, K. (2001). Subjects of desire: Academic armor, intimate ethnography, and the production of critical knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(4), 466–483. Loseke, D. R. (2007). The study of identity as cultural, institutional, organizational, and personal narratives: Theoretical and empirical integrations. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(4), 661–688. Loseke, D., & Kusenbach, M. (2013). The social construction of emotion. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.) Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 511–529). New York: Guilford Press. Lutz, C., & White, G. M. (1986). The anthropology of emotions. Annual Review of Anthropology 15(1), 405–436. Martinez Rosas, G. (2020). Critically accommodating ‘illegality’: Anticipatory losses within mixed-status immigrant families. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25(5), 488–500. Parreñas, R. S. (2005). Children of global migration: Transnational families and gendered woes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Pawłowska, B. (2020). Emotions in research and everyday life: From feeling to acting. Qualitative Sociology Review, 16(1), 6–10. Pels, D. (2000). Reflexivity: One step up. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(3), 1–25. Pink, S. (2008). An urban tour: The sensory sociality of ethnographic place-making. Ethnography, 9(2), 175–196. Prosser, B. (2015). Knowledge of the heart: Ethical implications of sociological research with emotion. Emotion Review, 7(2), 175–180. Ryan, L. (2008). Navigating the emotional terrain of families ‘here’ and ‘there’: Women, migration and the management of emotions. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 29(3), 299–313. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scheff, T. J. (1983). Toward integration in the social psychology of emotions. Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1), 333–354. Shilling, C. (2002). The two traditions in the sociology of emotions. The Sociological Review, 50(S2), 10–32. Skrbiš, Z. (2008). Transnational families: Theorising migration, emotions and belonging. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 29(3), 231–246. Spivak, G. C. (2003). Can the subaltern speak? Die Philosophin, 14(27), 42–58.

Toward the use of emotions as a methodological technique  271 Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1983). Breaking out: Feminist consciousness and feminist research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Téllez, M. (2005). Doing research at the borderlands: Notes from a Chicana feminist ethnographer. Chicana/Latina Studies, 4(2), 46–70. Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1919). The Polish peasant in Europe and America. Boston: Gorham. Tomlinson, B., & Lipsitz, G. (2019). Insubordinate spaces: Improvisation and accompaniment for social justice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Tudor, A. (2003). A (macro) sociology of fear? The Sociological Review, 51(2), 238–256. Turner, J. H. (2009). The sociology of emotions: Basic theoretical arguments. Emotion Review, 1(4), 340–354. Turner, J. H., & Stets, J. E. (2005). The sociology of emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Vaquera, E., & Aranda, E. (2017). Moving up and down the ladder: Perceived social mobility and emotional dispositions among south Florida’s immigrants. Sociological Forum, 32(4), 793–815. Villenas, S. (1996). The colonizer/colonized Chicana ethnographer: Identity, marginalization, and co-optation in the field. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 711–732. Viruell-Fuentes, E. A. (2006). ‘My heart is always there’: The transnational practices of first-generation Mexican immigrant and second-generation Mexican American women. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 13(3), 335–362. Williams, S. J., & Bendelow, G. (1998). Introduction. Emotions in social life: Mapping the sociological terrain. In G. Bendelow & S. J. Williams (Eds.) Emotions in social life: Critical themes and contemporary issues (pp. xv–xxx). London: Routledge. Wisecup, A., Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2007). The sociology of emotions. In C. D. Bryant & D. L. Peck (Eds.) 21st century sociology: A reference handbook, vol. 1 (pp. 106–115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wittekind, C. T. (2016). A space ‘in‐between’: Liminality and landscape on the Thailand‐Burma (Myanmar) border. Visual Anthropology Review, 32(2), 180–191.

22. Network analysis Başak Bilecen

INTRODUCTION Individuals tend to migrate to countries and locations where family members or people they know have migrated (MacDonald & MacDonald, 1964; Massey et al., 2005). There is ample evidence for the use and importance of social networks in migrant decisions to settle in a specific environment regardless of their motivation to migrate (e.g., Ryan, 2011). Although the importance of personal relationships has always been reported in migration studies, advances in tools for social network analysis have only recently enabled empirical studies to confirm this phenomenon (Bilecen, Gamper, & Lubbers, 2018; Bilecen & Lubbers, 2021). A social network comprises a set of actors (nodes/vertices, such as persons, organizations, nation-states, blogs, and journal articles) and the relationships or ties within the network (links/ edges, such as friendships, advice-seeking, trade relations, and co-authorships). Thus, network analysis focuses on the social structure, and investigates the patterns of relationships and the embeddedness of actors to understand how the network structure constrains or enables social behavior. In network analysis, the emphasis is on the characteristics of relationships and the interconnectedness of individuals (Marin & Wellman, 2014). However, network analysis differs from conventional analyses, which utilize datasets on individual respondents with the assumption of statistical independence. For example, a conventional quantitative approach might be used to explain the employment outcomes of migrant descendants by analyzing individual educational level and performance. In contrast, a network analytical approach requires an understanding of how relationships influence the education and career perspectives of migrant descendants, and also provides information on their educational pathways and access to social structures. For instance, advice from teachers, peers, or friends may shape norms on education and types of employment after graduation. Some individual and parental background characteristics may be associated with level of education and employment. But level of education and employment can also be explained by network characteristics, such as the people with whom migrant descendants associate, the type of information or advice they receive, and the strength of ties within networks. Network analysis enables researchers to assess the extent to which migrant descendants are embedded in networks, the types of ties within these networks, and the opportunities provided by such networks. This chapter introduces three techniques of network analysis in empirical migration research, and explains how these analytical techniques have been used in contemporary research on migrants. The strengths and weaknesses of network analysis are considered together with suggestions for further research on this technique.

272

Network analysis  273

NETWORK ANALYSIS IN MIGRATION STUDIES There are three main network analytical approaches to systematically investigating the compositional and structural properties of networks in general; these are also specifically applied in migration research: whole network, personal network, and link-tracing methods. Because the numbers of studies using network analytical methods in migration research are rising, just some of the important and most commonly used examples are given in this chapter, such as ethnic segregation in schools, social support, social capital, and economic incorporation. Whole Network Method The first method applies to whole or sociocentric networks. It aims to investigate all ties of a given type among all members of a bounded population or group, organization, or any other collective entity, taking a bird’s eye perspective on social structure in a single social setting. In general, relationships within organizations, interlocking directorates, and classrooms have been investigated using this method (e.g., Moody & White, 2003). Using the whole network method, it is possible to investigate how individual behavior is shaped based on patterns of relationships as well as how and why broader, group-level structures and processes (e.g., diffusion, exchange) emerge, such as subgroups or cliques. In addition, researchers use this method to identify the central actors in the network who are related to many others in order to understand their influence on the rest of the network. It can also be used to investigate actors or groups of actors who have structurally similar positions, and the underlying reasons for this (see Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2018 for an extensive overview of this method). One of the main challenges in this method is defining the sample; this is known as the boundary specification problem (Marin & Wellman, 2014). In all types of data collection and analysis, sampling is the first challenging step. Here, what is most demanding is to establish who is included in the network and who is not, from the start of the data collection. This is fundamentally important for the whole network method, because network data implies dependency among observations, and sampling has repercussions on the validity of the results (Laumann, Marsden, & Prensky, 1989). In migration research, the whole network method is mainly used to investigate segregation in schools and neighborhoods, where the nodes are individuals and the links are usually defined as friendships. Previous studies have also used migrant organizations as nodes and both personal and organizational collaborations as their links to investigate the activities of organizations and also migrant incorporation (e.g., D’Angelo, 2008; Fennema & Tillie, 1999). Moreover, nation-states have also been considered as nodes and migration streams as links in mapping the whole world migration network to investigate the central and peripheral migrant receiving and sending nation-states (e.g., Danchev & Porter, 2018; Leal & Harder, 2021; Windzio, 2018). The established practice in migration studies using the whole network method is to investigate ethnic segregation in schools by collecting data from students with pre-established network boundaries. For example, all the students in one classroom are shown a roster of the names of their classmates and asked to nominate their friends, best friends, popular students, or bullies, depending on the research interest. Next, students are asked further questions about their nominees, such as their gender or ethnicity, or behavioral questions like whether they smoke or consume alcohol. In that way, the whole network is established based on one type

274  Research handbook on the sociology of migration of relationship (e.g., friendship, studying together, bullying). In the analysis, the influence of the network structure on the outcome of interest is investigated. For example, researchers investigate whether those central actors are smokers and to what extent they tend to be friends with other smokers. Using this method, Smith and colleagues (Smith, Van Tubergen, Maas, & McFarland, 2016) investigated ethnic segregation in classrooms by examining the friendship network data of 529 adolescents in English, German, Dutch, and Swedish secondary schools. They used the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey project (CILS4EU), and found that when migrant adolescents are in ethnically diverse classrooms they tend to become friends with their co-ethnics. What is novel in this study is not only the extensive network dataset across different countries and schools, but also that the ethnic diversity of the classrooms was conceptualized and modeled as the context that potentially influenced friendship patterns. Nonetheless, it was not possible to account for other friendships students might have in other contexts beyond their classrooms, such as in their neighborhoods or in extracurricular activities, which might influence their friendship preferences in the classroom. This situation is inherent in all sociocentric network studies because only one classroom or organization can be investigated using this method, as the boundary of the network and the type of relationship need to be specified at the beginning of the study. Investigating friendship patterns and ethnic segregation in classrooms has been of long-standing interest to migration scholars in their quest to understand migrant descendants’ social incorporation. Because collecting network data is resource intensive, previous research has mainly investigated whole networks in classrooms at only one time point. Contemporary research has started to use longitudinal whole network analysis based on multiple waves of datasets in order to understand tie formation and changes in relationships over time. The collection of network data at multiple time points is difficult to administer, especially when multiple classrooms are involved. Nonetheless, observations made at various intervals yield better estimations of co-evolutionary models. For example, Boda and colleagues (Boda, Néray, & Snijders, 2020) collected whole network data in 44 secondary school classrooms at seven different schools in Hungary. Every student was given a roster with the names of their classmates. In contrast to previous studies, which asked students only to nominate others from the list for a given question, such as ‘Who are your best friends?’, students were asked to evaluate their relationships with all other students in their classrooms, one by one. The answer categories included: ‘I hate him/her, he/she is my enemy’, ‘I do not like him/her’, ‘He/she is neutral for me’, ‘I like him/her’, and ‘He/she is my friend’. In addition, they were asked to nominate all other students whom they perceived were Roma. Three networks were obtained and named as friendship, dislike, and ethnic perception. Those three networks were used as three dependent variables in two waves. Based on stochastic actor-oriented models (SAOMs) to account for the dynamics of multivariate networks and the coevolution of sociocentric networks together with individual behaviors, changes in each network were also partly explained by the two other networks. While the three networks were dependent variables, they were also explanatory variables for each other. This is only possible using a longitudinal setup and through analysis of whole networks using SAOMs (Snijders, Van de Bunt, & Steglich, 2010). Boda and colleagues (2020) concluded that, compared with co-ethnic friendships, interethnic friendship ties were equally likely to be formed from initially neutral ties and they were also likely to be maintained over time. While the majority of Hungarian students were more likely to form dislike relations towards minority Roma students in the second wave, they felt neutral about Romani students in the first wave. Moreover, Hungarian students tended to maintain

Network analysis  275 existing dislike relations over time, whereas minority Romani students did not dislike their majority peers significantly more or less than those from their own ethnic group. Such findings indicating changes in networks in classrooms are only possible to arrive at using longitudinal designs. Ethnic segregation is also investigated through computer simulations, mainly known as agent-based models. Agent-based models are composed of autonomous agents behaving in accordance with a set of rules with cognitive capabilities in their own environments. To model network simulations, researchers pre-establish rules of individual action and preferences for the agents based on the previous literature. They can then simulate how the agents would behave given these rules under certain circumstances they wish to investigate. Such simulations are very useful to understand segregation patterns and the possible relationships within and among neighborhoods and schools at an aggregate level. Yet, the findings from simulations need to be corroborated in real population settings. For example, using this method, Sage and Flache (2020) investigated whether and under which conditions ethnic segregation at schools could be reduced when parents were tolerant towards different ethnic groups in the neighborhood. They found that even if a large proportion of parents are tolerant towards other ethnic minorities, ethnic school segregation is inevitable. It is only when all parents decide to send their children to nearby schools in their neighborhoods that ethnic school segregation can be reduced by having tolerant parents. In the long term, however, the number of ethnically mixed schools can decrease, which makes residential segregation a very important factor in understanding school segregation. Personal Network Method Unlike the sociocentric approach, which requires a bounded sample like a classroom, the egocentric or personal network approach focuses on only one node as the focal person, known as the ego, and the ego’s relationships with other nodes named by this person (alters). In personal network analysis, researchers are interested in discovering the ego’s social world and analyzing who that person is connected to and with what consequences (Wellman, 2007) in various formal and informal social contexts (family, neighborhood, workplace, etc.) (Marsden, 1990). First, the respondents are asked to name their alters in response to one or multiple questions (known as name-generator questions); then, they are asked to qualify their alters (known as name-interpreter questions), and the relations among their alters. Its analysis differs from that of a whole network approach (see McCarty, Lubbers, Vacca, & Molina, 2019; Perry, Pescosolido, & Borgatti, 2018 for an extensive discussion of the analysis methods for personal networks). Unlike in whole network study designs, in personal network designs, the alters are never directly observed or interviewed. In personal network designs, all network data are elicited from the egos. Moreover, in personal network designs, multiple networks are elicited from one ego (e.g., emotional support network, advice network, information network), whereas in whole network designs there is only one or just a few networks (Vacca, 2018). This approach is the most common in migration research, for several reasons. First, it is possible to conduct personal network analysis using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs, so, it is flexible and adaptable to other ongoing methods of inquiry in larger research projects. For example, it can be administered as an additional component in survey research that can reach many respondents at once. Put differently, personal network designs can

276  Research handbook on the sociology of migration combine the depth of network concepts with the power of large-scale surveys using probability samples (Perry, Pescosolido, Small, & McCranie, 2020). It can also be incorporated into qualitative interviews. Second, sampling for personal network analysis follows the already established logics of sampling individuals, unlike the whole network method, which requires an already established bounded population like a classroom. In survey research, personal network data come from a probability sample, while in qualitative research, theoretical or convenience sampling are normally used. The relatively flexible sampling of personal network design makes this method more convenient for migration scholars. For instance, personal network analysis is used to investigate transnational social spaces, because such spaces have no predefined set of individuals or organizations to enable a sociocentric network analysis to be run; individuals are sampled and their personal networks elicited (Lubbers, Verdery, & Molina, 2020). Nonetheless, it is still not possible to rule out interdependency issues that might have consequences for personal network data quality. While the egos drawn from probability-based samples are independent, because alters are clustered within egos by design, alter-level data exhibit interdependencies, and different networks can potentially overlap (Snijders, Spreen, & Zwaagstra, 1995; Vacca, 2018). Third, it is not always easy in migration research to pre-set the boundaries of those social relationships that might be relevant to understand the sought-after outcome. For example, if researchers aim to understand relational dimensions of loneliness among elderly migrants who reside in nursing homes, examining the whole network of a given nursing home would yield very limited social ties confined to a given nursing home. However, a personal network approach makes it possible, in an unbounded manner, to have a deeper understanding of these people’s social environment, including not only friendships at the nursing home, but also the elderly migrants’ children and grandchildren. The personal network approach is used in migration studies to understand migrants’ labor market incorporation (e.g., Lancee, 2010, 2012), social integration (e.g., Lubbers et al., 2010), identification (e.g., Lubbers, Molina, & McCarty, 2007), exchanges of different social support resources (e.g., Bilecen & Cardona, 2018; Bilecen & Sienkiewicz, 2015; Herz, 2015; Kornienko, Agadjanian, Menjívar, & Zotova, 2018; Ryan, Sales, Tilki, & Siara, 2008; Vacca, Cañarte, & Vitale, 2022), and transnational relationships (e.g., see Lubbers et al., 2020 for a review; Vacca, Solano, Lubbers, Molina, & McCarty, 2018), using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research designs. A considerable number of studies have been conducted; the studies on social capital, social support, and ego-network dynamics are discussed in this chapter. Drawing on the concept of social capital, understood here as the sum of actual and potential access to valuable resources through social networks, the ethnicity of ties has been argued to be important for migrant incorporation into countries of immigration. While bonding social capital is defined to be with co-ethnics, who are strong ties with a high network density and a redundancy of information on the labor market, bridging ties with the native-born population are conceptualized to be weak ties and more effective in finding paid employment, as these people possess the necessary information on relevant job openings, application processes, and the labor market in general. For example, using the 2002 Social Position and Use of Utilities Immigrants’ Survey (SPVA) data, Lancee (2010) investigated the role of bonding and bridging ties in estimating the labor market incorporation of major migrant groups in the Netherlands (Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, and Surinamese). Bonding ties were operationalized based on exchange relations of help and advice, as well as ties and frequency of contact with parents and children. Bridging ties were operationalized based on whether respondents had native-born

Network analysis  277 Dutch friends or acquaintances. The main conclusion is that inter-ethnic bridging social capital is more beneficial for migrant employment. While these findings have greatly increased our understanding of the networks in relation to migrant employment outcomes, there are two main critical points. First, they rely on proxy questions on networks rather than mapping migrants’ social relationships. Although network concepts are used, a deeper engagement with network tools and their analysis findings are largely missing. Second, such a dichotomization based on the ethnicity of ties has been criticized as an oversimplification of relationships, as well as taking for granted ethnicity-centered epistemological underpinnings, resulting in a reproduction of ethnic and national power hierarchies (e.g., Bilecen, 2021; Dahinden, 2016; Ryan & Dahinden, 2021). In addition to the category of ethnicity, the social positions of alters in networks have also been investigated in qualitative designs. The main idea here is that not only being connected to someone who is native-born is important, so that migrants have access to necessary information, but also their social position and the resources available in these relationships are important (Bilecen, 2021; Ryan, 2011). While shared ethnicity is one dimension of a relationship, there can also be other relevant dimensions, such as gender, social class, employment situation, and shared interests. Based on qualitative interviews with highly qualified Polish migrants in London, Ryan (2011) found that sharing the same ethnicity does not automatically lead to friendships that might also be helpful in finding jobs. In a similar vein, in my latest study of international Chinese students’ personal networks, I found that my participants considered the social position of an alter to be more important than their ethnicity in searching for jobs (Bilecen, 2021). Recently, to understand the labor market incorporation of first- and second-generation migrants based on the Dutch Immigrant Panel of the LISS (Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences) dataset from 2014, Bilecen and Seibel (2021) investigated the composition of personal networks in terms of ethnicity, gender, and employment status. In a survey mode, the respondents were asked to name up to five persons with whom they had discussed important matters within the previous six months (as the name-generator question). Immediately afterwards, the respondents were asked several name-interpreter questions about each alter, including their gender, employment status, and ethnic background. Moreover, to elicit information on the structures of the networks, the respondents were asked how well each alter knew the others in the network. The authors found that among both the unemployed and the employed migrants, men reported having a larger share of male contacts in their networks than women, and unemployed female migrants reported having a larger share of employed ties in their network than did unemployed male migrants. In addition, regardless of their gender, employed migrants reported having larger shares of natives in their networks than did unemployed migrants. Such findings indicate that network composition might explain the gender gap in the labor market participation of migrants. In terms of operationalizing the composition and structure of personal networks, this study is the first to have investigated the under-researched idea of the employment status of alters from a gender perspective. Nonetheless, it brought together different generations of migrants and was able to differentiate neither the motivations for migration of the first-generation nor their countries of origin because of the small numbers of cases. Future researchers planning to collect data through surveys should aim for larger migrant samples from diverse backgrounds in terms of generation and migration motivation, although it is not always easy to achieve this due to declining response rates as well as the length of network questions.

278  Research handbook on the sociology of migration A highly cited study that investigated migrant social integration by examining their personal networks was conducted by Lubbers and colleagues (2010). Investigating first-generation Argentinean migrants in Spain over time, the authors conceptualized social integration as having fewer co-ethnic ties, more ties to native-born Spanish people, a higher frequency of contact, and a larger interconnectedness among alters. The respondents were asked the following name-generator question to elicit both strong and weak ties: ‘Please, give us the names of 45 persons you know and who know you by sight or by name, with whom you have had some contact in the past two years, either face-to-face, by phone, mail or e-mail, and whom you could still contact if you had to’ (Lubbers et al., 2010, p. 94). Next, for each alter, name-interpreter questions were asked, such as about gender and ethnicity. In the last step, to investigate the structure of the network, the respondents were asked ‘How likely is it that [alter X] and [alter Y] contact each other independently of you?’ (Lubbers et al., 2010, p. 95). The data were collected using network software called EgoNet, in a face-to-face mode, in two waves that were two years apart. What is novel in this study is that, because the data were collected at multiple times from the same respondents, the interviewers and the respondents compared the alters in the second wave with those from the first wave and together identified the stable contacts who were present in the second wave. In addition, as opposed to survey studies that usually collect a limited number of ties (e.g., three or five), this study asked for larger networks in order to also determine the weak ties. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were run, and clustered graphs were visualized for all 25 respondents. The main findings indicate that tie strength, network density, and alters’ country of origin and residence predicted the stability of ties. Making friends with friends of existing friends (transitivity) turned out to be an important mechanism both for egos’ and alters’ new friendships. Despite changes in ties, the overall networks remained the same over time in terms of composition and structure. Lubbers and colleagues (Lubbers, Molina, & McCarty, 2021) recently investigated 77 transnational migrants in Barcelona, Spain, and found that migrants’ opportunities to develop new relationships with natives depended on their positions within their places of residence, which were structured by gender, race, and class. Over time, substantial changes in migrants’ relationships looked similar to those of non-migrants and they were associated with major life events. The authors encourage future researchers to use larger samples with different migration motivations and countries of origin which are still lacking in the literature, and to use a longitudinal design and analysis, given the resource intensity of collecting network data. Social support studies using personal network methods in multi-level designs are also becoming more common in the migration literature. Asking multiple social support questions to elicit names and then qualifying the relationships is one way to collect personal network data (e.g., de Miguel Luken & Tranmer, 2010; Herz, 2015); other researchers first asked a single name-generator question and then presented questions on multiple social support items (e.g., Bilecen, 2021; Bilecen & Cardona, 2018; Dahinden, 2006; Kornienko et al., 2018; Vacca et al., 2022). For example, Herz (2015) conducted an online survey among German nationals living in Great Britain (N=234), first using seven different name-generator questions to elicit alters in different domains such as advice-seeking, instrumental and emotional support, companionship, and conflicting relationships. Next, the respondents were asked questions to qualify eight of their alters, including contact frequency, tie strength, tie duration, and place/country of residence. For those 46 respondents who named more than eight alters, the alters were randomly selected. Although this choice was limited to a subsample of alters, it proved an efficient way to decrease the survey length. In a later step, the respondents were

Network analysis  279 asked to categorize their relationships with their alters: whether they were friends, family members, etc. Lastly, whether and how alters knew one another was also asked. One of the main findings was that transnational ties residing in Germany were important to respondents for emotional support. Within the framework of a larger project emphasizing social inequalities, which investigated the social protection of different migrant groups in Germany, I designed a personal network study. A total of 300 items of personal network data were collected from migrants from Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Poland, in the participants’ preferred language. The face-to-face and pencil-and-paper modes were chosen to cover different categories of migrants, i.e., not only those who were well-educated and had online access. Because of this more inclusive approach, it was possible to reach the elderly, the illiterate, and the undocumented. Moreover, network maps/sociograms were used to elicit alters right before the interviews; the aim was to reduce participant fatigue and also to make the participants reflect on their personal ties during the interviews. The participants were asked to name as many relationships as they wished in response to the name-generator question, focusing on potentially supportive ties: ‘From time to time, most people need assistance, be it in the form of smaller or bigger tasks or favors. Who are the people with whom you usually exchange such assistance?’ At the same time, they were given a network map with four concentric circles of importance of people in their lives (very important, important, less important, and unimportant), into which they placed their alters and later reflected on the importance of each. Once the network maps were completed, several questions were asked about their alters, including gender, location, and type of relationship, among other aspects, as a means to further understand the relationships that they maintained. Respondents were also asked about the relationships among alters. After that, they were asked several questions on social support items. What is new is that they were asked not only from whom they received such assistance, as is usually done in the literature, but also to whom they gave. This enabled understanding of the exchange of supportive resources. For instance, the findings indicate that for respondents from all three countries, care relations took place the most. Within the previous year, approximately one third of all migrants had provided information to and received information from their significant others. However, financial resources were not as frequently exchanged: most were irregular payments, sent on demand or in times of need, and were small. Migrants from Poland had the highest ratio of care provision and receipt, although this type of protection was very important for all groups of migrants in comparison to other types (Bilecen & Sienkiewicz, 2015). For the Turkish migrant sample, in a multilevel design, we found that information and care tended to flow from older alters to younger egos, whereas financial resources flowed from younger alters to older egos. Migrants received information and care from their older alters, who might be their parents, extended family members, or, to some extent, friends. At the network level, we found that occupying a broker position and having low redundancy in contacts seemed to translate into a greater flow of incoming information about jobs, health, legal matters, and education (Bilecen & Cardona, 2018). Such findings are only possible to arrive at when social support questions are administered two-ways (giving and receiving), although this adds substantially to the length of the data collection. Future researchers might ask fewer social support questions in order to decrease participant fatigue, as this was observed in some cases.

280  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Link-Tracing Method The link-tracing method is a hybrid method encompassing the previous two (sociocentric and egocentric): as in sociocentric methods, its interest lies in the characteristics and properties of the whole network in a chosen community, group, or organization; as in egocentric methods, the design is centered around focal individuals. Link-tracing is a general term referring to a broad range of sampling designs (see Heckathorn & Cameron, 2017, for an overview). In this hybrid approach, boundaries are often set more strictly than in the personal network approach (e.g., alters must belong to the same ethnic group and live in one or two specific locations), precisely because the ultimate goal is to map the whole network within a community. In migration studies, the aim of using the link-tracing method is to map an entire network of a migrant community (typically in one or two specific locations), starting from the personal networks of a selected subset of that community. It starts with a node of interest, known as the ‘seed’; then, using the information gathered from this initial node, it traces others. This method has mostly been used for hidden, hard-to-reach, or stigmatized populations, when there is no available sampling frame. While it resembles snowball sampling, the link-tracing method aims to provide a probability-based inferential structure of those populations. The advantage of this method lies in the idea that researchers not only collect data on the direct contacts of migrants, as in the case of the personal network method, but they also collect data on chains of relationships, giving them a broader perspective on migrant networks. The pioneer study by Massey and colleagues (Massey, Goldring, & Durand, 1994) on households is a prime example of this method. In the Mexican Migration Project, the researchers started their survey in Mexico, the country of origin, and surveyed all household members and also asked about children who did not live in the household, but elsewhere. Later, they surveyed some of the household members in the US. This design gave the researchers more information on the migration histories of manifold household members, migrants and non-migrants alike, so that they could conclude how social ties influenced migration decisions. This hybrid method is similar to other efforts to bring together egocentric and sociocentric network designs, which include studies applying ERGMs (exponential random graph models) to egocentric data for inference on whole networks (e.g., Krivitsky & Morris, 2017), studies on overlapping personal networks (e.g., Vacca, Stacciarini, & Tranmer, 2019), and studies about inference in whole networks obtained from network samples (e.g., Smith, Moody, & Morgan, 2017). Also, a common major aim of this hybrid approach is to obtain a probability sample of the migrant population of interest even in the absence of conventional sampling frames. For instance, in investigating the impact of transnational ties on migrants’ well-being, migration intentions, and attitudes to American culture, Mouw and colleagues (Mouw, Chavez, Edelblute, & Verdery, 2014) used data collected in both origin and destination communities using the link-tracing design. They conducted a binational survey linking respondents in Mexico and the United States. In total, 410 respondents in the origin city, Guanajuato, Mexico, and 197 migrants from the same origin city residing in two destinations in the United States, the Research Triangle area in North Carolina and Houston, Texas, were asked to nominate friends and family members and give their basic demographic information. Putting together all the nominations, the authors constructed a transnational network that was composed of 8,538 nominations and 5,086 uniquely identified network members. The authors argue that by using the link-tracing design it was possible to map migrants’ transnational networks, which are

Network analysis  281 usually considered a hard-to-reach population because of their geographical spread and lack of a clear boundary, such as in a classroom. A variant of the link-tracing method is called Network Sampling with Memory (NSM) (Mouw & Verdery, 2012). Using NSM, researchers collect network data from the initial respondents and ask for nominations for further surveying network members. At each step, new nodes are added which also provide network information that is included in the dataset. In later stages, bridge nodes are identified who have many friends and yet have not so far been nominated. They are also recruited to participate in the study. In this way, it is possible to map the social organization of a given migrant community. For example, in investigating Chinese migrants in Tanzania using NSM, Mouw and Verdery (2012) collected network data from 147 Chinese migrants and on 853 unique other Chinese contacts living in the same city. The Chinese community was found to be very heterogeneous, and two distinct communities emerged: those who had migrated themselves for business reasons and those who were appointed to work in the city by large Chinese state-owned enterprises. Such observations were only possible using this method, because the researchers did not pre-assume any migration categories, but based their sampling on participants’ ethnic/national background.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS Migration research increasingly uses network methods. Drawing inspiration from a network perspective and combining different datasets, innovative studies are being proposed, but because several issues remain unaddressed, future avenues of research are suggested here. Big data are already being used in network studies, especially in migration studies, drawing from Facebook (e.g., Spyratos et al., 2018) or through specialized apps (Lerner, Lubbers, Molina, & Brandes, 2014). The use of computational social science, using register data, Facebook tagging data, or historical archive data to analyze migration and mobility streams at an aggregate level, will continue to expand in the near future. Such studies can also be supplied with qualitative insights or other forms of data in order to contextualize different mobilities and their outcomes. Research interest in migrant social capital and social support continues to increase, using personal network methods. So far, such studies have looked into migrants’ personal networks, collecting data at one point, like snapshots from ever-changing networks. Although there have been calls for longitudinal studies (e.g., Bilecen & Lubbers, 2021; Lubbers et al., 2010; Ryan & D’Angelo, 2018), it has not been easy to collect such detailed data over time. However, how migrants’ personal relationships change or stay stable over time is compelling to investigate, particularly in order to understand different outcomes such as employment, loneliness, or general well-being. For example, as also demonstrated above, when investigating the effects of personal ties on employment, studies usually rely on cross-sectional data from which it is not possible to draw any causal conclusions, but rather correlations. However, knowing with whom migrants tend to forge ties, and which ties are dissolved over time, can illuminate the questions about employment. Similarly, knowing which alters tend to form clusters and which tend to split up over time may help researchers to understand better the underlying relational mechanisms for certain outcomes such as loneliness. In addition, although the migration literature indicates that networks not only act as supportive mechanisms but can also exert social norms and control over migrants (e.g., Portes & Landolt, 1996), so far, the focus has been on

282  Research handbook on the sociology of migration the supportive dimension of ties, leaving a more systematic study of negative, absent, or latent ties to future studies. There are a number of additional contemporary and increasingly important substantive issues regarding migration to which network analytical designs can contribute. These include how involuntary migration is networked (e.g., from Afghanistan, Syria) and the incorporation of forced migrants into the societies of immigration (e.g., D’Angelo, 2021). Investigations of other forms of migration, such as return, circular, or retirement migration, would also benefit from network methods in order to understand better the motivations for and consequences of such migratory movements. Moreover, health issues related to international migration will continue to attract scholarly attention, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, when health-related networks and outcomes such as loneliness and subjective well-being will increasingly be on the research agenda. Such research would benefit greatly from a comparative perspective on network effects and health outcomes among migrants and non-migrants (e.g., Bilecen & Vacca, 2021).

REFERENCES Bilecen, B. (2021). Personal network analysis from an intersectional perspective: How to overcome ethnicity bias in migration research. Global Networks, 21(3), 470–486. Bilecen, B., & Cardona, A. (2018). Do transnational brokers always win? A multilevel analysis of social support. Social Networks, 53, 90–100. Bilecen, B., Gamper, M., & Lubbers, M. J. (2018). The missing link: Social network analysis in migration and transnationalism. Social Networks, 53, 1–3. Bilecen, B., & Lubbers, M. J. (2021). The networked character of migration and transnationalism. Global Networks, 21(4), 837–852. Bilecen, B., & Seibel, V. (2021). Network explanations of the gender gap in migrants’ employment patterns: Use of online and offline networks in the Netherlands. Journal of Family Research, 33(2), 541–565. Bilecen, B., & Sienkiewicz, J. J. (2015). Informal social protection networks of migrants: Typical patterns in different transnational social spaces. Population, Space and Place, 21(3), 227–243. Bilecen, B., & Vacca, R. (2021). The isolation paradox: A comparative study of social support and health across migrant generations in the U.S. Social Science & Medicine, 283. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​ .socscimed​.2021​.114204. Boda, Z., Néray, B., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2020). The dynamics of interethnic friendships and negative ties in secondary school: The role of peer-perceived ethnicity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 83(4), 342–362. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. London: Sage. D’Angelo, A. (2008). Kurdish community organisations in London: A social network analysis. SPRC Working Paper, no. 2. Retrieved from https://​core​.ac​.uk/​download/​pdf/​17300875​.pdf. D’Angelo, A. (2021). The networked refugee: The role of transnational networks in the journeys across the Mediterranean. Global Networks, 21(3), 487–499. Dahinden, J. (2006). Contesting transnationalism? Lessons from the study of Albanian migration networks from former Yugoslavia. Global Networks, 5(2), 191–208. Dahinden, J. (2016). A plea for the ‘de-migranticization’ of research on migration and integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(13), 2207–2225. Danchev, V., & Porter, M. A. (2018). Neither global nor local: Heterogeneous connectivity in spatial network structures of world migration. Social Networks, 53, 4–19. de Miguel Luken, V., & Tranmer, M. (2010). Personal support networks of immigrants to Spain: A multilevel analysis. Social Networks, 32, 253–262. Fennema, M., & Tillie, J. (1999). Political participation and political trust in Amsterdam: Civic communities and ethnic networks. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25(4), 703–726.

Network analysis  283 Heckathorn, D. D., & Cameron, C. J. (2017). Network sampling: From snowball and multiplicity to respondent-driven sampling. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 101–119. Herz, A. (2015). Relational constitution of social support in migrants’ transnational personal communities. Social Networks, 40(1), 64–74. Kornienko, O., Agadjanian, V., Menjívar, C., & Zotova, N. (2018). Financial and emotional support in close personal ties among Central Asian migrant women in Russia. Social Networks, 53, 125–135. Krivitsky, P. N., & Morris, M. (2017). Inference for social network models from egocentrically sampled data, with application to understanding persistent racial disparities in HIV prevalence in the US. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 11(1), 427–455. Lancee, B. (2010). The economic returns of immigrants’ bonding and bridging social capital: The case of the Netherlands. International Migration Review, 44(1), 202–226. Lancee, B. (2012). Immigrant performance in the labour market: Bonding and bridging social capital. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Laumann, E. O., Marsden, P. V., & Prensky, D. (1989). The boundary specification program in network analysis. In L. C. Freeman, A. K. Romney, & D. R. White (Eds.) Research methods in social network analysis (pp. 61–88). Piscataway: Transaction Publishers. Leal, D. F., & Harder, N. L. (2021). Global dynamics of international migration systems across South– South, North–North, and North–South flows, 1990–2015. Applied Network Science, 6(1), 1–27. Lerner, J., Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & Brandes, U. (2014). Social capital companion: Capturing personal networks as they are lived. Grafo Working Papers, 3, 18–37. Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., Lerner, J., Brandes, U., Ávila, J., & McCarty, C. (2010). Longitudinal analysis of personal networks. The case of Argentinean migrants in Spain. Social Networks, 32(1), 91–104. Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2007). Personal networks and ethnic identifications: The case of migrants in Spain. International Sociology, 22(6), 721–741. Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2021). How do migrants’ processes of social embedding unfold over time? Global Networks, 21(3), 529–550. Lubbers, M. J., Verdery, A. M., & Molina, J. L. (2020). Social networks and transnational social fields: A review of quantitative and mixed-methods approaches. International Migration Review, 54(1), 177–204. MacDonald, J. S., & MacDonald, B. D. (1964). Chain migration, ethnic neighbourhood formation, and social networks. Milband Memorial Fund Quarterly, 42, 82–97. Marin, A. & Wellman, B. (2014). Social network analysis: An introduction. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 11–25). London: Sage. Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network data and measurement. American Review of Sociology, 16, 435–463. Massey, D., Arango, A., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (2005). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Massey, D. S., Goldring, L., & Durand, J. (1994). Continuities in transnational migration: An analysis of nineteen Mexican communities. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1492–1533. McCarty, C., Lubbers, M. J., Vacca, R., & Molina, J. L. (2019). Conducting personal network research: A practical guide. New York: Guilford Press. Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127. Mouw, T., Chavez, S., Edelblute, H., & Verdery, A. (2014). Binational social networks and assimilation: A test of the importance of transnationalism. Social Problems, 61(3), 329–359. Mouw, T., & Verdery, A. M. (2012). Network sampling with memory: A proposal for more efficient sampling from social networks. Sociological Methodology, 42(1), 206–256. Perry, B. L., Pescosolido, B. A., & Borgatti, S. P. (2018). Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, and models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perry, B. L., Pescosolido, B. A., Small, M. L., & McCranie, A. (2020). Introduction to the special issue on ego networks. Network Science, 8(2), 137–141. Portes, A., & Landolt, P. (1996). The downside of social capital. American Prospect, 26, 18–21. Ryan, L. (2011). Migrants’ social networks and weak ties: Accessing resources and constructing relationships post-migration. The Sociological Review, 59(4), 707–724.

284  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Ryan, L., & D’Angelo, A. (2018). Changing times: Migrants’ social network analysis and the challenges of longitudinal research. Social Networks, 53, 148–158. Ryan, L., & Dahinden, J. (2021). Qualitative network analysis for migration studies: Beyond metaphors and epistemological pitfalls. Global Networks, 21(3), 459–469. Ryan, L., Sales, R., Tilki, M., & Siara, B. (2008). Social networks, social support and social capital: The experiences of recent Polish migrants in London. Sociology, 42(4), 672–690. Sage, L., & Flache, A. (2020). Can ethnic tolerance curb self-reinforcing school segregation? A theoretical agent based model. Retrieved from http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.2139/​ssrn​.3631176. Smith, J. A., Moody, J., & Morgan, J. H. (2017). Network sampling coverage II: The effect of non-random missing data on network measurement. Social Networks, 48, 78–99. Smith, S., Van Tubergen, F., Maas, I., & McFarland, D. A. (2016). Ethnic composition and friendship segregation: Differential effects for adolescent natives and immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 121(4), 1223–1272. Snijders, T., Spreen, M., & Zwaagstra, R. (1995). The use of multilevel modeling for analysing personal networks: Networks of cocaine users in an urban area. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 5, 85–105. Snijders, T. A. B., Van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32(1), 44–60. Spyratos, S., Vespe, M., Natale, F., Weber, I., Zagheni, E., & Rango, M. (2019). Quantifying international human mobility patterns using Facebook network data. PLoS ONE, 14(10), e0224134. Vacca, R. (2018). Multilevel models for personal networks: Methods and applications. Statistica Applicata – Italian Journal of Applied Statistics, 30(1), 59–97. Vacca, R., Cañarte, D., & Vitale, T. (2022). Beyond ethnic solidarity: the diversity and specialisation of social ties in a stigmatised migrant minority. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(13), 3113–3141. Vacca, R., Solano, G., Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2018). A personal network approach to the study of immigrant structural assimilation and transnationalism. Social Networks, 53, 72–89. Vacca, R., Stacciarini, J.-M. R., & Tranmer, M. (2019). Cross-classified multilevel models for personal networks: Detecting and accounting for overlapping actors. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(3). https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0049124119882450. Wellman, B. (2007). Challenges in collecting personal network data: The nature of personal network analysis. Field Methods, 19(2), 111–115. Windzio, M. (2018). The network of global migration 1990–2013: Using ERGMs to test theories of migration between countries. Social Networks, 53, 20–29.

23. Visual methods in migration research Susan Ball

INTRODUCTION Research that works with visual materials, or what has come to be referred to as ‘visual sociology’ or ‘visual research methods’, uses images as a means of generating evidence with which to address research questions on a wide variety of topics. A broad range of theoretical positions and methods for conducting and disseminating research has developed. Although this development is in part a function of the recent growth in the variety of images available,1 most recent research in the social sciences using visual methods draws on photographs. Research on migration is no exception, with many photographs now being encountered through digital interfaces. Other forms of images, however, have also been used in research on migration, including diagrams, maps, films, video-diaries, collages, street art, and sculptures, among others. The origin of the images may also vary: some researchers work with ‘found’ images, others make their own images, while others use a collaborative approach in which participants make their own images, or use a combination of two or more of these sources (Pauwels, 2010). Visual representations of migration play an important role in shaping public perceptions and government policies (Joris, De Coninck, & Mertens, 2020; Kruse, 2019). Visual materials are therefore important in the dissemination of research findings. For cases in which participants are vulnerable—including asylum seekers, refugees, and children—the visual element may have to be excluded from the research output, or the research method reassessed in order that migrants can give voice to images that do not reveal their identity. Elaborating the wide variety of visual methods at the disposal of sociologists researching migration is beyond the scope of this chapter. Following an overview of methods used in order to examine found images, the chapter will address those visual methods most frequently used by sociologists today, in which the researcher and the researched enter into conversation.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS RELEVANT TO MIGRATION RESEARCH Arguments for the importance attached to the visual sense among the other senses in the West have a long history. In sociology, they can be dated as least as far back as 1907, when Simmel addressed the sociology of the senses. For Simmel, the eye is ‘destined for a completely unique sociological achievement’, on the basis that it both gives and receives (Simmel, 1997 [1907], p. 111). To look at another person directly is not only a means by which to search out expressive meaning but also the means by which those being viewed may search out their own expressive meaning: ‘One cannot take through the eye without at the same time giving’ (Simmel, 1997 [1907], p. 112). This assertion assumes a direct relation between the two subjects; today much ‘looking’ is done by means of what Urry refers to as ‘hybrids’, for example, the photographer, the map-reader, the viewer of landscapes, and the screen viewer (2000, p. 84). While all of these hybrids are relevant to the study of migration using visual 285

286  Research handbook on the sociology of migration methods, for Urry, the hybrid photographer ‘has been enormously significant in democratizing various kinds of human experience, particularly involving the mobilities of peoples and objects’ (2000, p. 86). Moreover, when migrants move photographs from one place to another, for example, from one country to another, or from a family album to a published work or social networking site, the photographs enter a different ‘visual economy’.2 Important for this chapter’s discussion of the use of visual methods by sociologists currently conducting research on migration is Urry’s own critique of the hybrid photographer, in which he makes clear how the camera prevents the look from being returned: ‘It is the face that speaks and establishes authentic discourse of face-to-face, as opposed to the instrumental manipulation of the visual’ (2000, p. 93). This statement highlights the importance of collaborative visual methods that incorporate talk between the researcher and the researched. The technology of photography and the image of a photograph (for example, newspaper photographs, award-winning photographs, snapshots, photos on postcards, and photos uploaded on to social media) represent important subjects of discussion in this chapter.3 This is not to say that photography is the sole technology, nor photographs the only type of image available to the researcher of migration using visual methods. The literature on visual methods covers a broad variety of both technologies (for example, film, television, video, spray paint) and images (for example, advertisements, television programs, Instagram pages, films, street art). Given that rapid technological developments have led to a proliferation of visual materials, handbooks of visual methodologies will never be complete. Rose (2016), in her comprehensive overview of visual methodologies, discusses 14 types of found visual materials and five types of researcher-made materials (2016, table 3.2, p. 51). She makes clear, however, the futility of any attempt to set precise boundaries around the rapidly evolving range of technologies and images. The ‘everywhere’ of images twenty years ago (Pink, 2001, p. 17) has today developed into a digital abundance, creating a ‘reflexive space’ of images that has given voice to formerly marginalized groups and individuals, including migrants (Yüksel & Çam, 2021, p. 323). In an overview of visual studies, Ball and Gilligan (2010) make a distinction between two broad categorizations. The first—admittedly arbitrary categorization—divides the diversity of approaches into five strands based on their relatively recent disciplinary origins and areas of interest: visual culture in cultural studies, visual methods in visual anthropology and visual sociology, visual and audio-visual communication, audience studies, and infographics. The major weakness of such a categorization is that it ignores the vast amount of research being conducted using visual methods from outside these disciplines, including in the field of sociology (Ball & Gilligan, 2010). The second broad categorization of approaches is one developed by Rose through four editions of her book Visual Methodologies (2016, 4th edition). Rather than being dependent on traditions in visual studies, Rose develops a framework that conceptually distinguishes between different dimensions of the visual. The framework is built around two key dimensions: sites and modalities. The four sites of her critical visual methodology4 are: the site of production; the site of the image itself; of its circulation (or visual economy); and of its ‘audiencing’. Rose proposes that each of these sites can be interpreted according to three different modalities: technical, compositional, and social. This framework is used by Rose in order to examine eight different visual methodologies that can be used for examining found images, and the methods most commonly used when making images by the researcher and/or participants/collaborators.5 The complexity of the framework and its theoretical grounding are beyond the scope of this chapter; however, the methodologies identified by

Visual methods in migration research  287 Rose provide a useful structure with which to address research on migration using visual methods. By including content analysis and discourse analysis—two methods more commonly associated with textual rather than visual analysis—Rose also provides a comprehensive and unique collection of visual methodologies. In the following section, a brief overview of each of the visual methods most commonly used in sociology and its relevance to research on migration is presented. This overview is followed by a section in which illustrative examples of research are presented, drawing on classic images of migration, classic research exercises, and more recent images and research. As will become clear, each method is rarely used in isolation. The overall aim of this discussion therefore is to be critical of each method in research on migration, rather than to be critical of each of the key examples of previous research. Compositional Analysis Compositional analysis can be conducted on both still and moving images (with or without sound), based on the formal components and properties of the image. For still images, the components consist of content, color, light, spatial organization, and expressive content. Moving images can be broken down into their mise-en-scène, narrative structure, montage, and sound (Rose, 2016, pp. 56–84). Addressing an image in terms of its formal components and properties can be a useful means by which to first address an image. Identifying reoccurring elements of content in a collection of images can produce a set of keywords that can be used in a subsequent content analysis (see below). Given the method’s fine art associations, it is often used for singular iconic images by recognized artists and winners of awards. Descriptions based on compositional analysis are to be found in brochures for exhibitions, curated collections, or accompanying award-winning images. This usage can be analyzed through content analysis of the text accompanying the image, coupled with an analysis of the visual (institutional) culture of which the image and the text form a part. However, as a method that fails to address the social practices made possible by images, when used on its own it is of little utility to sociologists of migration. Content Analysis Like compositional analysis, content analysis is a formal methodological approach that confines itself to the structure of the image, leaving to other methods questions of context and how much can be inferred. A formal definition of the method is provided by Bell: ‘an empirical (observational) and objective procedure for quantifying recorded “audio-visual” (including verbal) representation using reliable, explicitly defined categories (“values” or independent “variables”)’ (2000, p. 13). It is usually used on large datasets as a means of breaking down and categorizing image content in order to arrive at quantifiable groupings of content. It starts with a hypothesis or hypotheses based on well-defined variables, often derived from a literature review. Bell (2000, p. 13) notes that the hypotheses are usually comparative. The quantifiable data derived from the application of content analysis to a large dataset of images allows hypotheses to be tested. It also allows strong inferences to be drawn, which go beyond the information yielded by the visual texts (Weber, 1985). When combined with semiotic analysis (described below), these inferences can be applied in a richer analysis of the texts, aimed at uncovering what and how images make their meaning. The representation of ‘otherness’ is increasingly present in contemporary society (Orgad, 2012), and may be inferred

288  Research handbook on the sociology of migration from images of migration. Semiotic analysis can then be applied to uncover how this image of the ‘other’ is created through the construction of symbolic oppositions between ‘them’ and ‘us’, ‘foreigner’ and ‘native’, ‘there’ and ‘here’, etc. When working with large datasets, a number of practical considerations should be taken into account. Digital photo archives can be searched using keywords or tags related to the main questions of the research and in the appropriate language(s). For those cases in which not all images have been digitalized and uploaded onto a website of the archives, a visit to the institution will be necessary. Family collections of photographs are less likely to be systematically organized, and will frequently take a variety of forms, in part depending on the technology. Black and white photographs taken by or for migrants will be relatively small in number compared to color photographs taken from the 1960s onwards, when compact cameras and films became available. These photographs may be stored in family albums, shoeboxes, envelopes tucked away at the back of drawers, and so on. Today, when mobile phones are available to migrants, photos may be stored on social media sites or hard disks, in more or less organized fashion. Semiology Neither of the methods discussed above addresses the context of migration images. Semiology and discourse analysis are two methods that directly engage with the wider context of an image. In the case of semiology, the image is addressed as a constellation of interrelated signs, influenced by the underlying codes and cultural conventions that shape the message of the image. Rather than attempting to describe the image, semiology aims to deconstruct it in order to relate it to its broader context. The most basic unit of mainstream semiology is the sign, which can be further broken down into two key elements: the signified, the concept behind the object within the image; and the signifier, the image or sound attached to that signified (Saussure, 2011 [1959]). In other words, the signifier is a sound or an image, what something is called (e.g., attaching the label ‘migrant’ to a person in an image), and the signified is the concept of the thing itself (threat, vulnerable, foreign, ‘other’, etc.) and all other related concepts, such as refugee, asylum seeker, labor migrant, etc. As Berger notes, ‘What complicates matters is that the relation between the signifiers and the signifieds is arbitrary and based on convention’ (2014, p. 22). The context of the image—how it might vary between individuals, periods of time, cultures, etc.—must be taken into account. Based on the notion of polysemy, the analysis of images using semiology suggests that the more a message is open to different interpretations, the more the choice of codes and sub-codes is influenced, not only by the circumstances of the message, but also by the ideological predispositions of the recipient. In other words, the same representation can sometimes give rise to very different and even contradictory meanings (Orgad, 2012, p. 33). The imagination built around the symbolism of the migrant offers a telling example. In the case of images including text or accompanied by music—for example, text in posters raising awareness about migration and in advertisements placed by smugglers of migrants, or music accompanying videos purchased by media outlets6—the positioning of text and the mood and tonality of the music should also be considered.

Visual methods in migration research  289 Discourse Analysis Discourse is particular knowledge about the world that shapes how we make sense of the world and how we act in it. In the discursive analysis of images, the focus is on a range of aspects of the construction and interpretation of images, and their social, cultural, and political effects. Different approaches vary in terms of the degree to which they focus on the text as opposed to the context. One prominent approach examines the role of metaphors in framing social issues, including migration. The comparative metaphors of ‘victim’ versus ‘threat’ or ‘we’ versus ‘the foreigner’, for example, are recurrent themes in press photography coverage of migration. Images of place as nodal and connected across space by straight lines, while appearing descriptive or illuminating on diagrams and maps, serve as metaphors representing migration as something it is not. Discourse analysis conducted from a critical perspective (or Critical Discourse Analysis, CDA) aims to go beyond the image itself in order to examine the social and political contexts of an image’s production, distribution, and consumption. In CDA, images are addressed as visual texts, the social nature of which forms part of broader representational systems (Hall, 1997). The type of CDA informed by Foucault’s (2002) dialectical view of discourse (Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, FDA), considers discourse to be socially shaped and socially constitutive. This approach can be applied by researchers of migration who aim to examine the power relations of visual discourse. It may also be applied by researchers when adopting self-critical reflexivity in order to assess their own positionality. In practice, it is an iterative, flexible, and adaptive approach that opens up questions as to who/what determines the discourse, by which means and to what effect.7 The notion of intertextuality in discourse analysis addresses the diversity of forms through which a discourse can be articulated and the tendency for makers of images to mix different media and other texts. Intertextuality refers to the way that the meanings of any one discursive text (including images) depend not only on that one text, but also on the meanings carried by other texts. Discourses that draw on intertextuality have also been argued to operate for oppositional and specialized practices and sub-cultures, such as street art. Marginalized groups and activists sometimes turn a discourse around in order to gain attention, for example, Banksy’s use of the discourse of ‘fine art’ in his reworking of Géricault’s iconic image The Raft of the Medusa.8 Making Images, the Collaborative Turn in Contemporary Photography, and Research Ethics Collaboration between researchers and participants in qualitative research has a long-standing history; however, increased attention to how such dialogic processes may yield alternative perspectives to researcher-centered methods has led Gershon (2009) to refer to a ‘collaborative turn’ in the social sciences.9 While much of this research is emergent and improvisational in nature, draws on mixed methodologies, and a range of images (mental maps, drawings, photographs and films), two approaches raise important methodological issues for research on migration: photo-documentary and photo-elicitation. While the latter approach is more explicitly collaborative, for ethical reasons, photo-documentary also involves the researcher in a closer and more reflexive relation with the subjects of the research. This ‘talk’ with participants provides these methods with three particular strengths (Rose, 2014, pp. 7–9). First,

290  Research handbook on the sociology of migration they generate other types of evidence than those derived from interviews and surveys, not only in the images produced but also in the discussions around them. Second, the images and the discussions often reach behind everyday practices and can be an important means of revealing implicit knowledges in everyday practices. Third, the inherently collaborative nature of these methods not only means that participants are enrolled in the research but also that they can deploy their own skills, thereby allowing them to participate more confidently in the unfolding of the research. Photo-documentary involves the researcher, or a photographer briefed by the researcher,10 in ‘provid[ing] a straightforward and accurate representation of people, places, objects and events’ (Tate, n.d.a).11 A method that puts the camera in the hands of the people being researched is called ‘photo-elicitation’. In this approach, photographs (or drawings) are produced by research participants, usually after rapport has been developed in the field. These images can be added to from participants’ personal photographic archives, including family album photographs, newspaper cuttings, and postcards. The images are then used as a means by which the researcher can understand the reality as participants perceive it, and as powerful stimuli that allow the exploration of issues of migration that might otherwise not be addressed in more conventional interview situations. In a narrative critique of the use of participatory photographic methods, Byrne and colleagues have noted the popularity of the method among researchers addressing a number of groups, all of which are relevant to research on migrants: vulnerable groups, people with difficulties expressing their feelings, non-Western or non-mainstream groups, and groups facing difficulties using traditional qualitative research methods due to issues of power, language, or disability (Byrne, Daykin, & Coad, 2016, p. 4). Valued as a means of providing insight into the ‘inner world’ of vulnerable groups, without an accompanying narrative, such insights will remain partial. Moreover, the role of parents or institutional environments can skew the data in terms of giving what is considered to be a favorable impression. The finding that participants using disposable cameras seldom include themselves in their photographs has to some extent been balanced by the uptake of smartphones and the prevalence of ‘selfies’. The motivations of individuals to participate should not be ignored, and may create threads that the researcher—consciously or unconsciously—draws upon when selecting between images created by participants. Furthermore, the constantly changing policy landscape for ‘irregular’ migrants means that some participants may choose to retract their participation, others may agree to their interviews and visual sources being archived but not give approval to the use of these in research publications, while others may simply request more time to consider their participation. The ethics boards of universities will usually require that the aims and means of obtaining ‘informed consent’ from participants are clearly stated before approving a research proposal. However, it would be incorrect to assume that the researchers will determine the ethics of the research. Moore (2012) shows how research subjects have their own ethics and may already have considerable experience of negotiating ethical dilemmas and deciding on their own degree of involvement. This scenario is particularly the case with vulnerable groups in society, including asylum seekers and ‘irregular’ migrants.

Visual methods in migration research  291

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLASSIC OR CONTEMPORARY WORKS Compositional Analysis When conducted on its own, the main critiques of compositional analysis reside in its ‘high art’ associations, which find expression in the works themselves and particularly the compositional analysis around them. With regard to twentieth-century photography, Sekula (1984) identifies two traditions that he considers problematic: estheticism in art photography and neutrality in documentary photography. He illustrates his point about estheticism with reference to a famed photograph by Steiglitz, The Steerage (1907), and the surrounding analysis. The photograph depicts migrants returning to Europe from the United States, densely packed on the deck of a ship’s bow.12 The deck comprises a small part of the steerage, most of which is below deck, where third-class passengers endure squalid conditions. As Sekula makes clear, the esthetic commentary on this photograph—its avant-garde, modernist qualities, as expressed in its use of geometry, space, and hues—says little about the lives of the migrants. In the absence of context, Sekula argues that the photographer is raised to new heights, which preclude accurate interpretations of their affective and representational meanings. Sekula’s critique of neutrality in documentary photography centers around how a surrounding description based on compositional analysis gives sole attention to the site of the image itself, while ignoring its context, or what Rose refers to as the sites of production and ‘audiencing’ (Sekula, 1984, pp. 53–75; Rose, 2016). By ignoring the political-economic, cultural, and social context, Sekula argues that the supposed neutrality of the image is used in order to serve the interests of the powerful. Lange’s iconic photograph Migrant Mother, Nipomo, California (1936) is an illustration of how compositional analysis used on its own creates the supposed neutrality of documentary photographs. The image has been widely used and is considered to be a symbol of the Great Depression and, more particularly, the plight of American farmers. The first paragraph of the Tate Gallery’s online archive for this photograph provides a compositional analysis (Tate, n.d.b). Taken on its own this leaves out important contextual details that attest to how the photograph was constructed, and which raise questions concerning the ethics of its production and circulation (Ball, 2014). Content Analysis A classic example of content analysis is Lutz and Collins’ (1993) study of images in the photo-journal National Geographic in the 1960s. Based on a literature review, which indicated that non-Westerners had been presented as less technologically advanced and closer to nature than Westerners, Lutz and Collins draw up a list of 22 (sometimes overlapping) variables with which to code the journal’s photographs. Although coding gives the impression of being an objective, quantitative exercise, the interpretation of variables is highly cultural (for example, ideas of female nudity in this study). While the research does not address migration, it is instructive in terms of providing an insight into the Western gaze on non-Western societies in the 1960s. Beyond this, however, content analysis, like compositional analysis, deploys a supposed objectivity in place of a theorized approach to addressing the polysemy of images. Furthermore, focusing on what are often commonsense and spuriously objective variables (gender, setting, age, etc.) and counting can to some extent constrain if not direct the research.

292  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Addressing these limitations, while still maintaining the utility of content analysis for research using large datasets, involves work that builds in a theoretical context with which to analyze the visual semiotic dimensions of texts. One example is found in Amores and colleagues’ (Amores, Calderón, & Stanek, 2019) content analysis, which draws on the decoding tools of semiotics to visually frame the analysis (see below). However, just as the variables used in content analysis are only spuriously objective, so the visual semiotics used in more theoretically informed analysis ‘are only as valid as the explicitness and reliability of their respective theoretical concepts’ (Bell, 2000, p. 26). Semiology Amore et al. (2019) use content analysis and semiotics in order to analyze 500 photographs of refugees and migrants appearing in Western European media between 2013 and 2017. They hypothesize that there would be differences between the images published in Germany—the country most affected by migration during this period—and the other countries in the study; and between the images published before and after 2015, when the scale of migration further increased. The researchers use Rodriguez and Dimitrova’s (2011) four-layered model of visual framing. This model draws on semiotics in order to push the analysis of images beyond the denotative level to examine their connotative or implicit meaning,13 and the role of the latter in framing ideological or political points of view. They find that while the predominant visual frame in Western Europe represented migrants and refugees as ‘victims’, the frame of ‘threat’ was more frequent in German media, particularly after the ‘migrant crisis’ intensified in 2015. Given that Germany’s improving economic position, particularly after 2015, provided it with protection from any economic threat posed by migrants, the researchers posit that beyond economic and social factors, ‘short-term institutional interests’ (Amore et al., 2019, p. 158) play a role in the visual framing of migrants and refugees. By combining quantitative (content analysis) and qualitative methodologies (semiotics), Amore et al.’s research directly addresses a number of questions raised when each method is used in isolation. The use of large datasets in content analysis means that the images analyzed can be considered representative of the images of migrants in general published in the Western European press over the period of the study. Furthermore, the use of a layered model of visual framing, drawing on concepts from semiotics, ensures the replicability of the analysis in other studies. As the researchers comment, such an approach is still not without its limitations, which could be addressed through further research on the texts accompanying the images, and by means of research on audience reception in order to uncover the ‘real’ effects of the images. Discourse Analysis Along with Lange’s Migrant Mother, TIME Magazine includes Demir’s photograph, Alan Kurdi (2015), among its 100 Photographs: The Most Influential Images of All Time (TIME, n.d.) discursively confirming the iconic status of both images. Demir’s photograph rapidly spread on social media, almost instantly becoming an icon of the war in Syria and the plight of refugees fleeing bloodshed (University of Sheffield, 2015). Its use—or the refusal to use the photograph of three-year-old Alan Kurdi (a toddler with a name and a family) drowned and washed up on a beach—by media outlets around the world led to further commentary on how newsrooms handle images of violence (Lewis, 2016). Opinion was divided between

Visual methods in migration research  293 readers who complained that the dignity of the toddler was being violated, and journalists who argued that to not show the image was to violate the dignity of those who perished in silence (Lewis, 2016). The distribution of the photograph led to an increase in donations to charities and human rights organizations (Zelizer, 2015), to an increase in volunteering (Devichand, 2016), and to a change in textual discourse, with ‘refugee’ replacing ‘migrant’ with reference to Syrians entering Europe (University of Sheffield, 2015). It also led to a change in policy, when European governments were compelled to open closed borders, at least temporarily (Devichand, 2016). This partial and brief history of Alan Kurdi points to the concerns at the heart of discourse analysis of images: their construction and interpretation; and their social, cultural, and political effects. It also raises the question posed by Mitchell which lies at the heart of visual methods: ‘Who or what represents what to whom with what, and where and why?’ (1994, p. 420). Hodalska and Ghita (2016) examine the emotional response to Alan Kurdi as expressed through ‘metaphors of dismay’ posted on social media. Their study addresses how the image of Alan Kurdi’s body was cut and pasted into ‘user generated content’. In this form of intertextuality, ‘Alan’s body is no longer the boy’s body, but has become the signifier, only without the signified’ (2016, emphasis in the original). A variety of images are uncovered by the researchers, including: ‘drawings, paintings, graphic manipulations, cartoons, photos of sand-sculptures, and performances’ (2016). They draw on audience members’ knowledge of the original photograph in order to produce their effect, while at the same time providing valuable ‘insights into the sentiments of “people like us” when responding to stories in the news’ (2016). This phenomenon points to the utility of social media in discourse analysis aimed at understanding the social effects of images. Making Images, the Collaborative Turn in Contemporary Photography, and Research Ethics Friend’s account of a photo-documentary project with detainees in ‘immigration removal centers’ in the UK, is an illustrative example of how ethical considerations have played into the emergent and improvisational nature of work using photo-documentary.14 Friend’s original intention had been to photograph portraits of the detainees; however, she soon realized that this method could prove life-threatening for asylum seekers who needed to keep their whereabouts unknown to those they were attempting to escape. She therefore changed her approach in order to juxtapose photographs of the interiors and landscapes of removal centers with recordings of interviews with detainees: images of visiting rooms devoid of people were used in sharp contrast to often traumatic narratives of detainees in which they described their inhumane treatment by the authorities (Friend, 2007). As the agency of children and their role as cultural producers has been increasingly acknowledged in social science research, so participatory visual methods have been identified as a useful means for gaining insight into children’s experiences of and perspective on a range of social issues, including migration. Moskal (2017) provides an overview of recent research using children’s images (maps, diagrams, photographs, and videos), focusing in particular on migrants and refugees. Her overview makes clear that children should participate by means of producing visual data, in order to provide contextual information to make meaning, as advocated by photo-elicitation. In her own research on the children of Polish migrants in Scotland, Moskal uses the children’s drawings as ‘catalysts for further oral discussion’ (2017,

294  Research handbook on the sociology of migration p. 10), asking the children to identify the features they had included. Pictures that combined local places in Poland and Scotland—such as schools, playgrounds, a friend’s house—point to children having a translocal as opposed to a transnational sense of identity. Although the drawings had served as useful prompts, Moskal notes that: ‘Drawings are not a substitute for children’s voices and the absence or muting, or fragmentation of children’s speak about their images means that researchers need to be particularly cautious about overinterpreting their images’ (2017, pp. 9–10). When images created by participants have been arranged in an album or photo-diary, the collection provides an autobiographical account or narrative of movements across space and time. The keeper of the album may or may not be willing to share the carefully arranged account of persons in different places at different times. In her research on Muslim women migrants in Belgium and the Netherlands, Andreu (2012) finds that one factor accounting for the gender bias in visual accounts of migration is that Muslim women require the consent of their husbands, fathers, or other (male) family members before they can make their albums public.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE METHOD, AND POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS This chapter has focused on a range of visual methods used by sociologists researching migration. The methodologies can be divided between those that specify precise criteria for analysis (compositional analysis, content analysis, and semiotics) and those that provide less precise rules (discourse analysis and collaborative methods). In practice, visual analysis is a complex process that requires attention to the details of images through the application of mixed methodologies. Far from being restricted to the Euro-American center of gravity for visual studies, advocates of mixed methodologies are also to be found in non-Western approaches (Pinney & Peterson, 2003), and in the spaces of the connections being developed by the movement of people (researchers, photographers, migrants, etc.) and images. New interpretations will continue to emerge from the spaces of connection between approaches and disciplines, not least in the interdisciplinary field of migration studies. Further collaborative research can help to redress the balance between images and headlines that reduce migrant stories to one event, a circumstance, in order to address migrants’ individual identities, histories, and hopes for possible futures. While work with migrants on reterritorialization/integration/assimilation has an important role to play in moving the discourse away from borders, the places left behind by migrants are often left out of the story. Visual methods can play a role in developing understandings of what it means for families, neighborhoods, and villages (or entire societies) to lose members; or, as Prieto-Blanco prosaically signs off in her afterword: ‘Leave, but let your presence linger’ (2021, p. 327). The recent return to a tendency in art to cite images has been evidenced in reinterpretations afforded to iconic images by digital platforms, by mixing images with sound and texture, and by placing reinterpretations of iconic images in the natural and social environment.15 ‘Citation’ draws on the Janus-faced quality of images: at one and the same time they conserve and control, and offer up an expansive potential and an escape into inventiveness. The history of photography of migrants is illustrative of this Janus-face, with major works often being the result of a break with their time but also made up of flows and rhythms that delineate the genre.

Visual methods in migration research  295 The migrant as iconic or rhetorical figure, or the migrant as antithesis or binary opposition represent rupture zones that give rise to multiple interpretations and reinterpretations. Attention to detail is the key to addressing images in all of the methods discussed in this chapter. The proliferation of still and moving digital images, and the emergence of new platforms for their distribution, may seem to pose a challenge to this guiding principle. Just as with word-based texts, however, new methodologies (including new software) for accessing and producing knowledge using digital images is being developed (Joo & Steinert-Threlkeld, 2019; Webb Williams, Casas, & Wilkerson, 2020). This development will help to lower the cost of research using images as data. While new legal and ethical concerns will have to be addressed, digital methods can be anticipated to be an increasingly important component of visual methods, making research more accessible to the digital migrant, the digital researcher, and the wider public. In contrast to the idealism of the flâneur, recent guidance on visual methodologies advocates a critical and reflexive approach (Nikielska-Sekula & Desille, 2021; Rose, 2016; Smets, Leurs, Georgiou, Witteborn, & Gajjala, 2019). New technologies for visual representation and growth in the ubiquity of images will place researchers under more pressure to examine their role in producing knowledge on migration. The danger of becoming over-critical or absorbed in reflexivity, however, is that new methods of data collection, analysis, and dissemination may be stifled. Without abandoning methodological thought, like the bricoleur, sociologists can be expected to tinker with new methods in the course of developing the new skills required for research on migration using images.

NOTES 1. Although the recent growth in visual research methods is often commented on, a number of disciplines—including sociology—have a long-standing engagement with visual research methods (or what is sometimes referred to as ‘visual sociology’). 2. Poole (1997) develops the idea of ‘visual economy’ in her book addressing the way images traveled between the Andes and Europe between the seventeenth and early twentieth centuries, and their role in creating the modern concept of ‘racial difference’. 3. The ‘iconic, symbolic and expressive weight of images is much greater than any written text, especially photographs’ (Amores et al., 2019, p. 148). 4. Rose’s ‘critical visual methodology’ addresses ‘the visual in terms of the cultural significance, social practices and power relations in which it is embedded’ (2016, p. xxii). 5. In this chapter, the range of methodologies identified by Rose (2016) is reduced in order to concentrate on the methodologies most frequently used in sociology. What Rose terms ‘discourse analysis II’ and audience studies are excluded on the grounds that they are more concerned with the institutionalization of visuality rather than being a visual method per se. 6. Kruse (2019) opens with advertisements placed by smugglers on social media pages and comments on the use of background music added by media outlets to images of migrants crossing borders. 7. One of the critiques of FDA alleges that it is not concerned with addressing why power works in the way it does. This critique is in part explained by Foucault’s refusal of the methodological premise that analysis needs to probe behind the surface of things in order to discover their real meaning. 8. Darcis (2019) provides a commentary on the socially divisive nature of the ‘audiencing’ of this image by Banksy. 9. Gershon addresses collaboration between research participants and researchers, and among researchers. In this section, the discussion will be limited to participation between participants and researchers.

296  Research handbook on the sociology of migration 10. On the practical and ethical concerns of collaborations among professional photographers, researchers, and subjects in research on borders and migration, see Ball (2014). 11. Work that has been classified using this definition may also have a visually expressive force that points to the social motivations of the photographer. The documentary photographer Lange disliked the classification, which she felt ‘did not reflect the passionate social motivations that fueled her work’ (MoMA Learning, n.d.). 12. Part of the importance of The Steerage is that it represents return migrants or ‘coming back migrants’, who have received markedly less attention—in both text-based and visual-based research—than migrants leaving their place of origin. 13. Signs have two components: signifiers and signified. An analytic distinction can be made between two types of signified: denotative (the literal meaning); and connotative (the associated ideas and emotions). 14. For accounts of this project, see Friend (2010) and Hart (2011). 15. The technical, legal, institutional, and moral limits placed on artists in the reuse of iconic images cannot be ignored.

REFERENCES Amores, J. J., Calderón, C. A., & Stanek, M. (2019). Visual frames of migrants and refugees in the main Western European media. Economics and Sociology, 12(3), 147–161. Andreu, N. (2012). (Auto)biographies of migration: From vernacular photography to the archives. www​ .academia​ .edu/​ 7747954/​ AUTO​ MA thesis, University of Leiden. Retrieved from https://​ _BIOGRAPHIES​_of​_Migration​_from​_Vernacular​_Photography​_to​_the​_Archives. Ball, S. (2014). On the ‘doing’ of visual research on borders and migration: Collaboration between professional photographers, social scientists and subjects. Journal of Borderland Studies, 29(2), 147–164. Ball, S., & Gilligan, C. (2010). Visualising migration and social division: Insights from the social sciences and visual arts. FQS Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(2), art. 26. Bell, P. (2000). Content analysis of visual images. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.) The handbook of visual analysis (pp. 10–34). London: Sage. Berger, A. A. (2014). Semiotics and society. Society, 51(1), 22–26. Byrne, E., Daykin, N., & Coad, J. (2016). Participatory photography in qualitative research: A methodological review. Visual Methodologies, 4(2), 1–12. Darcis, D. (2019). Pictures that denounce? In the Jungle of Calais, Banksy and the hearts of cardboard. Journal of Urban Research, 19. Retrieved from https://​journals​.openedition​.org/​articulo/​3863. Devichand, M. (2016). Did Alan Kurdi’s death change anything? BBC Trending, September 2. Retrieved from https://​www​.bbc​.com/​news/​blogs​-trending​-37257869. Foucault, M. (2002). Archaeology of knowledge. Abingdon: Routledge. Friend, M. (2007). Border country. Belfast/Winchester: Belfast Exposed Photography/The Winchester Gallery. Friend, M. (2010). Representing immigration centre detainees: The juxtaposition of image and sound in ‘Border Country’. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 11(2). Gershon, W. S. (2009). The collaborative turn: Working together in qualitative research. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Hall, S. (1997). Introduction. In S. Hall (Ed.) Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 1–12). London: Sage. Hart, M. (2011). Representing immigration detention and removal. English Language Notes, 49(1), 29–50. Hodalska, M., & Ghita, C. (2016). Visual metaphors of dismay: Representations of migrants in recent culture and the mass media. Paper presented at Racism, Nationalism and Xenophobia International Interdisciplinary Conference, Warsaw, Poland, March. Retrieved from https://​www​.researchgate​.net/​ publication/​305430522​_Visual​_Metaphors​_of​_Dismay​_Representations​_of​_Migrants​_in​_Recent​ _Culture​_and​_the​_Mass​_Media/​stats.

Visual methods in migration research  297 Joo, J., & Steinert-Threlkeld, Z. C. (2019). Images as data: Automated visual content analysis for social science. Retrieved from https://​ocean​.sagepub​.com/​blog/​image​-as​-data​-automated​-visual​-content​ -analysis​-for​-social​-science. Joris, W., De Coninck, D., & Mertens, S. (2020). IM²MEDIATE Image of immigrants in media: Thought-provoking effects. Final Report. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy Office. Kruse, S. (2019). The migrating image. Retrieved from https://​vimeo​.com/​245224472. Lewis, H. (2016). How newsrooms handle graphic images of violence, Nieman Reports, January 5. Retrieved from http://​niemanreports​.org/​articles/​how​-newsrooms​-handle​-graphic​-images​-of​ -violence/​. Lutz, C. A., & Collins, J. L. (1993). Reading National Geographic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. MoMA Learning (n.d.). Migrant mother, Nipomo, California. Retrieved from https://​www​.moma​.org/​ learn/​moma​_learning/​dorothea​-lange​-migrant​-mother​-nipomo​-california​-1936/​. Moore, N. (2012). Everyday ethics in the Young Women’s Group Allotment Research Programme. CRESC News, April 16 edition. Moskal, M. (2017). Visual methods in research with migrant and refugee children and young people. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.) Handbook of research methods in health and social sciences (pp. 1–16). Singapore: Springer. Nikielska-Sekula, K., & Desille, A. (Eds.) (2021). Visual methodology in migration studies: New possibilities, theoretical implications and ethical questions. Berlin: Springer. Orgad, S. (2012). Media representation and the global imagination. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pauwels, L. (2010). Visual sociology reframed: An analytical synthesis and discussion of visual methods in social and cultural research. Sociological Methods and Research, 38(4), 545–581. Pink, S. (2001). Doing ethnography: Images, media and representation in research. London: Sage. Pinney, C., & Peterson, N. (Eds.) (2003). Photography’s other histories. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Poole, D. A. (1997). Vision, race, and modernity: A visual economy of the Andean image world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Prieto-Blanco, P. (2021). Afterword: Visual research in migration. (In)visibilities, participation, discourses. In K. Nikielska-Sekula & A. Desille (Eds.) Visual methodology in migration studies: New possibilities, theoretical implications and ethical questions (pp. 327–343). Berlin: Springer. Rodriguez, L., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2011). The level of visual framing. Journal of Visual Literacy, 30(1), 48–65. Rose, G. (2014). On the relation between ‘visual research methods’ and contemporary visual culture. Sociological Review, 62(1), 24–46. Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials, 4th edition. London: Sage. Saussure, F. de (2011 [1959]). Course in general linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press. Sekula, A. (1984). Photography against the grain: Essays and photo works, 1973–1983. Halifax: Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design. Simmel, G. (1997 [1907]). Sociology of the senses. In D. Frisby & M. Featherstone (Eds.) Simmel on culture (pp. 109–119). London: Sage. Smets, K., Leurs, K., Georgiou, M., Witteborn, S., & Gajjala, R. (Eds.) (2019). The SAGE handbook of media and migration. London: Sage. Tate (n.d.a). Documentary photography. Retrieved from https://​www​.tate​.org​.uk/​art/​art​-terms/​d/​ documentary​-photography. Tate (n.d.b). Dorothea Lange, Migrant mother, Nipomo, California. Retrieved from https://​www​.tate​.org​ .uk/​art/​artworks/​lange​-migrant​-mother​-nipomo​-california​-p13115. TIME (n.d.). Untitled. Retrieved from http://​100photos​.time​.com/​photos/​nilufer​-demir​-alan​-kurdi​ #photograph. University of Sheffield (2015). Alan Kurdi: How a single image transformed the debate on immigration. News Archive. Retrieved from https://​www​.sheffield​.ac​.uk/​news/​nr/​aylan​-kurdi​-social​-media​-report​ -1​.533951.

298  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. Abingdon: Routledge. Webb Williams, N., Casas, A., & Wilkerson, J. D. (2020). Images as data for social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. London: Sage. Yüksel, I. S., & Çam, A. (2021). Conclusions: ‘Ways of representation’: Is a reflexive representation possible? In K. Nikielska-Sekula & A. Desille (Eds.) Visual methodology in migration studies: New possibilities, theoretical implications and ethical questions (pp. 315–325). Berlin: Springer. Zelizer, B. (2015). Haunting image spurs action on migrants. The Philadelphia Inquirer, September 8. https://​www​.inquirer​.com/​philly/​blogs/​thinktank/​Haunting​-image​-spurs​-action​-on​-migrants​.html.

PART III SITES, PLACES, AND SPHERES

24. Sending communities, social spheres, and households: what can be learned about migration Jeffrey H. Cohen

INTRODUCTION Migration, whether celebrated or despised, is a household process. The decision to move is not made in a vacuum by an individual; rather, it includes the migrant, as well as those around the migrant. To approach migration as a household-based decision is to identify the many actors that influence choices and affect outcomes (Cohen & Sirkeci, 2011), and to consider the resources (fixed, flexible; real and imagined) that support mobility (Cohen, 2004; Conway & Cohen, 2003). Decisions are not mercurial—even when they seem sudden. Rather, they are thought out and made in response to the needs and aspirations of movers and non-movers at places of origin and destination (see, for example, Carling & Schewel, 2018; Cohen & Sirkeci, 2021). While migration is a household decision made in response to a variety of factors, xenophobic diatribes concerning the migrant—and in the United States, the movement of Mexicans across the border—tend to characterize movers as dangerous individuals who are driven by their lust for money. The xenophobe conjures the migrant as a man (specifically a criminal) who will turn his back on his family and home community to take advantage of citizens who know no better. To assume that migration is a process undertaken by an independent actor in a social vacuum, and that the mover is a criminal to be feared, is wrong (see for example, Baker, Cañarte, & Day, 2018; Canizales & Vallejo, 2021; Kulig, Graham, Cullen, Piquero, & Haner, 2021; Verea, 2018). In this chapter, I present a household model of migration, one that defines the decision to move as made in response to a series of different actors and the resources, as well as experiences including the hopes, aspirations, and even fears that surround those actors. My focus is not only on movers—or migrants; rather, this approach to migration takes account of movers and non-movers as they interact in transnational space. Research has developed on this topic through time, beginning in the 1990s and continuing to the present; see, for example, Matute (2021), Nolin (2002), Rouse (1995), and Stephen (2014). In other words, while focused on migration, such an approach understands that the decision to move is informed by household dynamics, namely, the interrelations among the migrant, non-migrants (often described as non-movers or stay-at-homes), and the household to which they belong. It is critical to understand that migration is but the briefest moment in the lives of movers and non-movers. Crossing a border, whether internal and defined in local practices or international and represented by a militarized boundary, carries movers out of their ‘comfort zone’ and creates new challenges (Sandoval-Cervantes, 2017). These challenges are dynamic, but they are most likely short-lived and found during periods of transit. Replaced at points of destina-

300

Sending communities, social spheres, and households  301 tion, new contests arise as the migrant settles and those left behind adjust to their new normal and balance their expectations with the challenges of everyday life.

LIMITS OF THE PAST Reviewing migration research, Brettell and Hollifield (2014) argue that much of the historical work on migration is dominated by assumptions of dependency or the possibilities of development. While both perspectives limit the ability to follow the adaptive nature of migration through time, dependency and development follow divergent paths. A dependency perspective on migration assumes the price of mobility is a reliance on the world to which the migrant hopes to journey. The outcome is an addiction to the destination that comes at a high cost and includes the loss of familiar practices that undermine local traditions (see Cohen, 2004). A development perspective focuses instead on the growth that comes with migration and the important role that remittances can play in building economic success in a sending community (Russell, 1992; Yang, 2015). While the outcomes of a development perspective offer an opportunity to understand how movers build economic success, discussions of the motivations that drive movers (including the discussion by Carling & Schewel, 2018) cannot take place as long as we focus less on the ways people manage decision-making and more on the economic costs and benefits of mobility. With a focus on the economic costs of migration, and an assumption that movers often disregard local opportunities to find wealth from afar, assumptions of dependency and development have done little to capture the historical precedents and contemporary motivations that might limit a local economy and motivate movers to seek opportunities abroad, or to understand the complex interplay of costs and benefits that often follow mobile actors as they set out upon their sojourns. Importantly, a dependency approach also ignores the complex and dynamic ways that households and non-movers participate in decision-making, respond to migration, and create openings in situations that seem limited and restricted at best. And while the dependency model would emphasize the costs of migration in terms of local socioeconomic inequalities and unproductive consumption within peasant households, while creating pools of cheap labor waiting to be exploited (Reichert, 1981), the efforts that sending households make and the ways that migration can serve as an opportunity for movers and non-movers are often denied or neglected. In fact, in a dependency approach, the sending community becomes little more than a nursery for the young (who may be portrayed as future migrants, almost zombie-like in their actions), ‘homes’ for the elderly (those no longer able to migrate), and so obsessed with consumption as to deny any local traditional cultural patterns (see Fojas, 2017). In other words, migration is seen as a process that inevitably leads to the social disintegration of sending communities; as the able-bodied are pulled away by job opportunities, local culture falls into disarray, and local practices are replaced by what the researcher defines as ‘wasteful’ consumption (see, for example, Brana-Shute & Brana-Shute, 1982; Diaz-Briquets, 1991; Guidi, 1993). An alternative to the dependency model argues that migration and the investment of remittances locally can lead to development, pointing toward the economic growth that comes from the actions of migrants and the careful use of their remittances by those left behind. A development perspective can and often does reject or at least miss the ways in which local systems are stressed and reformulated through the process of migration and the return of remittances. The negotiation of outcomes (why a mover travels and what a sending household anticipates) can

302  Research handbook on the sociology of migration become a costly contest that places individuals at odds with one another as agreements over goals can shift and anticipated remittances may not always materialize (see our recent paper, Cohen & Zotova, 2021). In other words, while development models of migration emphasize the benefits that migration can bring, and there is ample evidence that remittances foster growth nationally (Acevedo, 2020; Cingolani & Vietti, 2019; Sobiech, 2019; Tang, 2020; Zapata, 2019), households do not always agree over what is necessary or how remittances should be spent. And while most informants describe remittances as critical to self-advancement, the support of their households, families, and communities, as well as underwriting the expansion of utility services and ritual life, the tensions that can surround remittance practices and the costs that can accompany migration are often overlooked or ignored (see, for example, Cohen & Zotova, 2021; Zotova & Cohen, 2019).

A CULTURE OF MIGRATION AND THE HOUSEHOLD Cohen and Sirkeci (2021) have argued that a household approach framing migration as a cultural process is effective for understanding decision-making by movers and non-movers alike. A culture of migration is founded in a household approach to mobility that downplays the contradictions of dependency and development and focuses instead on how movers and non-movers plan in response to a series of interdependencies that emphasize production and consumption, class and ethnicity, borders (near and far, physical and intangible), as well as the needs, aspirations, and hopes shared by social actors and their communities (Basch, Glick Schiller, & Szanton Blanc, 1992, p. 22; Faist, 1997; Kearney, 1996, p. 133). To capture the dynamic variability of mobility, we assume first that migration is a meso-level, stage-specific, predictable process influenced by macroeconomic and microlevel forces (Faist, 1997; White, 2016). Second, while macro- and micro-level forces will influence and affect outcomes, the decision to migrate is rooted in the household and emerges in response to its development cycle, as well as the desires, needs, and limits that can constrain its members (Paerregaard, 2021; Sandoval-Cervantes, 2017; Wilk, 1989). Third, while remittances are typically evaluated in terms of their place in maintaining or creating opportunity, it is critical to understand that remittances can and do support a range of more problematic outcomes. Remittances and debates over their meaning and use can be strategic and sanction behavior or critique social actors. Choices around migration destinations, remittance use, and settlement become part of larger discussions and, ultimately, the decision-making concerning the meaning of social life, social norms, and the value of community. It is critical then, that ranking remittances in terms of their potential as investments only, or in their role as ‘dependent’ or ‘developmental’ gives way to understanding their place in the lives of individual actors, households, and communities (Russell, 1992). Building upon these assumptions, the decision to migrate—even when the outcomes are less than desired by those involved—is progressive. In other words, it is made with the assumption of satisfying needs among individuals and/or households (see Wolpert, 1964, p. 544). In this fashion, a household-based model of migration moves away from positive or negative frameworks and expressions of dependency or development and, instead, notes the cultural framework of mobility, the historical development of the migration process, as well as the households and communities involved (Cohen & Sirkeci, 2011).

Sending communities, social spheres, and households  303 Migration is a process reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of the mover, non-movers, their households, and their communities, among other things. Movers and the non-movers around them do not necessarily share motivations, capabilities, or competencies. For example, target earners looking for short-term windfalls are moving for reasons quite different from someone looking to enhance their education or someone who is fleeing an abusive relationship. Non-movers whose choices can motivate a migrant to set off (or not) at one point in time can have a very different effect at another point in time and, in the process, a decision may fundamentally change. In other words, decision-making in a household model of migration reflects on the status of the mover, non-movers, and the communities involved, and can change through time. Changes occur as movers experience failure and success, non-movers risk isolation, and household needs shift in terms of age, gender, and social status, among other things (Massey, 1990). For most migrants, the decision to relocate is part of a broad set of strategies that incorporate various jobs (remunerative and nonremunerative) to support the household and meet the needs of other members within the domestic group. Where and when possible, the mover’s efforts are pooled with those of others generating the resources necessary to thrive. In fact, surveys through the early part of the twenty-first century find that more than one-half of migrant households in rural Oaxaca, Mexico had pooled their resources to reach specific goals concerning education, home improvements, and business expansion. Supporting the opportunity to pool resources were the internal and external resources that defined a domestic group’s status and power (Gabayet & Lailson, 1991). Household members who pool and invest their time, energy, and resources (economic and social) in the maintenance and reproduction of self, domestic group, and community establish the opportunity to create dynamic networks and link to friends and family living far from their sending home.

MIGRATION AND COMMUNITY I have argued that the decision to migrate is generally a collective one and is influenced by the familial, local, and extra-local networks and forces available to movers and non-movers through time and across space (Hirabayashi, 1993). Nevertheless, migration is difficult to characterize, particularly using one-dimensional models. Instead, a household-based approach looks past moves, defines mobility through its historical growth, and follows the interaction among economic practices, cultural beliefs, class hierarchies, and ethnic identities, as they play out in nation-states, households, and communities. Furthermore, a household approach notes that mobilities and immobilities change (movers today may become non-movers tomorrow and as they settle into a new destination). Additionally, remittance use must be understood locally in terms of household decision-making and in response to the changing structure of the domestic groups involved, as well as forms of community participation. Movers and non-movers are heterogeneous, as are their households; moreover, all are influenced by social hierarchies, conflicts, debates, and collaborations. Households in different phases of their development carry their own strengths and weaknesses, and, therefore, the decision to migrate (or not) cannot be predetermined or associated simply with the desires of the mover. The decision to migrate is made in response to a series of potential outcomes that range from the selfish to the altruistic, from family maintenance to community investment, and, sometimes, to the mover’s exit from their home. In fact, movers who exit and turn away

304  Research handbook on the sociology of migration from sending households are making a household-based decision. Their absence carries emotional weight and potentially real social costs. These are movers who are often lost to their families. They may leave a space that cannot be replaced. Economically, their loss may be defined in monetary terms, but there are also the emotional costs, as well as costs that can affect family and community (Jones, 2020). The point is not to simply lament a loss and quantify what has disappeared. Rather, it is to understand that the outcomes of migration, even when they concern exit and loss are experienced by more than the mover; they are experienced by households. Furthermore, these outcomes are not exclusive or limited and they can change. The lost can return and the missing can and do change their minds creating new tensions. This can be the case when ‘missing’ children return to their sending home, when seniors retire to sending communities, and when new ways of working, learning, and establishing families occur (see also Haenn, 2020). Understanding how migrants and households are involved and engaged, even when the decisions being made reject immediate cooperation, is critical to making sense of mobility.

CONCLUSIONS The opening of this chapter contrasts a household approach to migration with scholarly work that characterizes the migrant as a ‘lone wolf’, typically informed by a xenophobic reading of movers. The xenophobe defines movers as independent, alone, and a potential threat to social life and cultural traditions, which can spread fear and sow misunderstandings. The xenophobe does nothing to humanize movers or to communicate their experiences, the experiences of the households and communities they call home, and the complexities of the world that surrounds them. It is critical to reject xenophobes and their approach to migration and to formulate a perspective on migration founded in the knowledge that movers and non-movers are cultural creatures, making decisions to best adapt to a difficult situation. When we frame migrants as independent movers and lone wolves, we cannot understand the household or the impacts and effects that mobility can have. Moreover, we cannot place non-movers and a community into our discussions. The complexities of migration demand that our analyses must go beyond a preoccupation with the individual, dependency, and development and instead understand the historically specific decisions and choices that movers make as members of households and communities.

REFERENCES Acevedo, J. (2020). Migrant remittances and demand for redistribution. Studies in Comparative International Development, 55(4), 403–435. Baker, J. O., Cañarte, D., & Day, L. E. (2018). Race, xenophobia, and punitiveness among the American public. The Sociological Quarterly, 59(3), 363–383. Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1992). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. London: Routledge. Brana-Shute, R., & Brana-Shute, G. (1982). The magnitude and impact of remittances in the Eastern Caribbean: A research note. In W. F. Stinner, K. de Albuquerque, & R. S. Bryce-Laporte (Eds.) Return migration and remittances: Developing a Caribbean perspective. RITES Occasional Papers, 3 (pp. 267–290). Washington, DC: Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies, Smithsonian Institution.

Sending communities, social spheres, and households  305 Brettell, C. B., & Hollifield, J. F. (2014). Migration theory: Talking across disciplines. New York: Routledge. Canizales, S. L., & Vallejo, J. A. (2021). Latinos & racism in the Trump era. Daedalus, 150(2), 150–164. Carling, J., & Schewel, K. (2018). Revisiting aspiration and ability in international migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 945–963. Cingolani, P., & Vietti, F. (2019). Social remittances and local development in the Republic of Moldova: A critical analysis of migrants as agents of change. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 19(4), 625–641. Cohen, J. H. (2004). The culture of migration in southern Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cohen, J. H., & Sirkeci, I. (2011). Cultures of migration: The global nature of contemporary movement. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cohen, J. H., & Sirkeci, I. (Eds.) (2021). Handbook of culture and migration. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Cohen, J. H., & Zotova, N. (2021). Rethinking remittance: The socioeconomic dynamics of giving for migrants and nonmigrants. Economic Anthropology, 8(2), 300–310. Conway, D., & Cohen, J. H. (2003). Local dynamics in multi‐local, transnational spaces of rural Mexico: Oaxacan experiences. International Journal of Population Geography, 9(2), 141–161. Diaz-Briquets, S. (1991). The effects of international migration on Latin America. In D. G. Papademetriou & P. L. Martin (Eds.) The unsettled relationship: Labor migration and economic development (pp. 183–200). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Faist, T. (1997). The crucial meso-level. In T. Hammar, G. Brochmann, K. Tamas, & T. Faist (Eds.) International migration, immobility and development: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 187–217). New York: Berg Publishing. Fojas, C. (2017). Zombies, migrants, and queers: Race and crisis capitalism in pop culture. Springfield: University of Illinois Press. Gabayet, L., & Lailson, S. (1991). The role of female wage earners in male migration in Guadalajara. In S. Diaz-Briquets & S. Weintraub (Eds.) The effects of receiving country policies on migration flows (pp. 175–203). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Guidi, M. (1993). ¿Es realmente la migración una estrategia de supervivencia? Un ejemplo en la Mixteca Alta Oaxaqueña. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 5, 89–109. Haenn, N. (2020). Marriage after migration: An ethnography of money, romance, and gender in globalizing Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirabayashi, L. R. (1993). Cultural capital: Mountain Zapotec migrant associations in Mexico City. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Jones, R. C. (2020). The decline of migrant transnationalism with time abroad. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(15), 2685–2704. Kearney, M. (1996). Reconceptualizing the peasantry: Anthropology in global perspective. New York: Routledge. Kulig, T. C., Graham, A., Cullen, F. T., Piquero, A. R., & Haner, M. (2021). ‘Bad hombres’ at the Southern US border? White nationalism and the perceived dangerousness of immigrants. Journal of Criminology, 54(3), 283–304. Massey, D. S. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 56(1), 3–26. Matute, I. D. (2021). Indigeneity as a transnational battlefield: Disputes over meanings, spaces and peoples. Globalizations, 18(2), 256–272. Nolin, C. L. (2002). Transnational ruptures and sutures: Questions of identity and social relations among Guatemalans in Canada. GeoJournal, 56(1), 59–67. Paerregaard, K. (2021). Remittances and belonging: Reading the social meaning of Peruvian migrants’ money. In J. H. Cohen & I. Sirkeci (Eds.) Handbook of culture and migration (pp. 301–312). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Reichert, J. S. (1981). The migrant syndrome: Seasonal US wage labor and rural development in central Mexico. Human Organization, 40, 56–66. Rouse, R. (1995). Questions of identity: Personhood and collectivity in transnational migration to the United States. Critique of Anthropology, 15(4), 351–380. Russell, S. S. (1992). Migrant remittances and development. International Migration, 30(3–4), 267–287.

306  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Sandoval-Cervantes, I. (2017). Navigating the city: Internal migration of Oaxacan indigenous women. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(5), 849–865. Sobiech, I. (2019). Remittances, finance and growth: Does financial development foster the impact of remittances on economic growth? World Development, 113, 44–59. Stephen, L. (2014). Indigenous transborder citizenship: FIOB Los Angeles and the Oaxaca social movement of 2006. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 9(2), 115–137. Tang, S. (2020). Determinants of migration and household member arrangement among poor rural households in China: The case of North Jiangsu. Population, Space and Place, 26(1), e2279. Verea, M. (2018). Anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican attitudes and policies during the first 18 months of the Trump Administration. Norteamérica, 13(2), 197–226. White, A. (2016). Social remittances and migration (sub-)cultures in contemporary Poland. Central and Eastern European Migration Review, 5(2), 63–80. Wilk, R. R. (1989). Decision making and resource flows within the household: Beyond the black box. In R. R. Wilk (Ed.) The household economy: Reconsidering the domestic mode of production (pp. 23–52). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wolpert, J. (1964). The decision process in spatial context. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 54(4), 537–558. Yang, D. (2015). International migration and remittances. In J. D. Wright (Ed.) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edition (pp. 519–524). Oxford: Elsevier. Zapata, G. P. (2019). Invisible development? Remittances for housing and transnational reproduction strategies among migrant households in Colombia. International Migration, 57(4), 21–39. Zotova, N., & Cohen, J. H. (2019). Class dynamics in Tajikistan: Development of urban middle class at the intersection of migration and capital. Population, Space and Place, 25(8), e2251.

25. Borders, embassies, and visas: the lessons of sociological lenses Federica Infantino

INTRODUCTION Borders, embassies, and visas have been analyzed using broader concepts that stem from sociological theories about (in)securitization (Huysmans, 2006; Bigo, Carrera, Guild, & Walker, 2016; Bigo, 2014) or pre-emptive risk management (Rea, 2017). More specific insights stem from the sociology of law, the sociology of organizations, socio-technical perspectives, actor-oriented border studies, critical security studies, and the political sociology of the international. This chapter provides an overview of the ways in which these sociological lenses have contributed to research on borders, embassies, and visas. It aims at fostering further research on the topic, not just by equipping the reader with up-to-date knowledge about existing work, generally addressed at bridging knowledge ‘gaps’, but also by stressing why these approaches matter and are worth studying and building upon. Reviewing the existing body of literature is a crucial endeavor to reveal the workings of borders, embassies, and visas, and how migrants experience these social spheres. In this chapter, I present two main arguments. First, migrants, or more precisely, would-be migrants or would-be travelers, are fundamentally categorized. Within the frame of their interactions with displaced borders like embassies and borders consisting of documents such as visas, categories of desirable and undesirable migrants/travelers are socially constructed. Border spaces, either at the edges of or away from state territories, aim at identifying and filtering out ‘risks’, rather than merely blocking entry. My second argument posits that migration is highly significant in these spaces, precisely because embassies and visas can be understood as spheres of risk management aimed at letting ‘some’ migrants/travelers pass while stopping ‘others’. To support future research on this topic, I tackle the methodological aspects of studying embassies and visas, most notably the pitfalls of such research and how to avoid them, also discussing the relevant ethical considerations. Conducting empirically grounded research in these social spheres often implies handling secrecy, for both qualitative and quantitative researchers. The remainder of the chapter unfolds as follows. I begin by showing how the sociology of the state in historical perspective allows for situating visas within the history of modern nation-state formation and the history of bureaucratic identification techniques. Both histories stand at the heart of the fundamental process of categorizing citizens and non-citizens. I continue by elaborating the practice perspective in border and migration studies and the contribution it has made to analyses of visas, both from the point of view of the state and the targets of control. Such a perspective has profound implications for the sociology of migration, most notably, the effects on migration dynamics and, ultimately, for the analyses of state capacity to control migration. Before drawing conclusions and indicating directions for future research, I discuss some methodological considerations for conducting successful empirical research on visas and embassies. 307

308  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

NOW AND THEN, ‘US’ AND ‘THEM’ To make sense of borders, embassies, and visas in the contemporary era, historical perspectives prove particularly fruitful. Visas are the policy instruments of an old strategy that the historian Zolberg (1999) has termed ‘remote control’; in other words, visas seek to control migration away from borders and before actual arrival on a given territory. Zolberg’s analyses focus on the invention of carrier sanctions and the introduction of visa requirements to control migration in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. The United States started to hold ship companies accountable for transporting migrants with the right documents under the penalty of having to return them in case of errors. Such a practice still exists, and the cooperation of carriers tends to be ensured through levying fines. Considered one of the most striking examples of the involvement of non-state actors in border control and the shifting of sovereignty outwards, this practice actually strengthens the capacity of states to control migration (Guiraudon, 2000). The introduction of visa requirements implies that the state displaces migration control in countries of departure, in embassies and consulates abroad, therefore reinforcing its capacity to govern migration at a distance—a cost-effective strategy that also assuages public anxieties. From the point of view of the state, pre-empting the arrival of (undesirable) migrants on the national territory saves the human and financial resources involved in receiving and/or returning such migrants. At the same time, policy instruments that aim at strengthening border controls, such as visas, walls, fences, technologies, cooperation with other states, or the use of military force, give the impression that the state is ‘doing something’. These kinds of measures are always successful in their expressive function, whether or not they achieve their stated goal, namely, stopping irregular/undesirable migration (Andreas & Snyder, 2000). Governing migration at a distance through remote control strategies still characterizes the contemporary logic of border control in the wealthiest liberal democracies (Andreas & Snyder, 2000; FitzGerald, 2019; Guiraudon, 2003; Zaiotti, 2016). Historical analyses of visas have shown how they are closely intertwined with nation building and the constitution of modern nation-states. In addition to Zolberg’s work, another example is Torpey’s study of the invention of the passport. Torpey (2000) asserts that modern international passport and visa systems are relatively new, originating during the First World War. Passports and visas have contributed to the building of modern nation-states because they are instruments through which states have monopolized the ‘legitimate means of movement’. According to this theory of the state, ‘state-ness’ consists of more than just a monopoly over the legitimate means of violence. Modern nation-states have monopolized the authority to issue permissions to cross state borders, which also allows for the unambiguous identification of crossers. By controlling the means of movement, the state defines its territory, and, thus, its borders. It also defines identities and establishes forms of belonging. The history of the state can be illustrated by studying the history of bureaucratic techniques of identification (Caplan & Torpey, 2001), which have certainly contributed to the emergence of a clear connection between the unambiguous borders of state territories and the boundaries of identities delineating ‘us’ and ‘them’. Visas help trace the historical lines of identification techniques, through which the modern nation-state defines its territory, the people who belong to it, and those who are authorized to cross borders. Consider the case of EU visa policy and the Schengen visa, which authorizes entry into the territory of multiple nation-states. The connection between the Schengen visa and the history of identification techniques, nowadays characterized by more sophisticated

Borders, embassies, and visas: the lessons of sociological lenses  309 technologies, has led to the definition of the Schengen visa as an instrument of ‘policing at a distance’ (Bigo & Guild, 2005). Such policing strategy is crucial to the construction of the territory of the European Union and of those who do (not) belong to it, just as identity cards and passports have been crucial to the construction of national borders and boundaries. Identification techniques build on a specific and centuries-old bureaucratic endeavor, ‘the people-tracking paradigm’, characterized by the need to accumulate more and more information about people (Noiriel, 2001). For their role in authorizing cross-border movements, defining legitimate movements, and filtering out non-legitimate crossers, visa systems profoundly rely on the accumulation of information about prospective travelers, most notably in an age of global integration and accelerated mobility in which letting ‘some’ pass is key. The case of the Schengen visa is exemplary in that respect. The logic of the Schengen system relies on the identification of potential ‘risks’ from a distance, that is, before actual arrival on a particular territory. Information gathering to identify and pre-empt the arrival of potential risks on the Schengen territory accomplishes the filtering work of European borders, aimed at facilitating and speeding up the mobility of some travelers while stopping others. Therefore, the border is ‘activated’ according to the identification of potential risks (Guild, 2001). Identification of risks, information gathering, and filtering are all reinforced by the objective of ‘smartening’ border control, which, according to European institutional proponents, works to ‘modernize and strengthen the control of our external borders, while at the same time trying to make border crossing smoother and faster for the vast majority of all the travellers that come to Europe’ (Jeandesboz, 2016, p. 297). The identification of risks and information gathering with an aim at more efficient filtering underline several categorizations at the level of policy design, including the introduction of visa requirements to the populations of foreign countries, as well as visa policy implementation, the day-to-day issuance of visas. As Bigo and Guild (2005) have suggested, the logic underlying the imposition of visa requirements tends to shift from security concerns as regards states, moving towards the migratory and security risks that citizens of foreign states may pose. A classical principle of international relations, namely, that the state characterizes individuals and visa introduction sanctions governments and politics, tends to shift towards the sanctioning of individual practices (ostensibly) posing risks in terms of migration and public order. Several datasets concerning the introduction and lifting of visa requirements at a global scale have pointed to the overall lack of reciprocity and the reproduction of global inequalities through visa regimes. Countries that face a low number of visa impositions are not among the countries that impose fewer visa restrictions (Neumayer, 2006). A large-N, cross-country comparison of visa waiver policies over time (from 1968 to 2010) has led to the definition of a ‘global mobility divide’ (Mau, Gülzau, Laube, & Zaun, 2015), reflecting the increasing discrepancies in mobility rights. While citizens of OECD countries can travel visa-free to a growing number of countries, those from non-OECD countries are increasingly restricted through visa obligations. While extensive mobility rights are granted to citizens from wealthy democracies, OECD countries do little to strengthen or grant these rights to non-wealthy and non-democratic countries. In the case of EU visa policy, the map of foreign countries whose citizens can travel visa-free to the Schengen Area overlaps almost perfectly with the map of the wealthiest countries in the world (Michalon et al., 2019). Restrictiveness has characterized the Europeanization of visa policy (Meloni, 2006), since the common list of countries whose nationals are subject to visa requirements results from the accumulation of national restrictions (Infantino, 2019), therefore determining a significant policy change for those countries that

310  Research handbook on the sociology of migration have never used visa policy as an external mechanism of migration control (Sciortino, 1999). The DEMIG Visa dataset (Czaika, de Haas, & Villares-Varela, 2018) has shown that the regionalization of visa lifting and visa restrictions is particularly meaningful. Visa-free travel is increasingly realized within regional blocs or among OECD countries. The connection between mobility and global inequalities has also been questioned through the analysis of visa costs. Using the Global Visa Cost Dataset, which includes the official costs of different types of visas, Recchi and colleagues (Recchi, Deutschmann, Gabrielli, & Kholmatova, 2021, p. 4) find that ‘the richer a country, the less its citizens have to pay for visas to go abroad … the poor get poorer and the rich stay rich’. Requiring authorization to enter a territory does not necessarily imply that an entire population should be kept outside of its borders. Visas and embassies are meant to achieve the twofold objective of borders, namely, stopping some while letting others pass. Because filtering matters more than blocking, the day-to-day work of the organizations that issue visas warrants analytical attention. Building on the practice turn in contemporary theory, sociological perspectives on public policies, law, and organizations, the study of how categorization actually works on the ground and the effects of visa policies has been the subject of a growing body of scholarly literature.

PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES IN BORDER AND MIGRATION STUDIES The capacity to gather information concerning risks plays an important role in the filtering work of borders. However, little is known about the ways in which filtering works on the ground. Engaging with the ‘practice turn’ in contemporary theory helps fill this lacuna. Following Schatzki (2001, p. 2), ‘The “practice approach” can thus be demarcated as all analyses that (1) develop an account of practices, either the field of practices or some subdomain thereof (e.g., science), or (2) treat the field of practices as the place to study the nature and transformation of their subject matter’. The concept of practice has attracted the attention of thinkers from diverse disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, history, anthropology, and science and technology studies. They tend to agree on the understanding of practice as ‘embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity centrally organized around shared practical understanding’ (Schatzki, 2001, p. 2). Practice is a key perspective for the study of the dynamics shaping contemporary border control. Border studies have embraced the critical approach by engaging in a conceptual shift from the notion of borders to the more political, sociological, and actor-oriented notion of bordering and bordering practices (Parker & Vaughan-Williams, 2012), which take into account the ways in which borders are performed in the everyday context. Andersen and colleagues (Andersen, Klatt, & Sandberg, 2012) advance the notion of the ‘border multiple’, the result of the multiple practices through which borders are constructed. The everyday practices of the plurality of power-brokers involved in the securing of borders is a specific field of inquiry that warrants additional analytical focus (Côté-Boucher, Infantino, & Salter, 2014). Practice perspectives draw attention to the ways in which actors and organizations understand and construct borders on the ground, leading to renewed interest in policy implementation and the application of laws. A growing strand of research has focused on practice (Dörrenbächer & Mastenbroek, 2019; Eule, Loher, & Wyss, 2017; Infantino & Sredanovic, 2022; Jordan, Stråth, & Triandafyllidou, 2003; Kalir, 2019) while addressing a fundamental empirical issue,

Borders, embassies, and visas: the lessons of sociological lenses  311 one that, in the words of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, characterizes the ‘sociological vision’. As Bourdieu (1994, p. 17) has noted, ‘[T]he sociological vision cannot ignore the discrepancy between the official norm as stipulated in administrative law and the reality of bureaucratic practice’. Empirically grounded analyses of the practices that put migration control into action have shown that actors on the ground actually solve dilemmas that remain unsolved at the level of policy formulation, for example, employers’ demands for undocumented immigrant workers or contract workers and nation-state demands for secure borders and immigration control (Calavita, 1992; Heyman, 1995). Practice perspectives raise empirically puzzling issues such as intra-national or inter-national variation. Why do similar or the same policies or laws have different outcomes? Some scholars have found that it is a matter of local politics (Eule, 2016) or policy legacies and national sense-making (Infantino, 2019). Practice perspectives contribute to the fundamental questions within migration studies. As Ellermann (2009, p. 152) asserts: ‘[I]t is ironic that a literature focused on the question of state capacity has largely ignored the policy area – and the actors – arguably the most critical to state capacity’. State capacity varies across policy stages whereas the politics of migration control shifts along the entire length of the policy cycle. Therefore, the study of policy implementation should be brought back into migration studies.

IMPLEMENTING AND RESISTING VISAS In the specific area of visa policy, Czaika and de Haas (2014) have pointed to the much-needed consideration of policy implementation, with regard to analyzing the effects of visa policy on international migration dynamics. The issue at stake is the relationship between irregular migration and visa issuance. As Finotelli and Sciortino (2013, p. 82) point out: ‘Given the importance of visa overstaying in the reproduction of the irregular foreign population in Europe, it is surprising how little attention has been given to this phenomenon’. Given that institutional studies (European Commission, 2008) and scientific literature (De Haas, 2007; Triandafyllidou, 2010) point to visa overstayers as the most significant source of irregular migrants, the supply of visas becomes particularly relevant, not just in terms of output, or the volume of visas issued to different countries, but also in terms of the ways in which visa decisions are made, which reflect the categories to be excluded. To what extent is irregular migration a concern for the practitioners that implement visa policy? Counterintuitive findings emerge, such as those deriving from a comparative study of decision-making on Schengen visa applications in migrant-sending countries like Morocco (Infantino, 2021). The study shows that decision-making is mainly informed by a specific understanding of the migratory ‘risk’ that very different EU countries share, which is the ‘risk of lawful settlement’, rather than the risk of undocumented migration, despite claims that the objective of visa policy is to curtail irregular migration and that evidence suggests many undocumented migrants are visa overstayers. At the implementation stage, visa policy is more about strengthening state capacity to stem migration as such and the fight against the ‘juridical capital’ (Infantino, 2021) that foreigners might mobilize to stay in a country lawfully and enjoy rights, most notably, welfare rights. Therefore, it can be argued that the understanding of visa policy as an instrument for controlling undocumented migration is not translated into practice. The ways in which visa officials make use of their discretion in the assessment of the migratory ‘risk’ remains a key empirical issue. Scholars have shown that fear of fraud, gut feelings, organizational settings,

312  Research handbook on the sociology of migration and practical or local knowledge are particularly meaningful (Alpes & Spire, 2014; Infantino & Rea, 2012; Satzewich, 2015; Zampagni, 2016). The state capacity to control migration and the effects of policy instruments like visas on international migration dynamics cannot be fully grasped without adopting a practice perspective, which examines both day-to-day state practices and the ways in which the targets of control respond to them. Researchers have documented not only visa applicants’ strategies and the ways in which they experience visa policies (Gaibazzi, 2014; Scheel, 2018) but also the actors and the economies involved in obtaining visas. These studies suggest that economies develop in response to the opacity and lack of information that surround bureaucratic procedures or to the circumvention of restrictions (Alpes, 2017; Berg & Tamagno, 2013; Cogua-Lopez, 2012; Hernández-León, 2020; Zampagni, 2016). The concept of a ‘migration industry’ has guided many theoretical and empirical studies on visas and beyond. Coined by Castles and Miller (2003), the term refers to one of the intermediate mechanisms that connects micro and macro structures (such as household decisions and global inequality) which, taken in concert, determine international migratory movements. Hernández-León defines the migration industry as an ‘ensemble of entrepreneurs who, motivated by the pursuit of financial gain, provide a variety of services facilitating human mobility across international borders’ (2008, p. 154). While networks, social capital, and individual human capital can be characterized as the ‘engines of immigration’ (Phillips & Massey, 2000), the migration industry enters into the picture as the ‘oil that greases the engines of international migration’ (Hernández-León, 2008). The research on the migration industry that focuses on the illegal and informal activities sustaining and shaping mobility processes tends to reflect the interests of receiving countries. Therefore, some social-scientific literature has sought to avoid such a state-driven bias and has included regular and licit activities (Düvell & Preiss, 2023), the marketization of migration management (Gammeltoft-Hansen & Sørensen, 2013), and the business of controlling migration and borders (Andersson, 2014), such as the outsourcing of visa procedures to transnational corporations (Infantino, 2016). The migration industry that has developed to implement or resist visa procedures also affects migration dynamics and policy outcomes. Visa policy in practice, from the twofold perspective of implementing and resisting visas, helps to understand the effects and outcomes of border control policies and practices. However, while the strategies to circumvent the filtering work of borders receive much analytical attention, the actual filtering work of borders via visa policy implementation remains a ‘black box’. The issue of access to research settings often characterized by secrecy is central here, which helps to explain the lack of studies about visa policy implementation. Recent academic work has highlighted the ethical concerns related to security settings and disclosure (Côté-Boucher et al., 2014) and the widespread difficulties in obtaining research access (Kalir, Achermann, & Rosset, 2019; De Goede, Bosma, & Pallister-Wilkins, 2019). Both factors contribute to the invisibility of practices while reducing the scope of public scrutiny and critique, understood as a movement towards questioning taken-for-granted assumptions and policy-driven research. Next, I tackle these issues by suggesting some ‘tricks of the trade’ that can be used for conducting successful research in such a sensitive setting.

Borders, embassies, and visas: the lessons of sociological lenses  313

HANDLING SECRECY, BEFRIENDING SUSPICION: METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Because they are associated with symbolic representations of state sovereignty, national interests, and national security, embassies, visas, and borders can be a difficult research topic. Undermining these representations is a potential pitfall. At the same time, failing to acknowledge similarities with other research settings represents a second, complementary trap. Being prepared for ‘handling secrecy’ and ‘befriending suspicion’ is especially salient when it comes to conducting qualitative, fieldwork-based research, including interviews and/ or participant observation with various stakeholders: state officials at different hierarchical levels—from the agents deciding upon visa applications to the highly ranking personnel of ministries—or employees and managers in private companies carrying out tasks connected to the visa application process. However, not only qualitative researchers must be prepared to face secretive settings. Scholars who seek to create large datasets about the introduction of visa requirements, designed to question policy change and its impact on international migration dynamics or unequal access to mobility rights, have experienced difficulties in obtaining information that many political actors aim at keeping under the radar. Often, visa requirements are introduced or lifted with an exchange of letters between Foreign Affairs Ministries; consequently, the records of these types of decisions are difficult to track. To obtain available and reliable data, Czaika and de Haas (2014), Neumayer (2006), and Mau et al. (2015) have used the Travel Information Manuals of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which, according to Czaika and de Haas (2014, p. 8), are ‘a reliable source, published to provide airline companies with accurate, up-to-date information on actual policies so as to avoid them being confronted with carrier sanctions and other penalties by immigration authorities’. Further, Recchi et al. (2021) recount the difficulties in finding information about visa policies, visa requirements, and visa costs in certain countries. To compile the Global Visa Cost Dataset, Recchi et al. (2021) have manually retrieved data about visa costs from governmental websites, a complex and time-consuming data gathering process. Quantitative research also uses issuance and rejection rates, a form of data that might be considered ‘sensitive’. When published, these statistics might be missing crucial information (e.g., type of visa, travel purpose) and prove difficult to use, especially for comparative research, as different states might have different kinds of visas and/or assemble data about typologies of visas in very different ways. Issuance rates reveal the asymmetries among the world’s regions, for example, the different EU visa supply towards Mediterranean and Eastern European countries (Finotelli & Sciortino, 2013). Rejection rates provide hints about variation in practices across time or countries (Infantino, 2019). In such cases, qualitative approaches can complement these findings, illuminating the dynamics behind the variations observed. For qualitative approaches to the practices of visa policy, the issue of obtaining access to the public and private organizations that put visa policy into action is crucial. As Goffman has noted (1989), empirical research entails three general problems: getting into a place, the exploitation of that place, and, finally, getting out of that place. Some tips can be drawn from the experience of other researchers who have addressed issues of access: by privileging informal and local approaches to obtain authorization for research, rather than more formal approaches like writing letters to central ministries, or by using a comparative research design, often considered more legitimate, especially in the European context (Infantino, 2019); by identifying ‘gatekeepers’, namely, colleagues who have the right contacts or can provide

314  Research handbook on the sociology of migration advice (Satzewich, 2015; Scheel, 2018); or by conducting participant observation in the form of traineeships or internships (Infantino, 2019; Zampagni, 2016). When studying visa policy in practice from the point of view of the state, to fully ‘exploit the place’ and produce reliable data, one should not exaggerate the secrecy that characterizes embassies and visas. After all, these security settings consist of workplaces like any other. Secrecy can characterize any workplace, whether embassies or post offices. An outsider inevitably arouses suspicion. Usually, the passage of time and informal settings can quiet suspicions while developing a rapport with respondents based on trust. Like any other administrative office, embassies and visa offices represent the realm of mundane routines, repetitiveness, and even boredom. An element of novelty, like a researcher, interested in somebody’s job, might actually provoke curiosity and positive reactions. Routines, everyday knowledge, and ways of doing things prevail, providing ample material for qualitative researchers. Street-level bureaucracies that deal with border control are often considered arenas of arbitrariness. The lack of research and the difficulties involved in obtaining access contribute to this perception. Empirical research can actually shed light on the routines and patterns of organizational action to help make sense of these often obscure social worlds. Secrecy and suspicion also surround empirical research on strategies for circumventing visa procedures and the economies involved, especially when they are illicit and/or informal. The issue of vulnerability is more salient in this area although low-level employees in embassies must also be protected. Customary social-scientific standards concerning the anonymity of sources and the omission of details that could facilitate identification of sources must be employed. When it comes to researching strategies by targets of control, researchers are faced with the particular ethical dilemma concerning ‘leakage’ from the fieldwork setting, namely, the disclosure of sensitive information that could be used against respondents. This kind of dilemma is less relevant when it comes to disclosing the dynamics that pertain to places of power such as bordering organizations. Conducting empirical research on power or resistance is ethically challenging. As Goffman (1989) has noted, any fieldworker is a sort of spy. However, the effect of the information disclosed varies based on power relations.

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This chapter has addressed the connections between borders, visas, and embassies by examining the fundamental relations between modern nation-state formation and the bureaucratic instruments that define unambiguous identities while allowing cross-border movements. Visas and embassies enter into play as the instruments that fulfill the filtering action of borders, in which populations are categorized according to a specific logic, namely, the proactive management of risk, at a distance, before actual arrival on the territory. The state ordering of population movements cannot be completely understood without taking account of what happens on the ground, both from the point of view of the implementation of control and resistance to it. The analytical approaches developed in this chapter follow the lines of a significant body of literature that has focused on the topic of visas: first, on visas and the history of nation-state formation, border control, and nation building, seeing visas as policy instruments of control and as means that reproduce global asymmetries and divides; second, on connecting visas to broader debates about practice perspectives; and third, on the resistance and the economies involved. Some aspects are less documented than others; for instance, there is little empirical

Borders, embassies, and visas: the lessons of sociological lenses  315 research on the practices that put visa policies into action, not least because of the difficulties in obtaining research access to security settings, an often-discussed topic in the scholarly literature. Research on visas entails careful methodological and ethical considerations, which serve as directions for future research. Building on existing work, I suggest four topics that could be explored and developed further: the effectiveness of strategies and economies aimed at circumventing visa procedures; the implementation of visa policies and their filtering actions in multiple geographical contexts; the privileging of comparative perspectives to investigate the similarities and differences in the state/non-state practices and processes that account for the diffusion of practices; and the interdependence between state practices and the strategies that support and shape would-be migrant and would-be traveler strategies.

FURTHER LISTENING Visas have inspired an incredible number of songs. The following list includes a small but representative sample of music production about visas in different geographical contexts and historical periods. Abdelaziz Stati. 2014. Visa oul Passeport Amadou et Mariam. 2005. Senegal fastfood Juan Luis Guerra. 1989. Visa Para un Sueño Luis Mariano. 1961. Visa pour l’amour M.I.A. 2008. Paper Planes

REFERENCES Alpes, M. J. (2017). Brokering high-risk migration and illegality in West Africa: Abroad at any cost. New York: Routledge. Alpes, M. J., & Spire, A. (2014). Dealing with law in migration control: The powers of street-level bureaucrats at French consulates. Social & Legal Studies, 23(2), 261–274. Andersen, D. J., Klatt, M., & Sandberg, M. (Eds.) (2012). The border multiple: The practicing of borders between public policy and everyday life in a re-scaling Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate. Andersson, R. (2014). Illegality, Inc.: Clandestine migration and the business of bordering Europe. Oakland: University of California Press. Andreas, P., & Snyder, T. (Eds.) (2000). The wall around the west: State borders and immigration controls in North America and Europe. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Berg, U. D., & Tamagno, C. (2013). Migration brokers and document fixers: The making of migrant subjects in urban Peru. In T. Gammeltoft-Hansen & N. N. Sørensen (Eds.) The migration industry and the commercialization of international migration (pp. 190–214). New York: Routledge. Bigo, D. (2014). The (in)securitization practices of the three universes of EU border control: Military/ navy–border guards/police–database analysts. Security Dialogue, 45(3), 209–225. Bigo, D., Carrera, S., Guild, E., & Walker, R. B. J. (Eds.) (2016). Europe’s 21st century challenge: Delivering liberty. New York: Routledge. Bigo, D., & Guild, E. (2005). Policing at a distance: Schengen visa policies. In D. Bigo & E. Guild (Eds.) Controlling frontiers: Free movement into and within Europe (pp. 233–263). Aldershot: Ashgate. Bourdieu, P. (1994). Rethinking the state: Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 1–18. Calavita, K. (1992). Inside the state: The Bracero program, immigration, and the INS. New York: Routledge.

316  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Caplan, J., & Torpey, J. C. (Eds.) (2001). Documenting individual identity: The development of state practices in the modern world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2003). The age of migration, 3rd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cogua-Lopez, J. (2012). Colombian fiancées, international marriage brokers, and the migration industry. The Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies, 4(2), 26–44. Côté-Boucher, K., Infantino, F., & Salter, M. B. (2014). Border security as practice: An agenda for research. Security Dialogue, 45(3), 195–208. Czaika, M., & de Haas, H. (2014). The effect of visa policies on international migration dynamics. DEMIG project working paper 89. Retrieved from https://​www​.migrationinstitute​.org/​publications/​ wp​-89​-14. Czaika, M., de Haas, H., & Villares-Varela, M. (2018). The global evolution of travel visa regimes. Population and Development Review, 44(3), 589–622. De Goede, M., Bosma, E., & Pallister-Wilkins, P. (Eds.) (2019). Secrecy and methods in security research: A guide to qualitative fieldwork. London: Routledge. De Haas, H. (2007). The myth of invasion: Irregular migration from West Africa to the Maghreb and the European Union. Oxford: International Migration Institute. Dörrenbächer, N., & Mastenbroek, E. (2019). Passing the buck? Analyzing the delegation of discretion after transposition of European Union law. Regulation & Governance, 13(1), 70–85. Düvell, F., & Preiss, C. (Eds.) (2023). Migration infrastructures. Special issue of Comparative Migration Studies, 11(1). Ellerman, A. (2009). States against migrants: Deportation in Germany and the US. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eule, T. G. (2016). Inside immigration law: Migration management and policy application in Germany. London: Routledge. Eule, T. G., Loher, D., & Wyss, A. (2017). Contested control at the margins of the state. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(16), 2717–2729. European Commission (2008). New tools for an integrated border management strategy. Memo 8/85. Brussels: European Commission. Finotelli, C., & Sciortino, G. (2013). Through the gates of the fortress: European visa policies and the limits of immigration control. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 14(1), 80–101. FitzGerald, D. S. (2019). Refuge beyond reach: How rich democracies repel asylum seekers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gaibazzi, P. (2014). Visa problem: Certification, kinship, and the production of ‘ineligibility’ in the Gambia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 20(1), 38–55. Gammeltoft-Hansen, T., & Sørensen, N. N. (Eds.) (2013). The migration industry and the commercialization of international migration. London: Routledge. Goffman, E. (1989). On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18(2), 123–132. Guild, E. (2001). Moving the borders of Europe. Inaugural Lecture, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Retrieved from https://​cmr​.jur​.ru​.nl/​cmr/​docs/​oratie​.eg​.pdf. Guiraudon, V. (2000). European integration and migration policy: Vertical policy‐making as venue shopping. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), 251–271. Guiraudon, V. (2003). Before the EU border: Remote control of the ‘huddled masses’. In K. Groenendijk, E. Guild, & P. Minderhoud (Eds.) In search of Europe’s borders (pp. 191–214). The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Hernández-León, R. (2008). Metropolitan migrants: The migration of urban Mexicans to the United States. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Hernández-León, R. (2020). The work that brokers do: The skills, competences and know-how of intermediaries in the H-2 visa programme. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(10), 2341–2358. Heyman, J., McC. (1995). Putting power in the anthropology of bureaucracy: The Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Mexico–United States Border. Current Anthropology, 36(2), 261–287. Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.

Borders, embassies, and visas: the lessons of sociological lenses  317 Infantino, F. (2016). Outsourcing border control: Politics and practice of contracted visa policy in Morocco. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Infantino, F. (2019). Schengen visa implementation and transnational policymaking: Bordering Europe. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Infantino, F. (2021). How does policy change at the street level? Local knowledge, a community of practice and EU visa policy implementation in Morocco. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(5), 1028–1046. Infantino, F., & Rea, A. (2012). La mobilisation d’un savoir pratique local: attribution des visas Schengen au Consulat général de Belgique à Casablanca. Sociologies pratiques, 1, 67–78. Infantino, F., & Sredanovic, D. (Eds.) (2022). Migration control in practice: Before and within the borders of the state. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles. Jeandesboz, J. (2016). Smartening border security in the European Union: An associational inquiry. Security Dialogue, 47(4), 292–309. Jordan, B., Stråth, B., & Triandafyllidou, A. (2003). Contextualising immigration policy implementation in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(2), 195–224. Kalir, B. (2019). Repressive compassion: Deportation caseworkers furnishing an emotional comfort zone in encounters with illegalized migrants. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 42, 68–84. Kalir, B., Achermann, C., & Rosset, D. (2019). Re‐searching access: What do attempts at studying migration control tell us about the state? Social Anthropology, 27, 5–16. Mau, S., Gülzau, F., Laube, L., & Zaun, N. (2015). The global mobility divide: How visa policies have evolved over time. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(8), 1192–1213. Meloni, A. (2006). Visa policy within the European Union structure. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media. Michalon, B., Clochard, O., Akoka, K., Bacon, L., Blanchard, E., Carrère, V., … Wender, A. S. (2019). The atlas of migration in Europe: A critical geography of migration policies. London: Routledge. Neumayer, E. (2006). Unequal access to foreign spaces: How states use visa restrictions to regulate mobility in a globalized world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(1), 72–84. Noiriel, G. (2001). The identification of citizens: The birth of the republican civil state. In J. Caplan & J. Torpey (Eds.) Documenting individual identity: The development of state practices in the modern world (pp. 28–48). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Parker, N., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2012). Critical border studies: Broadening and deepening the ‘lines in the sand’ agenda. Geopolitics, 17(4), 727–733. Phillips, J. A., & Massey, D. S. (2000). Engines of immigration: Stocks of human and social capital in Mexico. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 33–48. Rea, A. (2017). The network-border: The articulation of mobility and immobilization. In H. Bousetta, C. Zickgraf, & L.-A. Bernes (Eds.) Migration, mobility and borders in the Western Mediterranean (pp. 32–52). London: Routledge. Recchi, E., Deutschmann, E., Gabrielli, L., & Kholmatova, N. (2021). The global visa cost divide: How and why the price for travel permits varies worldwide. Political Geography, 86, 102350. Satzewich, V. (2015). Points of entry: How Canada’s immigration officers decide who gets in. Vancouver: UBC Press. Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.) The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Abingdon: Routledge. Scheel, S. (2018). Real fake? Appropriating mobility via Schengen visa in the context of biometric border controls. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(16), 2747–2763. Sciortino, G. (1999). Planning in the dark: The evolution of Italian immigration control. In G. Brochmann & H. Hammar (Eds.) Mechanisms of immigration control (pp. 233–260). Oxford: Berg. Torpey, J. (2000). The invention of the passport: Surveillance, citizenship and the state. New York: Cambridge University Press. Triandafyllidou, A. (Ed.) (2010). Irregular migration in Europe: Myths and realities. Aldershot: Ashgate. Zaiotti, R. (Ed.) (2016). Externalizing migration management: Europe, North America and the spread of ‘remote control’ practices. London: Routledge.

318  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Zampagni, F. (2016). Unpacking the Schengen visa regime: A study on bureaucrats and discretion in an Italian consulate. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 31(2), 251–266. Zolberg, A. (1999). Matters of state: Theorizing immigration policy. In C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, & J. DeWind (Eds.) The handbook of international migration: The American experience (pp. 71–93). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

26. Workplaces and labor markets Mattia Vitiello

INTRODUCTION The need to find a job is one of the main incentives for migration, just as the need to find a workforce for the production process is one of the strongest pull factors. Labor, as both a push and pull factor, turns the labor market into a central issue in the analysis of migration processes. This assertion is true when one wants to explain why migrants leave, as well as why migrants choose certain arrival countries. But the labor market is also fundamental in explaining the integration processes of migrants once they arrive in destination countries. Belonging to the labor market is a significant regulating factor in integration pathways, starting with the fact that it influences the legal status of immigrants, and determines their living conditions and the set of rights and welfare services they can access.

THE LABOR MARKET AS DRIVER Migration is the result of a complex mechanism influenced by many drivers that concern several dimensions, at the micro level of individuals and at the macro level of structural determinants. These drivers influence different social spheres: economic, political, social, and psychological. One of the first attempts to identify the ‘laws’ of migration was undertaken by Ernst Georg Ravenstein (1885). Among his eleven hypotheses, he mentions the decisive importance of economic factors; for instance, the interaction between the supply and demand of labor is most prominent in initiating and determining the extent of migration flows. The first theoretical framework regarding the economic factors of migratory movements was provided by ‘marginalism’, focusing on marginal utility and becoming the foundation of neoclassical economic theory, in addition to classical and Marxist theory. This framework applies concepts developed to explain the mobility of production factors, such as land, capital and labor, and international trade, to migration. The most complete and well-known theoretical model is the one developed by Harris and Todaro (1970) to explain rural–urban migration, extended to include international migration. According to this model, the migration decision is based on the expected income differentials between the departure area and the arrival area, rather than on real wage differentials alone. Therefore, migratory flows increase if the salaries in destination areas increase, i.e. the expected income increases; if unemployment in destination areas decreases, the expected income increases; if the creation of jobs in the target areas increases the number of jobs available, then the expected income increases. Equilibrium is reached when the expected income in destination areas is equal to the marginal product of the potential migrant worker and unemployment disappears in the origin areas. Judging this model from within the perspective of marginalism, it basically suffers from two limitations. The first consists in neglecting the risk propensity of potential migrants, which could lead them to increase the amount of the expected income in relation to an increase in 319

320  Research handbook on the sociology of migration the risk related to the movement or vice versa. The second limitation is represented by the underestimation of the transaction costs (Williamson, 1985) incurred by the potential migrant in obtaining the necessary information for the calculation of the expected income, which could have an effect of overestimating or underestimating the expected income. By translating the assumptions of marginal economic theory (the neoclassical approach) from the individual (micro) to the collective (macro) level, it emerges that the decisive explanatory factor for economic migration would lie in the interaction between supply and demand in the international labor market. In this regard, the theoretical inference or argument is that proposed by Heckscher-Ohlin, which considers migration and trade as substitutes, arguing that both trade and labor migration lead to an equalization of the costs of production factors. In this context, if a country exports labor-intensive goods, this export can be considered equivalent to that of labor. Thus, the theoretical predictions of trade theory regarding commodity flows can be applied symmetrically to migration (Ethier, 1985; Mundel, 1957). Other authors draw attention to the role of unemployment rates, noting how the presence of unemployment in countries with an abundant supply of labor can have a positive net effect on migration, an effect that is reflected in the demand for labor by areas with low levels of unemployment (Jennissen, 2003). The drivers considered by the approaches presented so far can be grouped into two overarching categories: one formed by the drivers that push emigration in origin countries (push effect) and a second group, which attracts migratory flows in destination countries (pull effects). Without the mutual and combined action of these two groups of drivers, there would be no migration. The economic theories of migration that draw their assumptions from the approach of marginalism (neoclassical) consider the demand for labor (pull effect) as a fundamental driver. The forecast for the migration of workers from countries with high unemployment rates (push effects) to those with low rates (pull effects), however, clashes with the presence of high rates of immigration in some areas of high unemployment. This scenario occurs because the economic theories previously illustrated consider the supply and demand for labor as homogeneous sets within them. Regarding the division into segments of the labor market, the demand for labor in immigration countries is divided into segments that offer high-paying jobs and segments for unskilled jobs. The lower pay makes the secondary sector unattractive for native-born/autochthonous workers so these jobs remain available for immigrants who are more motivated to work in these low-level jobs because the expected income is higher than that in their areas of origin (Piore, 1979). Therefore, in the analysis we must consider the labor demand in its composition by economic sectors (agriculture, industry, services) and in its qualitative composition (skilled or unskilled jobs) for the various segments. But also the job offer for migrants has great internal differentiations that give rise to different migratory behaviors. And in making predictions, it is necessary to understand on what basis migrants make their migration choices. The human capital approach takes into account the differences in the endowment of human capital (primarily defined through the level of education) and their effects on migratory choices. According to this approach, emigration is an individual investment that aims at increasing the productivity of the migrant’s human capital. Further, this approach includes social networks as a source of information that act in the direction of greater certainty of economic returns in potential migratory destinations within the notion of the migrant’s human capital (Taylor, 1986).

Workplaces and labor markets  321 The New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) approach considers that migration decisions, even if they concern an individual migrant, are made collectively by family members, aiming at the well-being of the entire family (Stark & Bloom, 1985). In this sense, families tend to maximize income and social status and to minimize the risks associated with migration. This theory explicitly links the migration decision to the impacts of migration through remittances (Taylor, 1999). Several scholars have also observed that if we correlate emigration rates with levels of human development, the relationship resembles a ‘hump’ (Martin & Taylor, 1996), whereby emigration rates are lower in poor and rich countries than those among countries with moderate levels of development. This means that, on the one hand, the poorest individuals do not have the capabilities to migrate and, on the other hand, that the likelihood to migrate decreases at the increasing of economic development (de Haas, 2007, 2010). Therefore, we observe an inverse U-shaped relation between migration and development (Zelinsky, 1971). Other theoretical models have sought to overcome the prevailing economic approach in explaining the main drivers of migration (Van Hear, Bakewell, & Long, 2018). Coming from a structural approach, the global environment is analyzed instead of the individual. World systems theory, as proposed by Wallerstein (1974), for example, interprets migration as an exchange of human resources between capitalist and non-capitalist societies. Money and resources, as a result, flow from one society into another. Consequently, the archaic yet still relevant concept of a world comprised of a ‘core’ (the colonizers) and a ‘periphery’ (the colonized) persists, as the differences in the level of development between the so-called modern societies or ‘the core’, and developing countries, also known as ‘the periphery’, lead the former to receive immigrants from the latter. Strong links between receiving countries and sending countries, or transnationalism, as developed by Portes (1999) and colleagues (Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt, 1999; Portes & Zhou, 1999) refers to ‘occupations and activities that require regular and sustained social contacts over time across national borders for their implementations’ (Portes et al., 1999, p. 219). These frequent movements between host and home countries, which allow migrants to be ‘here’ and ‘there’ at the same time, have been intensified through the advancement of technologies that facilitate communication of information and transport. This viewpoint affirms that ‘integration and transnational ties are not necessarily substitutes, but can be complements’ (de Haas & Fokkema, 2011, p. 758) and, hence, transnational migrants may eventually invest the resources acquired from the host country in the homeland, regardless of the level of integration abroad. Lastly, social network theory addresses the ‘sets of interpersonal ties that connect migrants, former migrants, and non-migrants in origin and destination areas through ties of kinship, friendship, and shared community origin’ (Massey et al., 1993, p. 448). These networks reduce the costs and risks of migration and thus encourage migration flows. Both of these theories contribute to the now widespread idea that migration is a self-feeding and self-perpetuating process (Massey, Arango, Hugo, Kouaouci, & Pellegrino, 1998). According to Sassen (2001), the globalization of production has found its territorial base of choice in global cities and the export of capital has stimulated a new phase of migration and proletarianization in the developing countries and in the global cities themselves. This new phase is characterized by a growing gap between highly skilled workers in the high-productivity service sector, and low-skilled workers providing the services to meet their needs, often through the informal economy, in which immigrants play a substantial role.

322  Research handbook on the sociology of migration In recent labor migration, the skilled component has acquired a new political and statistical significance (Czaika, 2018; Mahroum, 2000). Empirical studies have found that skilled migrants have a positive effect on innovation, but the effect is stronger in industries with low levels of over-education, high levels of FDI and, finally, in industries with greater ethnic diversity (Fassio, Montobbio, & Venturini, 2019). Economic factors are traditionally seen as the main determinants of migration, but skilled migrants may be able to earn an acceptable income, even in their home countries. Therefore, their migration choice may be influenced to a greater extent by non-economic factors. A recent detailed review of the literature has identified how career opportunities and, in general, a better quality of life play a more significant role as drivers for this type of migration (Mihăilă, 2019). Driven by the restructuring of the economy and the increase in the global trade in services, the mobility of skilled workers is increasingly recognized as an important factor for growth, innovation, and employment. The need for companies to be able to access this supply of skilled labor in a flexible manner, according to labor market demand, has led many multinational companies and professional associations to take a more active role in the international regulation of the global labor market, in the direction of a complete liberalization of the mobility of the highly skilled workforce (Lavenex, 2007). Many countries have therefore begun to adopt immigration policies that are more open and favorable towards skilled workers (Boeri, Brücker, Docquier, & Rapoport, 2012), in the belief that immigration policies can play an attractive role for these workers. The EU itself has recently adopted a more favorable entry policy for migrants intending to be employed in the highly skilled sector: the EU Blue Card. However, it has recently been found that the attraction of these policies represents an ineffective political tool (Tani, 2018).

LABOR MARKET INTEGRATION Another equally central issue in the analysis of migration processes concerns the labor market integration of immigrants. In this regard, the first interest of scholars concerns the effects of immigration on the labor market. First, we must consider the issue of whether the immigrant workforce is a substitute for or complementary to the native-born workforce. In the first case, immigrants compete with the native born, causing a reduction in employment and a reduction in the average wage level. In the second case, the immigrant workforce is not competitive and its effect on the employment and wages of the native born is instead positive. Standard economic theory posits that the entry of foreign labor does not change the structure of the labor supply in the destination country. To estimate the effects of immigration on the labor market, it assumes that immigrants and the native born are perfect substitutes in production (Baldwin Grossman, 1982). Some surveys carried out in the United States by a scholar of standard economic theory starting from this assumption have shown that the substitutability between immigrant and native workforce is quite modest (Borjas, 1987). On the other hand, further studies have repeatedly shown that the entry of foreigners significantly affects the societies of receiving countries, bringing in the first place a greater degree of diversity. Consequently, the assumption that immigrant and native-born workforces have the same characteristics and expectations is highly questionable.

Workplaces and labor markets  323 For example, the unlikelihood of this basic assumption has already been noted by Michael Piore, who, with reference to the US case, outlines foreign workers as complementary to native-born workers. He has also noted that the labor market does not have a homogeneous structure but rather underlines the differences in terms of labor demand. These differences in security, employment stability, wages and career prospects generate a segmentation of the labor market (Piore, 1975). The segmented labor market basically consists of a primary sector that offers jobs characterized by high wages, good working conditions, stability, and career opportunities and a secondary sector characterized by low-wage jobs, precariousness, and dangerous and degrading working conditions. The supply of immigrant labor intercepts this last type of demand, occupying the positions referred to as the ‘three-D’ jobs (dirty, dangerous, and demeaning). These jobs are avoided by native-born workers, who have different job prospects and aspirations. Accordingly, the complementarity of the immigrant workforce has a positive effect on the employment of the national workforce, to the point of contributing to the rescue of some industries that otherwise would have been closed or relocated (Harris, 1995, p. 244). Lastly, segmentation also helps explain the coexistence of unemployment and immigration in the labor market (Pugliese, 1993), not only in peripheral economic areas but also in so-called global cities (Sassen, 2001). The approach provided by new economic sociology plays an innovative role in understanding the labor market integration mechanisms of immigrants. Its originality lies in answering the question of how the immigrant labor force intercepts labor demand in the receiving country. At the time of intra-European Fordist migration, the job placement of immigrants in a highly regulated labor market had essentially been driven by the demand for work, with a predominant role of recruitment agencies, state or otherwise. Current migration, which can be defined as post-Fordist migration, appears to a greater extent as labor migration mainly generated by push factors. In fact, today’s migration is largely composed of spontaneous, deregulated flows, apparently no longer linked to the labor demand of advanced economies, yet still capable of integrating into the labor market of these countries. The new conditions of the labor market in receiving countries, as well as changes in institutional and regulatory arrangements, have led to more careful consideration of the role of immigrant communities in finding the information required for the labor market integration of newcomers. Consequently, the research focus for new economic sociology has shifted to the role of social capital and immigrant networks (Ambrosini, 2001; Massey, 1987). Finally, it is necessary to recall the issue concerning the economic performance of immigrants in relation to wage levels, considered both in relation to native-born workers and within the immigrant population. But the research question also concerns the rate of economic progress experienced by immigrants. According to some authors, the significant wage gap between immigrant and native workers present in the early stages of the migration process tends to gradually decrease with an increase in years of residence, or rather as the immigrant population integrates into the receiving country (Chiswick, 1978). According to other authors, this view appears too optimistic and undifferentiated because it has been found that the integration process can also increase income inequality among immigrant groups, depending on the country of origin (Borjas, 2000). According to the first group of authors, the labor market integration of the immigrant is a linear path that leads to wage improvement parallel to professional improvement. The second group, on the other hand, argues that it does not take into account the labor segregation of

324  Research handbook on the sociology of migration immigrants in activities located further down the professional qualification scale, accompanied by low professional mobility towards higher qualifications (Elliott & Lindley, 2008).

WORKPLACES The wage gap is the most visible and easily measurable form of discrimination experienced by immigrant workers in the workplace, here defined as ‘establishment’ (local activity unit). Furthermore, discrimination and exploitation in the workplace is considered as one of the main reasons why immigrants are concentrated in low-skilled and low-paying jobs (Moran & Petsod, 2003). Finally, the growth in the number of immigrant workers also leads to an increase in cultural diversity in the workplace. Therefore, other forms of discrimination linked to cultural and religious traditions and to different lifestyles more generally can be added to wage discrimination. Many surveys continue to indicate an increase in social exclusion and economic inequality in the workplace, primarily affecting immigrants (Mor Barak, 2005). The literature outlines a variety of types of workplace discrimination potentially relating to immigrant status and the potential negative outcomes arising from said discrimination for both immigrant employees and their employers (Jones & Lewis, 2011; Stainback & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2012). This increasing diversity in the workforce and its negative effects on workers and productivity have drawn attention to the importance of workplace inclusion. Usually, internal relations in the workplace are considered, focusing in particular on techniques of control and management of cultural diversity, and on the impact that these two factors have on relations among workers and between managers and workers (Lamphere, Stepick, & Grenier, 2006). Diversity management is grounded on the management and enhancement of individual differences among workers, intended to improve organizational performance, compliance with their distinctive characteristics, and ensure equality and the absence of any form of discrimination. Recently, diversity management is expanding its focus beyond the traditional socio-demographic variables of individuals (ethnicity, age, gender, etc.) to fully include a broader discourse that focuses on equal employment opportunities and professional growth and well-being among workers (Ayega & Muathe, 2018). One of most prominent recent research interests concerns improving workplace inclusion to avoid the adverse impacts of discrimination. In this regard, we note the model proposal by Mor Barak (2000) and revised by Lynn Shore et al. (2018, p. 185). This model provides a depiction of how organizations can increase inclusion for their members. Finally, it is necessary to recall a compelling sociological investigative approach about social relations in workplaces. It originates from a purely Italian experience, from the early 1960s (Panzieri, 1965). This approach, defined as ‘sociological inquiry’ (inchiesta sociologica) is prefigured as a way of investigating social relations within the workplace. It includes multiple research methodologies (standard and non-standard) and uses them in relation to the research object and the cognitive objectives. Moreover, it relates to the research object as the research subject. It understands what is being investigated basically as an individual in relation to the factory organization, the industrial relations system, etc. Thanks to the entry of many immigrant workers into factories, this approach has had a revival in recent decades. Starting from the processes of unionization among immigrant workers (Mottura & Pinto, 1996), some analyses have been added regarding relations among

Workplaces and labor markets  325 immigrants outside of the workplace. Through this research, the diversity management approach has emerged in the most recent immigration countries, such as Italy (Istat, 2022).

CONCLUSION In migration studies, the labor market plays a key role both in understanding migration dynamics (why people emigrate, who emigrates, and where they emigrate) and in explaining the integration processes of the immigrant population. But this key role does not end in the analysis of these processes. It becomes even more meaningful in the analysis of the discrimination processes of the immigrant population. In the analysis of discrimination, the sociological tradition of workplace investigation confers valuable concepts and tools for explaining and resolving the main disparities between native and immigrant workers.

REFERENCES Ambrosini, M. (2001). La fatica di integrarsi. Immigrazione e lavoro in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino. Ayega, E. N., & Muathe, S. (2018). Critical review of literature on cultural diversity in the work place and organizational performance: A research agenda. Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(1), 9–17. Baldwin Grossman, J. (1982). The substitutability of natives and immigrants in production. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 64(4), 596–603. Boeri, T., Brücker, H., Docquier, F., & Rapoport, H. (Eds.) (2012). Brain gain and brain drain: The global competition to attract high-skilled migrants. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borjas, G. J. (1987). Immigrants, minorities, and labor market competition. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 40(3), 382–392. Borjas, G. J. (2000). The economic progress of immigrants. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chiswick, B. R. (1978). The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born men. Journal of Political Economy, 86(5), 897–921. Czaika, M. (Ed.) (2018). High-skilled migration: Drivers and policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. de Haas, H. (2007). Turning the tide? Why development will not stop migration. Development and Change, 38(5), 819–841. de Haas, H. (2010). Migration transitions: A theoretical and empirical inquiry into the developmental drivers of international migration. International Migration Institute, Working Paper 24. de Haas, H., & Fokkema, T. (2011). The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions. Demographic Research, 25, 755–782. Elliott, R. J., & Lindley, J. K. (2008). Immigrant wage differentials, ethnicity and occupational segregation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 171(3), 645–671. Ethier, W. (1985). International trade and labor migration. American Economic Review, 75(4), 691–707. Fassio, C., Montobbio, F., & Venturini, A. (2019). Skilled migration and innovation in European industries. Research Policy, 48(3), 706–718. Harris, J. R., & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: A two-sector analysis. American Economic Review, 60(1), 126–142. Harris, N. (1995). The new untouchables: Immigration and the New World worker. London: I. B. Tauris. Istat (2022). L’indagine Istat-Unar sulle discriminazioni lavorative nei confronti delle persone lgbt+ (in unione civile o già in unione). Rome. Jennissen, R. (2003). Economic determinants of net international migration in Western Europe. European Journal of Population, 19(2), 171–198. Jones, J. R., & Lewis, D. M. H. (2011). Let’s not go down that path again: Lessons from the past applied to immigrant-targeted discrimination. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23(4), 229–247.

326  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Lamphere, L., Stepick, A., & Grenier, G. J. (Eds.) (2011). Newcomers in the workplace: Immigrants and the restructuring of the US economy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lavenex, S. (2007). The competition state and highly skilled migration. Society, 44(2), 32–41. Mahroum, S. (2000). Highly skilled globetrotters: Mapping the international migration of human capital. R&D Management, 30(1), 23–32. Martin, P. L., & Taylor, J. E. (1996). The anatomy of a migration hump. In J. E. E. Taylor (Ed.) Development strategy, employment, and migration: Insights from models (pp. 43–62). Paris: OECD. Massey, D. S. (1987). Understanding Mexican migration to the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1372–1403. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., & Pellegrino, A. (1998). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19(3), 431–466. Mihăilă, A. (2019). Non-economic factors influencing highly skilled migration. Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 12(1), 27–53. Mor Barak, M. E. (2000). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23(3–4), 47–68. Mor Barak, M. E. (2005). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. London: Sage. Moran, T. T., & Petsod, D. (2003). Newcomers in the American workplace: Improving employment outcomes for low-wage immigrants and refugees. ERIC. Retrieved from https://​eric​.ed​.gov/​?id​=​ ED482531. Mottura, G., & Pinto, P. (1996). Immigrazione e cambiamento sociale: strategie sindacali e lavoro straniero in Italia. Rome: EDIESSE. Mundell, R. A. (1957). International trade and factor mobility. The American Economic Review, 47(3), 321–335. Panzieri, R. (1965). Uso socialista dell’inchiesta operaia. Quaderni rossi, 4, 67–76. Piore, M. J. (1975). Notes for a theory of labor market stratification. In R. C. Edwards, M. Reich, & D. M. Gordon (Eds.) Labor market segmentation, Lexington: DC Heath. Retrieved from https://​dspace​ .mit​.edu/​bitstream/​handle/​1721​.1/​64001/​no​tesfortheo​ryof00pior​.pdf. Piore, M. J. (1979). Birds of passage: Migrant labour and industrial societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Portes, A. (1999). Conclusion: Towards a new world – the origins and effects of transnational activities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 463–477. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, I. (1999). The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 217–237. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1999). Entrepreneurship and economic progress in the 1990s: A comparative analysis of immigrants and African Americans. In F. D. Bean & S. Bell-Rose (Eds.) Immigration and opportunity: Race, ethnicity, and employment in the United States (pp. 143–171). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pugliese, E. (1993). Restructuring of the labour market and the role of Third World migrations in Europe. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11(5), 513–522. Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48(2), 167–235. Sassen, S. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo, 2nd edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. Stainback, K., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2012). Documenting desegregation: Racial and gender segregation in private sector employment since the Civil Rights Act. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Stark, O., & Bloom, D. E. (1985). The new economics of labor migration. American Economic Review, 75, 173–178. Tani, M. (2018). Skilled migration policy and the labour market performance of immigrants. IZA Discussion Paper No. 11241.

Workplaces and labor markets  327 Taylor, J. E. (1986). Differential migration, networks, information and risk. In O. Stark (Ed.) Research in human capital and development: Migration, human capital and development, vol. 4 (pp. 147–171). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Taylor, J. E. (1999). The new economics of labour migration and the role of remittances in the migration process. International Migration, 37(1), 63–88. Van Hear, N., Bakewell, O., & Long, K. (2018). Push-pull plus: Reconsidering the drivers of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 927–944. Wallerstein, I. M. (1974). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press. Williamson, O. E. (1985). L’economia dell’organizzazione: Il modello dei costi di transazione. In R. Nacamulli & A. Rugiadini (Eds.) Organizzazione & mercato (pp. 161–186). Bologna: Il Mulino. Zelinsky, W. (1971). The hypothesis of the mobility transition. Geographical Review, 61, 219–249.

27. Migration in families and households Heather M. Wurtz and Heide Castañeda

INTRODUCTION Migration is a key driver of fundamental shifts in household and family composition. Since the 1980s, scholarship on families and migration has increased and diversified substantially, in part due to the influence of feminist scholarship and calls for new ways of conceptualizing family as a social institution (Kraler, Kofman, Kohli, & Schmoll, 2011). In this chapter, we discuss scholarship on migration in families and households in three primary categories: (1) gender and intergenerational shifts in marriage and conjugal relations; (2) transnational parenting; and (3) reconfigured family structures and practices. Our objective is not to provide a comprehensive review of extant literature, but rather to alert readers to the major questions driving the field forward. Within each category, in addition to synthesis of dominant themes, we take a deeper look into specific case studies that contribute particularly poignant insights into how migrant families are made, challenged, and transformed across diverse sociocultural contexts and migration trajectories. We conclude with suggestions for additional reading, watching, and listening resources for readers who would like to engage the material at a deeper level.

GENDER AND INTERGENERATIONAL SHIFTS IN MARRIAGE AND CONJUGAL RELATIONS Attention to shifts in demographic patterns of fertility and reproductive behaviors has a long history in migration scholarship and continues to be an essential line of inquiry in light of continuously evolving and diversifying contexts of human mobility. Contemporary migration scholars have made significant strides in deepening current knowledge about demographic changes associated with migration through exploration of ways that people’s conceptualizations and practices of sexuality and reproduction are shaped through social, economic, and historical contexts. For instance, in Hirsch’s (2003) research comparing sexuality and reproductive health practices among Mexican women with their peers in the United States, she shows how women’s fertility goals and marriage ideals are renegotiated and transformed within the context of international migration. As women resettle to the United States, they engage new ways of practicing intimacy in their relationships in order to ‘act out modern gendered identities’ (Hirsch, 2003, p. 12)—identities that mark a clear departure from previous generations through the emphasis on intra-partner egalitarianism and mutual trust within marriage. Although generational changes were observed in both sending and receiving communities, there was a marked cohort difference in women’s desired fertility with migrant women experiencing longer delays in having children and having fewer children, overall. Through ethnographic methods that lend careful attention to the context and practices of everyday life (e.g., the role of the Catholic 328

Migration in families and households  329 Church in local communities, norms about contraception), Hirsch (2003, p. 259) was able to link migrant women’s lower fertility to shifts in their perspectives about their reproductive lives and desires, noting that ‘Mexican women in the United States may be reimagining their bodies and their fertility as individual property, rather than looking at them as a conjugal resource’. As this observation demonstrates, shifts in demographic patterns cannot be reduced to singular explanations, such as healthcare access or changes in socioeconomic status, but rather must be evaluated in relation to a nexus of cultural beliefs, structural factors, and individuals’ strategies and life choices. Furthermore, as frameworks of intersectionality reveal, it is important to recognize heterogeneity within migrant groups and with consideration of other factors, beyond a shift in geographic location, that might influence changes in reproductive and sexual practices and attitudes (Brettell, 2016; Gewinner, 2020). Gamella’s (2018) research on Romani women in Spain, for instance, shows wide variation in fertility practices across Romani communities in the post-migration context; while migration does seem to play a role in shifting gender ideologies, other factors, such as the involvement of extended family, women’s education, and encounters with healthcare and social services must also be accounted for in understanding intra-group fertility differences. Alongside the literature on new partnerships and reconfigured forms of intimacy within families following migration (González-López, 2005; Hirsch, 2003; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Walsh, 2009), there is also a growing body of scholarship on changing gender relations and practices that occur when one partner migrates and the other remains behind in the sending community. In many cases, partner or family separation is part of a strategic long-term plan for the well-being of the entire household, such as to enable other family members to pursue migratory projects (e.g., education, work opportunities) or to reach social goals through remittances (e.g., building a house) (Mata-Codesal, 2015; Pauli, 2008). Although experiences of family members who remain in sending communities have received less attention than individuals on the move, emergent literature has begun to trace gender- and family-based implications of ‘staying put’. Some studies have found that women who stay behind assume roles and responsibilities previously held by male partners, such as managing household finances or attending community meetings; as a result, they experience increased independence and economic autonomy, foster new skills and abilities, and expand their networks (Boehm, 2008; Cohen, 2010; Menjívar & Agadjanian, 2007). Furthermore, alongside the feminization of migration, as women travel abroad to fill labor demands for domestic service work and caretaking, more men find themselves managing childcare, which challenges and reworks men’s understandings of masculinity and parenthood (Gallo, 2006; Hoang & Yeoh, 2011). Studies have explored both the negative and positive effects of separation of husbands and wives on conjugal and marriage relations (Grimes, 1998; Levitt, 2001), as well as relationships with extended family (Pauli, 2008). In many cases, the difficulties of maintaining a transnational relationship challenge its sustainability and may result in a range of undesired outcomes, including divorce, familial estrangement, and loss of remittances—processes that have been associated with additional consequences to health and well-being across households and communities. For example, studies in diverse regions around the world have described links between migration, relationship stress, infidelity, and increasing rates of HIV/AIDS in local communities (Agadjanian, Arnaldo, & Cau, 2011; Hirsch, 2009; Padilla, 2007; Smith & Yang, 2005). In other research, however, transnational partnerships have been shown to be empowering for couples, especially when they are able to integrate partner separation into subjective

330  Research handbook on the sociology of migration understandings of shared life projects, such as through narratives of home building and upward social mobility (Gray, 2011; Mata-Codesal, 2015). For instance, in Kwon’s (2015) work on Korean Chinese transnational migration, she found that the ‘work of waiting’ for a partner to return plays an integral role in sustaining long-distances marriages by creating a durable link between emotional commitment and economic stability. Waiting for spousal return, and the promised fruits of remittances, ‘creates the possibility of mutual future economic welfare and preserves intimacy by generating and sharing a deferred temporality’ (Kwon, 2015, p. 480). However, she also points out that this bond is constituted by a type of unpaid affective labor that often goes unappreciated and, therefore, is vulnerable to the precarious conditions of temporal and spatial distancing. Kwon’s work generates crucial insight into the key role that those who do not migrate play in sustaining international migratory circuits of care and critical opportunity structures for transnational families.

TRANSNATIONAL PARENTING Transformations in parenting and other caregiving relations have been a primary line of inquiry within scholarship on migration in families. Studies probe the family-based needs and strategies that structure the departure of one or both parents from the household, as well as how familial affiliations, roles, and relationships are transformed (or maintained) under such circumstances. This literature tends to center on gender-based divisions of labor and intimate care work within the immediate family, in addition to the supportive role of extended kin and intergenerational relations in shaping shifts in parenting practices and ideals. A robust body of literature examines ‘transnational motherhood’, or what Cordero (2021, p. 138; drawing on Dağdelen, 2018) describes as ‘the physical separation of a migrant mother from the nuclear family and the ways she maintains affectionate ties from a distance’. Studies have found that notions of gender and mothering are reconstituted through the integration of women’s primary role as an economic provider (Gamburd, 2000; Hondagneu-Sotelo & Avila, 1997; Parreñas, 2001, 2008). As more women pursue international opportunities to financially support their families, increased shifts in household composition and patterns of care have also been observed. Members within the immediate family, including fathers and extended kin, take up caretaking responsibilities of children ‘left behind’. However, in many cases, women continue to engage in conventional childrearing practices through regular communication, gift-giving, and parental decision-making (Juozeliūnienė & Budginaitė, 2018; Vivas-Romero & Martínez, 2017). Women’s ability to maintain strong forms of bonding and cohesion with their children is buffered by intergenerational support networks (particularly those that consist predominantly of female kin) in home countries, contributing to an alternative style of care that draws on the ‘collectivization of motherhood’ (Briggs, 2012; Cordero, 2021; Vives & Vazquez Silva, 2017). Although transnational fatherhood has received far less attention, some studies have shown that men who migrate alone may face more difficulties than women in maintaining emotional and intimate ties with family members—and particularly children—that remain behind (Fiałkowska, 2019). Salazar Parreñas’s work (2008), for example, on transnational families in the Philippines, shows how men’s efforts to maintain gender-normative views of parenting, which emphasize male discipline and authority, limit their ability to foster familiarity and intimacy with their children over time and physical distance. In other cases, however, men’s

Migration in families and households  331 separation from families because of migration compels them to reevaluate their parenting roles and emotional labor and to devise new strategies for maintaining familial intimacy and affection. As cross-case comparison reveals, factors such as social class and legal status play critical roles in how people are able to maintain long-distance social ties and communication (Carling, Menjívar, & Schmalzbauer, 2012; Lee, 2021), underscoring the need for scholars to attend to structural inequalities and intersectionality in order to produce nuanced accounts of transnational parenting. Another growing concern in scholarship on transnational parenting takes up ways that traditional sociological concepts in coming-of-age phenomena—such as agency, aspirations, and parental role-modeling—are being challenged and transformed within global dynamics of long-distance care. Some studies reveal inherent tensions between the psychological tradeoffs of the physical, and especially emotional, absence of parents in exchange for the imagined economic and educational opportunities that children and youth are afforded. In Shmulyar Gréen and Melander’s (2018) work on Romanian and Polish mobile workers in Sweden, they describe this tradeoff as a central ‘paradox’ of transnational families: mothers and fathers migrate to fulfill their role as a ‘good parent’, yet, in the process, expose their families to the hardship and altered relational dynamics produced through distance and separation. Although parents’ decisions to migrate are often influenced by desires to create a better life for their children (Cordero, 2021; Lahaie, Hayes, Piper, & Heymann, 2009; Oliveira, 2018), children may feel abandoned with the departure of a parent, particularly in cases of maternal migration, not least because of the high social valuation of conventional standards of motherhood (Hirsch, 2003; Hondagneu-Sotelo & Avila, 1997; Suárez‐Orozco, Todorova, & Louie, 2002). Youth also face increased pressure to meet familial expectations of educational achievement or upward mobility to justify the sacrifice of family separation (Louie, 2004), leading youth to grapple with the psychological and social toll of ‘good life’ fantasies (Berlant, 2011). As Bartlett, Oliveira, and Ungemah (2018, p. 444, drawing on Berlant, 2011, p. 1) discuss in their study on Dominican youth in New York City, ‘immigrant youth’s conflation of maternal love and sacrifice with high academic expectations … begins to function “as an obstacle to [one’s] flourishing” when socioeconomic situations cannot provide for the conditions for achieving those dreams’. Some groups of migrant parents may experience marginalization, rejection, and persecution because they are constructed as ‘suspect’ parents, often based on nationalist anxieties around demographic theft, that is, declines in native birth rates coupled with a simultaneous increase among foreigners (Castañeda, 2008). In a study of pregnant Black women in Ireland, Tormey (2007) traces the concerns over women arriving in Ireland on ‘maternity holiday’, that is, to give birth and acquire Irish citizenship for their child. In this example, specific ideas of morality are invoked—rather than explicit statements about cultural or racial incommensurability— as an alibi to support the rhetoric of exclusion. Foreign-born, noncitizen mothers were considered to have ‘no real connection’ to Ireland, and thus lacking in loyalty to the nation. As Luibhéid (2013) notes, these efforts to prevent illegal immigration in Ireland have redefined nationalist sexual norms and associated racial, gender, economic, and geopolitical hierarchies. Similarly, Castañeda (2008) examines anxieties around an alleged market for false paternity claims in Germany, fostered by legal loopholes that can provide undocumented women and their newborns the means to become regularized. These loopholes further highlight the uneven social terrain of reproduction, because the very same law that empowers German mothers to choose a social, rather than biological, father for their children is perceived as suspect and

332  Research handbook on the sociology of migration dishonest when engaged by migrant women. Migrant mothers thus become both a symbolic and real challenge to notions of citizenship in contemporary Germany. Parenting in the context of deportation is another area of intense study. Increased rates of deportation across the globe have resulted in what scholars have described as ‘a gendered racial removal program’ (Golash-Boza & Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2013), in which the masculinization of deportation corresponds to growing economic demand for low-skilled female labor, increasing the ‘deportability’ of male migrants. This phenomenon has profound implications for immigrant families who already experience multiple, overlapping vulnerabilities, such as those based on social class, legal status, and experiences of trauma. For men, deportation is experienced as emasculating—men can no longer provide for their families—which may prompt attempts to re-migrate or increase emotional detachment between men and their children. This can lead to long-standing consequences for family cohesion; the loss of emotional connectivity, particularly with fathers, because of migration may impact children’s desires and experiences of reunification later on (Fiałkowska, 2019). Women who experience the deportation of a male partner find themselves tasked to maintain the ‘forced formation’ of a single-parent household, often taking on multiple jobs or resorting to public assistance, in addition to meeting the daily demands of rent, transportation, and child care (Dreby, 2015; Hagan, 2008). In other cases, parental deportation prompts the ‘de facto deportation’ of US-born children (Golash-Boza & Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2013), as well as rising numbers of children relegated to foster care after their parents have been detained. Naomi Glenn-Levin Rodriguez (2017) explores this most heavy-handed form of state intervention into the intimate lives of families. She illustrates how the US foster care system is frequently entangled with structural prejudice against immigrant families. Using cases set in southern California, she shows how parental deportation can become translated into child abandonment by the legal system, even with no prior history or evidence of abuse or neglect. Instead, neglect becomes constituted by parental disappearance following detention or deportation, and can even lead to the termination of parental rights (Rodriguez, 2017). Studies on children of deported parents tend to focus predominantly on the consequences on children and youth’s mental and physical health (Chaudry et al., 2010). Few have looked at the impact of reversed flows of remittances or return parental migration among children in sending countries (see Artico, 2003 for an exception). In addition to the experiences of parents, existing research has also focused on the perspectives and social outcomes of children ‘left behind’, including parent–child cohesion (Zhao, Liu, & Wang, 2015), health and educational impacts (Antia et al., 2020; Aryal, Regmi, van Teijlingen, Simkhada, & Mahat, 2019; Fellmeth et al., 2018; Milazzo & Van de Walle, 2017; Moran-Taylor, 2008; Schmalzbauer, 2008), and dynamics of familial reunification (Fiałkowska, 2019). Family separations through deportation can thus be recognized as a form of ‘legal violence’, affecting the well-being of children (Menjívar & Abrego, 2012). Thus, while studies show that parental migration is associated with a range of positive and negative effects on the lives and well-being of children and youth—not only across countries or communities, but also within individual family units—the effects of parental deportation are devastating. Driving questions tend to center on the specific factors that contribute to such discrepancies, such as which parent migrates, the age and gender of children left behind, alternative systems of care (e.g., extended family, grandparents), and the generation and use of resources, such as remittances, across transnational circuits of care.

Migration in families and households  333

RECONFIGURED FAMILY STRUCTURES AND PRACTICES Conceptualizations of families within migration research have shifted dramatically over recent years alongside broader scholarly developments and trends, such as calls for greater inclusion of youth-centered perspectives, attention to intimate practices of forging non-blood-based ties, and exploration of non-heteronormative social configurations and experiences. In response, emergent migration scholarship has begun to explore kinship practices and relations that go beyond traditional concepts of nuclear or biological families, such as same-sex partnerships, single-parent households, and chosen families. Although less prominent than other areas of scholarship on migrant households and families, this literature probes critical questions about how social practices and policies work in tandem with sexuality- and gender-based hierarchies (including those intrinsic to conventional meanings of family) to marginalize and exclude individuals and relations that fall outside the traditional family context (Luibhéid, 2002). One arena in which family structures and practices become reconfigured is in mixed-status families, which are now a primary and enduring feature of the contemporary immigration experience in the United States. These are any self-defined family units that include different immigration and/or citizenship statuses; typically, they are comprised of at least one undocumented member and at least one other person with any authorized legal status (i.e., citizenship, legal permanent residency) or temporary status. Because the growth in mixed-status families has been fairly recent, there has been little examination of the unique experiences of citizens living in these families. These configurations offer the opportunity for analysis beyond intergenerational dynamics, including the study of sibling relations in the context of immigration and how they contribute to wider familial processes, material support, and emotional connection (Castañeda, 2019). In mixed-status families, Castañeda (2019) illustrates the unique position of citizen children, who are often more powerful vis-à-vis their undocumented parents and their generally older undocumented siblings. This shifts the usual dynamics of birth order, making the younger children of the family ostensibly the most powerful in terms of rights, opportunities, and resources. However, this scenario also places additional burdens and responsibilities on them. Young adults may provide ‘internal remittances’, or financial contributions to the parental household. Certain family members take on specific roles, interfacing with institutions or using their legal status or name to assist others. The ‘identity loan’ between family members is commonplace and functions as a mode of reciprocity in resource- and document-poor communities and is complexly interwoven with kinship relationships. Citizen children may also serve as the family representative, traveling to the home country when others cannot, or serving as a link to extended family or those who have been deported, thus lending their mobility privileges to support others. As brokers, they take on increasing responsibilities and help family members navigate daily life. Many citizens also grow up with an awareness that they can help legalize their parents’ status, which also shapes household power dynamics. Migration scholars have explored diverse kinship configurations by drawing on long-established sociological theories of ‘fictive kinship’ that center on the construction of family-type arrangements and relationships that are not biologically or legally based (Chávez, 2017). In some cases, such relations develop at the vortex of migrant’s intimate and economic lives. Research on migrant caregiving of children or the elderly, for example, examines the intimate work of ‘making kinship’ through embodied practices of care within domestic settings (Ibarra, 2016). Studies, for example, in Greece and Poland have found that non-kin ties,

334  Research handbook on the sociology of migration in both paid and unpaid arrangements, provide a significant source of emotional support for elderly people who have been ‘left behind’ by migrant children in countries of origin (Conkova & King, 2019; Van der Geest, Mul, & Vermeulen, 2004). Intimate domestic work may also be beneficial to migrant caretakers by providing an avenue towards inclusion and integration in host countries—even amounting to what Muehlebach (2013) describes as a practice-based form of ‘social citizenship’. However, as other scholars have found, particularly in cases involving the care of children, paid caregiving can also be a source of tension as mothers and caregivers struggle over relationship boundaries and the consequences (negative and positive) of caregivers’ emotional labor (Macdonald, 2011). For example, in a recent study on migrant domestic workers in China, Fu and colleagues (Fu, Su, & Ni, 2018) found that the nanny–child relationship was a significant source of acute and chronic emotional pain for nannies. Some nannies coped with this by returning to their rural homes as frequently as possible in order to mitigate the distress caused by the long-term absence of their own children; others used their affective ties with clients’ children as leverage for negotiating working conditions, such as pay raises and rest breaks. The authors conclude that although nannies’ labor produced opportunities for challenging durable gender norms, such as through economic independence and shifts in marital relations, a lack of change at the structural level (e.g., regulatory weakness in the domestic care industry) limited women’s capacity for transcending patriarchal and class-based constraints. Although the majority of work on transnational families and households centers on sending and receiving communities, as well as the social ties and practices that maintain links between the two, emergent work on intimate and kinship relations while en route has opened up new lines of critical inquiry (Brigden, 2018; Peña, 2011; Vogt, 2018; Wurtz, 2020). In Vogt’s (2018) work, for instance, on Central Americans in transit through Mexico, she discusses ‘protective pairings’ and other forms of ‘simulated kin relations’ that develop between migrants on the move, such as spousal relations or within more formal smuggling arrangements. These relations are part of a system of intimate economies, in which affect and intimacy are rooted in strategies of survival. Although these bonds are commonly transactional, ephemeral, and in some cases problematic, they are still significant, playing a vital role in the mobile practices that ‘both drive and sustain people’s journeys’ (Vogt, 2018, p. 153). Vogt’s study and similar work demonstrate the value of challenging widely held social assumptions about meanings of family, particularly in context of systematic marginalization. It is critical to employ perspectives that take into account the constraints on social relations imposed by structural inequalities and broader relations of power, such as deportation and the risks of irregular migration, as well as the novel social formations and forms of resilience that are generated in response to these dynamics. In another example, Chávez (2017, p. 51) draws on the concept of ‘chosen families’, which he describes as ‘a way of conceptualizing the vernacular theorizing migrants engage in to form complex relationships of intimacy and thus reproduce the social structures otherwise denied them’. Over months of research with sexuality-, gender-, and racially-diverse Latino youth— documented and undocumented—in Chicago, Chávez found that chosen families were a ‘crucial survival skill’ for those interviewed and surveyed. For example, LGBTQ+ migrant youth who were unable to ‘come out’ to their parents formed nonbiological families through bonds of trust and acceptance. This resonates with other studies that have looked at LGBTQ+ migrant practices of homebuilding as a strategy of resistance again systemic violence (Alessi et al., 2021; Borges, 2018) and as a foundation for building networks of both social support

Migration in families and households  335 and political activism during and after migration (Wurtz, 2021). However, central to Chávez’s argument is that the importance of chosen families and other forms of ‘queering kinship’ extends beyond issues of sexual diversity, as demonstrated by distinct cases of collective action that oppose family separation on the basis of alternative solidarities (e.g., ‘coming out’ stories of undocumented DREAMers, see for example: Dao, 2017 and Fiorito, 2019). What this points to, in sum, is that the advocacy and engagement of chosen families is not only a tactic of survival, but also a political act. Through chosen families, migrants stake claim for their deservingness of (or rights to) intimacy in resistance to the diverse forms of structural and state-sanctioned violence that disrupt and sever social bonds. This violence includes migration enforcement measures, such as detainment and deportation, as well as racialized stereotypes about migrant intimacy and kinship (e.g., hyperfertility of women migrants, ‘broken’ families of unaccompanied youth) that circulate through popular media.

CONCLUSION The literature on migration’s impacts on families and households has diversified in recent years, as scholars reassess definitions, processes, and practices. Here, we have focused on gender and intergenerational shifts in marriage and conjugal relations; transnational parenting; and reconfigured family structures and practices as major domains of study. However, much remains to be understood about how migrant families and households are made, challenged, and transformed across diverse contexts and migration trajectories, particularly in the context of systematic marginalization and structural inequalities.

FURTHER RESOURCES Reading In Unaccompanied, Javier Zamora uses poetry, written in a combination of English and Spanish, to chronicle the 4,000-mile journey he made by himself at the age of nine from El Salvador to the United States to reunite with his parents (Nonfiction, autobiographical poetry). Welcome to the New World, written by Jake Halpern, draws on years of interviews with a Syrian family in the United States. It builds on the New York Times comic series in collaboration with the illustrator, Michael Sloan (Nonfiction, autobiographical prose). The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan is a novel that follows four Chinese women who have immigrated to the United States. It examines the impact of their migration journeys on the women and their children (Fiction, prose).

Listening Real People. Real Lives. Women Immigrants of New York 2020–2021 is a podcast produced by New Women New Yorkers. It is a storytelling project that highlights a diverse group of immigrant women living in New York City during the height of the COVID pandemic, with reflections on women’s ideas of home and belonging.

336  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Watching First Time Home is co-directed by Indigenous Triqui second generation immigrants born in the United States. It captures their experiences while traveling between California and Washington State to work the harvest with their parents and then reconnected with family as they visit their ‘home’ in Mexico for the first time. Rain in a Dry Land traces the journeys of two Somali Bantu families to a US city after 13 years in an African refugee camp. It raises important questions about refugee resettlement, while capturing the challenges and acts of resilience of being strangers in a new land.

REFERENCES Agadjanian, V., Arnaldo, C., & Cau, B. (2011). Health costs of wealth gains: Labor migration and perceptions of HIV/AIDS risks in Mozambique. Social Forces, 89(4), 1097–1117. Alessi, E. J., Greenfield, B., Yu, M., Cheung, S., Giwa, S., & Kahn, S. (2021). Family, friendship, and strength among LGBTQ+ migrants in Cape Town, South Africa: A qualitative understanding. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(7), 1941–1960. Antia, K., Boucsein, J., Deckert, A., Dambach, P., Račaitė, J., Šurkienė, G., … Winkler, V. (2020). Effects of international labour migration on the mental health and well-being of left-behind children: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4335. Artico, C. I. (2003). Latino families broken by immigration: The adolescent’s perceptions. New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishers. Aryal, N., Regmi, P. R., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., & Mahat, P. (2019). Adolescents left behind by migrant workers: A call for community-based mental health interventions in Nepal. WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health, 8(1), 38. Bartlett, L., Oliveira, G., & Ungemah, L. (2018). Cruel optimism: Migration and schooling for Dominican newcomer immigrant youth. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 49(4), 444–461. Berlant, L. G. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Boehm, D. A. (2008). ‘Now I am a man and a woman!’ Gendered moves and migrations in a transnational Mexican community. Latin American Perspectives, 35(1), 16–30. Borges, S. (2018). Home and homing as resistance: Survival of LGBTQ Latinx migrants. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 46(3–4), 69–84. Brettell, C. (2016). Gender and migration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brigden, N. K. (2018). A visible geography of invisible journeys: Central American migration and the politics of survival. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 4(1–2), 71–88. Briggs, L. (2012). Somebody’s children: The politics of transracial and transnational adoption. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Carling, J., Menjívar, C., & Schmalzbauer, L. (2012). Central themes in the study of transnational parenthood. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(2), 191–217. Castañeda, H. (2008). Paternity for sale: Anxieties over “demographic theft” and undocumented migrant reproduction in Germany. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 22(4), 340–359. Castañeda, H. (2019). Borders of belonging: Struggle and solidarity in mixed-status immigrant families. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Chaudry, A., Capps, R., Pedroza, J. M., Castañeda, R. M., Santos, R., & Scott, M. M. (2010). Facing our future: Children in the aftermath of immigration enforcement. Washington, DC: Urban Institute (NJ1). Chávez, A. E. (2017). Intimacy at stake: Transnational migration and the separation of family. Latino Studies, 15(1), 50–72. Cohen, J. H. (2010). Oaxacan migration and remittances as they relate to Mexican migration patterns. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(1), 149–161. Conkova, N., & King, R. (2019). Non-kin ties as a source of support amongst older adults ‘left behind’ in Poland: A quantitative study on the role of geographic distance. Ageing & Society, 39(6), 1255–1280.

Migration in families and households  337 Cordero, A. L. H. (2021). Mothers who cross borders: Family care networks in the homes of immigrant mothers. In M. Montero-Sieburth, R. M. Giralt, N. Garcia-Arjona, & J. Eguren (Eds.) Family practices in migration (pp. 138–153). London: Routledge. Dağdelen, B. Ö. (2018). The challenge to the concept of transnational motherhood in migration studies from radical feminist perspectives. Journal of Social Policy Conferences, 74, 103–116. Dao, L. T. (2017). Out and Asian: How undocu/DACAmented Asian Americans and Pacific Islander youth navigate dual liminality in the immigrant rights movement. Societies, 7(3), 17. Dreby, J. (2015). US immigration policy and family separation: The consequences for children’s well-being. Social Science & Medicine, 132, 245–251. Fellmeth, G., Rose-Clarke, K., Zhao, C., Busert, L. K., Zheng, Y., Massazza, A., … Devakumar, D. (2018). Health impacts of parental migration on left-behind children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 392(10164), 2567–2582. Fiałkowska, K. (2019). Remote fatherhood and visiting husbands: Seasonal migration and men’s position within families. Comparative Migration Studies, 7(1), 1–17. Fiorito, T. R. (2019). Beyond the dreamers: Collective identity and subjectivity in the undocumented youth movement. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 24(3), 345–363. Fu, H., Su, Y., & Ni, A. (2018). Selling motherhood: Gendered emotional labor, citizenly discounting, and alienation among China’s migrant domestic workers. Gender & Society, 32(6), 814–836. Gallo, E. (2006). Italy is not a good place for men: Narratives of places, marriage and masculinity among Malayali migrants. Global Networks, 6(4), 357–372. Gamburd, M. R. (2000). The kitchen spoon’s handle: Transnationalism and Sri Lanka’s migrant housemaids. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gamella, J. F. (2018). Marriage, gender and transnational migrations in fertility transitions of Romanian Roma women. Intersections: East European Journal of Society and Politics, 4(2), 57–85. Gewinner, I. (2020). Gender norms, sexuality and post-socialist identity: Does migration matter? Sexuality & Culture, 24(2), 465–484. Golash-Boza, T., & Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2013). Latino immigrant men and the deportation crisis: A gendered racial removal program. Latino Studies, 11(3), 271–292. González-López, G. (2005). Erotic journeys: Mexican immigrants and their sex lives. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gray, B. (2011). Becoming non-migrant: Lives worth waiting for. Gender, Place & Culture, 18(3), 417–432. Grimes, K. M. (1998). Crossing borders: Changing social identities in Southern Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Hagan, J. M. (2008). Migrant miracle: Faith, hope, and meaning on the undocumented journey. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hirsch, J. S. (2003). A courtship after marriage: Sexuality and love in Mexican transnational families. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hirsch, J. S. (Ed.) (2009). The secret: Love, marriage, and HIV. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Hoang, L. A., & Yeoh, B. S. (2011). Breadwinning wives and ‘left-behind’ husbands: Men and masculinities in the Vietnamese transnational family. Gender & Society, 25(6), 717–739. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994). Gendered transitions: Mexican experiences of immigration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., & Avila, E. (1997). ‘I’m here, but I’m there’: The meanings of Latina transnational motherhood. Gender & Society, 11(5), 548–571. Ibarra, M. (2016). The ties that bind: Mexicana caretakers and aging Americans construct kinship. Anthropology of Work Review, 37(2), 79–90. Juozeliūnienė, I., & Budginaitė, I. (2018). How transnational mothering is seen to be ‘troubling’: Contesting and reframing mothering. Sociological Research Online, 23(1), 262–281. Kraler, A., Kofman, E., Kohli, M., & Schmoll, C. (2011). Gender, generations and the family in international migration. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kwon, J. H. (2015). The work of waiting: Love and money in Korean Chinese transnational migration. Cultural Anthropology, 30(3), 477–500.

338  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Lahaie, C., Hayes, J. A., Piper, T. M., & Heymann, J. (2009). Work and family divided across borders: The impact of parental migration on Mexican children in transnational families. Community, Work & Family, 12(3), 299–312. Lee, S. H. (2021). Korean wild geese families: Gender, family, social, and legal dynamics of middle-class Asian transnational families in North America. Korean Communities across the World. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Louie, A. (2004). Chineseness across borders: Renegotiating Chinese identities in China and the United States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Luibhéid, E. (2002). Entry denied: Controlling sexuality at the border. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Luibhéid, E. (2013). Pregnant on arrival: Making the illegal immigrant. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Macdonald, C. L. (2011). Shadow mothers: Nannies, au pairs, and the micropolitics of mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mata-Codesal, D. (2015). Ways of staying put in Ecuador: Social and embodied experiences of mobility– immobility interactions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(14), 2274–2290. Menjívar, C., & Abrego, L. (2012). Legal violence: Immigration law and the lives of Central American immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 117(5), 1380–1421. Menjívar, C., & Agadjanian, V. (2007). Men’s migration and women’s lives: Views from rural Armenia and Guatemala. Social Science Quarterly, 88(5), 1243–1262. Milazzo, A., & Van de Walle, D. (2017). Women left behind? Poverty and headship in Africa. Demography, 54(3), 1119–1145. Moran-Taylor, M. J. (2008). When mothers and fathers migrate north: Caretakers, children, and child rearing in Guatemala. Latin American Perspectives, 35(4), 79–95. Muehlebach, A. K. (2013). The moral neoliberal: Welfare and citizenship in Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oliveira, G. (2018). Motherhood across borders: Immigrants and their children in Mexico and New York. New York: New York University Press. Padilla, M. (2007). Caribbean pleasure industry: Tourism, sexuality, and AIDS in the Dominican republic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Parreñas, R. S. (2001). Mothering from a distance: Emotions, gender, and intergenerational relations in Filipino transnational families. Feminist Studies, 27(2), 361–390. Parreñas, R. S. (2008). The force of domesticity: Filipina migrants and globalization. New York: New York University Press. Pauli, J. (2008). A house of one’s own: Gender, migration, and residence in rural Mexico. American Ethnologist, 35(1), 171–187. Peña, E. A. (2011). Performing piety: Making space sacred with the Virgin of Guadalupe. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rodriguez, N. G.-L. (2017). Fragile families: Foster care, immigration, and citizenship. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Schmalzbauer, L. (2008). Family divided: The class formation of Honduran transnational families. Global Networks, 8(3), 329–346. Shmulyar Gréen, O., & Melander, C. (2018). Family obligations across European borders: Negotiating migration decisions within the families of post-accession migrants in Sweden. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1–13. Smith, C. J., & Yang, X. (2005). Examining the connection between temporary migration and the spread of STDs and HIV/AIDS in China. China Review, 5(1), 111–139. Suárez‐Orozco, C., Todorova, I. L., & Louie, J. (2002). Making up for lost time: The experience of separation and reunification among immigrant families. Family Process, 41(4), 625–643. Tormey, A. (2007). ‘Everyone with eyes can see the problem’: Moral citizens and the space of Irish nationhood. International Migration, 45(3), 69–100. Van der Geest, S., Mul, A., & Vermeulen, H. (2004). Linkages between migration and the care of frail older people: Observations from Greece, Ghana and the Netherlands. Ageing & Society, 24(3), 431–450.

Migration in families and households  339 Vivas-Romero, M., & Martínez, A. O. S. (2017). Tracing migrant-mothers’ ‘return’ narratives in the Mexico-United States and Peru-Belgium migratory-circuits. Trace. Travaux et recherches dans les Amériques du Centre, 71, 166–190. Vives, L., & Vazquez Silva, I. (2017). Senegalese migration to Spain: Transnational mothering practices. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(3), 495–512. Vogt, W. A. (2018). Lives in transit: Violence and intimacy on the migrant journey. Oakland: University of California Press. Walsh, K. (2009). Geographies of the heart in transnational spaces: Love and the intimate lives of British migrants in Dubai. Mobilities, 4(3), 427–445. Wurtz, H. (2020). A movement in motion: Collective mobility and embodied practice in the central American migrant caravan. Mobilities, 15(6), 930–944. Wurtz, H. (2021). The paradoxes of im/mobility in Central American transit migration in Mexico. Dissertation. New York: Columbia University Press. Zhao, J., Liu, X., & Wang, M. (2015). Parent–child cohesion, friend companionship and left-behind children’s emotional adaptation in rural China. Child Abuse & Neglect, 48, 190–199.

28. Housing and home Enrico Fravega and Paolo Boccagni1

INTRODUCTION That ‘a house is not a home’ is a rather commonsensical way to portray the difference between the material bases of our day-to-day social reproduction and its emotional, relational, and cultural aspects. However, how a house interplays with a home, and how it does so for international migrants—in the here-and-now of their dwelling arrangements and over their mobility careers—is a question that deserves further and systematic discussion. In this perspective, our chapter reviews the main functions, characteristics, and patterns of the built and domestic environments of international migrants, as a central aspect of their living conditions and trajectories of societal inclusion or exclusion. We start from a broad overview of the literature on the economic, material, and infrastructural bases of housing, in light of the relevant legal and political debates, moving then into research on the immaterial and relational bases of home and homemaking. While these sections articulate different approaches and substantive concerns, they also point to the intimate interdependence between the notions of house and home. Throughout the chapter, we draw primarily on the literature on low-skilled migrants and refugees, with particular attention to immigration in Europe. Both options have fundamentally to do with our own expertise. In practice, questions of home and housing are equally important across the spectrum of migrant categories and structures of opportunities, keeping in mind that different categories may designate different people, or different positions in the career of the same migrants. Based on our argument, we eventually illustrate the promise of a systematic and comparative approach to the house/home as both a fundamental venue for migrants’ life experience, and a social institution that is differentially affected by migration at a local and transnational level.

HOUSE AND HOME: WHY TOGETHER? On the face of it, the difference between the notions of home and house is self-evident. Yet, it has nourished an extended debate at the intersection of housing and home studies (e.g. Coolen & Meesters, 2012; Handel, 2019; Kusenbach & Paulsen, 2019). This debate starts from two remarkable paradoxes. On the one hand, while research on housing does not necessarily draw on the conceptual repertoire of home and homemaking (especially in a policy-oriented domain), the house itself is a privileged site to research broader societal questions. These include family reproduction, wealth transmission and circulation, and status maintenance or display (Smith, 2012). Researching into one house may even be a way to appreciate the foundations of functional and symbolic divisions of space—private vs. public, masculine (i.e. space supposedly more appropriate for men) vs. feminine (for women, or for non-heteronormative masculinities), sacred vs. lay, etc. (Bertolani, Bonfanti, & Boccagni, 2021; Bourdieu, 1977 [1970]; Carsten & Hugh-Jones, 1995; Gauvain & Altman, 1982). On the other hand, 340

Housing and home  341 the lexicon of home involves primarily emotional and relational attributes, together with the constellations of values and moralities underpinning them. Nevertheless, it is dubious whether such immaterial attributes can be detached from material and situated circumstances such as those embedded in particular dwelling places. In short, whether for analytical or practical purposes, the notions of house and home are hardly autonomous from each other, and yet their complementarity opens up to different and potentially contrasting developments. Against this background, the emergence of a research agenda along processual and interactive lines, in terms of housing, homemaking, and homing, holds promise to advance the conversation further (Blunt & Dowling, 2006; Boccagni, Pérez-Murcia, & Belloni, 2020). Such a mobile and practice-oriented subtext is particularly suitable for a sociological approach to international migration, as the notions of house and home capture distinct and complementary aspects of migrants’ life experience: the material infrastructures for protection, social reproduction, and privacy accessible to them, given their patterns of integration and spatial distribution, and the place attachments they nourish over time, thereby privileging certain settings or locations over the others. Importantly, the sites and scales of housing spaces do not necessarily overlap with the sites and scales of home-like ones. In the rest of the chapter, we approach home primarily as a matter of lived experience of one’s dwelling arrangements. We should not forget, however, that the sociological relevance of this notion reaches beyond that. As a discursive category, most notably, home (or its equivalent across languages) operates as a powerful metaphor to articulate the terrain and conditions for collective identity, belonging, and boundary-making (Dobel, 2010). In a particularly essentialized sense, it can be mobilized as a quintessence of autochthony and rootedness—the supposedly inherent properties of a settled (mainstream) society that migration would purportedly undermine (Duyvendak, 2011).

HOUSING AND INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION: AN OVERVIEW International migrants, as a recent EU study sums up, ‘are generally vulnerable on the housing market, disproportionately dependent on private rentals, more likely to be uninformed of their rights and discriminated against. They also face greater obstacles to access public housing or housing benefits and are more likely to live in substandard and poorly connected accommodations, with less space available and at a higher rental cost burden than the national average’.2 Furthermore, the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (www​.feantsa​.org) attests that immigrants represent a disproportionate share of the homeless population in the EU. Even in some of the most advanced societies and economies in the world, migrants are far from able to satisfy what is widely seen as a basic human need. Such a need, in turn, is closely entangled with personal wellbeing (Sen, 1985, 2001), regarding both health conditions and social relationships with significant others (Nicholls, 2010). Furthermore, housing is a prerequisite for labor market inclusion (IZA-ESRI, 2011). Whether housing needs are met or not, in practice, depends on the ongoing interplay between legal structures (laws and administrative provisions that regulate the access to welfare, tenants’ and landlords’ duties and rights, etc.), social and economic opportunities, and national housing regimes and cultures. As an extended body of literature shows, migrants are generally less likely than their native counterparts to achieve home ownership (Kalantaryan, Gidley, & Caputo, 2017). Tenure status is seen as a common indicator of social inclusion (Eurostat, 2017), albeit one that interacts with

342  Research handbook on the sociology of migration country-specific variables, given the existence of different housing models on a national scale. As the most up-to-date Eurostat figures show, in 2015 70.5 percent of EU-28 nationals aged 20–64 lived in owner-occupied dwellings, while the percentage of foreign citizens in the same age group was remarkably lower (32.1 percent) (cf. Duffy, 2007). Migrant access to homeownership is also penalized by the lack of the necessary deposit or the lack of credit (Lukes, de Noronha, & Finney, 2019). Factors such as income, working status, institutional discrimination, household conditions, and social capital are typically seen to account for migrants’ tenure choices (Tao, Hui, Wong, & Chen, 2015; Tong, Zhang, MacLachlan, & Li, 2020). Just as significant is the existence of semi-formal tenures for migrant housing, particularly across metropolitan areas in the Global South (Bunnell, 2002; da Piedade Morais & de Oliveira Cruz, 2017; Datta, 2016; Varley, 2013; Webster, Wu, Zhang, & Sarkar, 2016). In sum, tenure status is no binary condition—rent or ownership. It rather corresponds to a continuum of formal/ informal housing agreements, involving multiple degrees of legality, contractual security, and tenure security, as well as rights and forms of privilege, typically falling on the lower rungs of the local housing and real estate market (Liu, 2019). On top of that, migrants are penalized by the incidence of housing costs. Housing cost overburden—measured as the share of population living in households where the total cost of housing accounts for over 40 percent of disposable income—is significantly higher for non-EU citizens than for nationals. Housing costs, therefore, can be seen both as a cause of impoverishment and, due to the possibility to reduce both the costs of moving and of living, as a driver of further mobility (Egger, 2019). Significant inequalities emerge also from migrants’ access to the housing and the rental market. As the second EU-MIDIS survey on perceived discrimination and racism reports (FRA, 2017), North Africans and Roma are most affected by discrimination when trying to rent or buy an apartment or a house. First or last names, skin color, and physical appearance are the most often perceived reasons for discrimination. This holds also for people of Turkish origin in Germany (Horr, Hunkler, & Kroneberg, 2018). Still, in some cases, discrimination in access to housing rests on a legal base. A case in point is the ‘Right to Rent’, a measure that is part and parcel of the 2016 Immigration Act in the United Kingdom. This measure mandates a duty for landlords to conduct immigration document checks on prospective tenants. In practice, such a provision involves landlords in an everyday bordering activity (McKee, Leahy, Tokarczyk, & Crawford, 2021). More fundamentally, the affordability and selectivity of the housing markets contribute significantly to migrants’ spatial dispersion or concentration. According to OECD (2015), in the vast majority of countries, immigrants are overrepresented in run-down neighborhoods. Yet, compared to the United States, data show relatively limited spatial segregation on ethnic bases in Europe, due also to the role played by national welfare regimes (Alba & Foner, 2015). In the US case, instead, segregation and concentration of neighborhood poverty are tied to protracted discrimination in the real estate and banking industries. Taken together, these dynamics lead to racial isolation and to stark inequalities in access to education (Massey, 2020). According to Pérez-Soria (2017), who has focused on Mexican migrants in the United States, migrants’ spatial segregation is also related to occupational segregation. In fact, social class more than race or ethnicity tends to account for ongoing ethnic segregation in the EU (Musterd, 2005; Musterd & de Winter, 1998). At the same time, the remarkable diversity in ethnic residential distribution patterns between immigrant groups, and between Northern and Southern EU cities, points to the absence of a single European model of ethnic segregation (Lichter, Parisi, & Ambinakudige, 2020; Malheiros, 2002; Musterd & de Winter, 1998). Rather, multiple pat-

Housing and home  343 terns of ethnic concentration or dispersal tend to overlap with social class divides within the same cities (Arbaci, 2007). This scenario generates multiple patterns of ‘interstitial dispersion’ in the urban space, particularly in Southern Europe. On the other hand, segregation of migrants and other socially disadvantaged groups in Nordic countries seems due to the existence of large and segmented social or public mass housing complexes (Skifter Andersen, Andersson, Wessel, & Vilkama, 2016). In any case, housing segregation raises major and mostly unaddressed questions about the reproduction of social disadvantage over time, as a consequence of the unequal intergenerational transfer of wealth. Along this line, intergenerational transfers for housing—or the lack thereof—can reveal deep cultural differences in the conception of kinship and family, as well as the societal agreements underpinning the different welfare state regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1999; Ronald & Lennartz, 2018). More generally, the housing question highlights the significant role of public authorities in including or excluding specific groups from adequate accommodation through housing policies (housing measures targeting, provision of social housing, financial aid, etc.). Legally speaking, the right to housing for third-country nationals has been recognized at several levels in international, EU and national legislation.3 Within this frame, exiles, asylum seekers, and refugees enjoy specific protection, including the right to housing. According to UNHCR estimates, more than six million people (22 percent of the overall refugee population) are living in some sort of refugee camp.4 These camps represent a crucial site to study both housing and homemaking practices (Boccagni, 2022). Their material and temporal conditions are revealing of how forced migrants end up being included or excluded within receiving societies. In this sense, refugee camps articulate peculiar patterns of marginalization and temporal injustice (Thorshaug & Brun, 2019). Even more critical is the fact that no legislation specifically addresses the transition beyond emergency accommodation for asylum-seekers and their right to housing, once they obtain an international protection status (Asylum Information Database, 2019). Difficulties in access to housing for beneficiaries of international protection, due to financial constraints and various forms of discrimination, have been reported in many EU countries (including Germany, Spain, Poland, Ireland, and Belgium). Legal and administrative barriers to refugee mobility out of reception centers are also widespread in Europe. Within this framework, refugees are exposed to a high risk of destitution. This contributes to push a number of migrants into informal settlements and squats (OHCHR, 2017). The latter include a variety of housing practices that articulate and reproduce forms of autonomous organization, informal mutual support, and citizenship from below (Dadusc, Grazioli, & Martínez, 2019). Questions of housing inclusion or exclusion should also be investigated from a long-term perspective. In the field of housing studies, the role of time has been primarily addressed by authors like Kemeny (Forrest & Kemeny, 1982; Kemeny, 1992) and Clapham (2002). Although their work is not directly focused on migration, it provides a suitable frame to research migrant housing predicaments over time. Most notably, Clapham’s notion of housing pathways aptly highlights the role of housing along migrant integration. Generally speaking, migrant housing pathways are less linear trajectories than intricate patterns of housing accommodation and tenure, ruptures, and re-settlements. Moreover, a diachronic perspective enables us to approach the urban and built environment as a dynamic ‘opportunity framework’ in which migrants are ‘active agents’ who carry on their housing practices by interacting with

344  Research handbook on the sociology of migration contextual factors (Balampanidis, 2020). In this optic, the nexus between housing and migration deserves further diachronic research, for a number of reasons: 1. It enables us to understand migration against the structural background of migration policies, labor market dynamics and national housing policies and regimes, while highlighting the uneven and contentious reach of the right to housing for different social groups across countries. 2. It reveals the intimate connections between housing and human dignity, belonging, and citizenship (Appadurai, 2013). Put differently, it shows that housing is both an investment in the future—as long as it embeds the connection between kinship, reproduction, shelter, and patrimony (Bourdieu, 2000)—and an unavoidable challenge for social cohesion in multiethnic contemporary societies. 3. It shows that migrants’ housing precarity may well be a recursive, even life-long predicament, and that their social and spatial segregation across fragmented housing careers is differentially affected by housing tenure composition, housing policies and urban mobility practices. Overall, housing can hardly be reduced to just a commodity (to be purchased on the real estate markets or appropriated by squatting), a service (accessed through rental transactions), or a social right provided by public authorities (public housing). It rather conflates all these dimensions under variable combinations. It is actually a battleground, or a conflict-ridden arena in which different actors negotiate over the unequal distribution of the legal, economic, social, and symbolic resources they can mobilize in order to achieve an appropriate accommodation.

HOUSING AS LIVED EXPERIENCE OF HOME: A TIME-BASED UNDERSTANDING Following the insights of research on housing pathways and migration careers, migrants’ dwelling conditions and experiences can be investigated as a social question in itself—one that, among other aspects, reveals the interdependence between distinct temporalities and stages in their life course. There is an extended literature on the lived experience of a house as a source of diverse attachments and contrasting emotional reactions, ranging from longing or discomfort to belonging. ‘Home is where one starts from’, T. S. Eliot famously wrote, pointing to the long-term significance of one’s place of birth—whether a house, a city, or a nation—and thereby conflating the physical space with emotional and cultural space. In fact, the overlap of these spaces along the life course is an empirical question, one that is particularly uncertain and worth exploring under circumstances of migration. This is not only because migrants, by definition, left behind their homes and, according to a ‘sedentary’ worldview, are not expected to feel or to be at home away from their home(lands). Just as important is the fact that their very presence implicitly questions the romantic narrative of home and the commonplaces about one’s home/homeland as the right or natural place to be. While the experience of home may hold a degree of ambiguity for anybody (Heller, 1995), this notion is especially complex for international migrants. It can match with different temporal locations, from the past to the future, as people interact with distinct spatial locations along their housing pathways. Rather than seeing home as a sequence of dwelling places, we

Housing and home  345 could thus reframe it as a special relationship with place that is renegotiated across different locations over time, based also on the memories and projections enacted in them. In this optic, home is actively pursued and oriented to distinctive material and social settings, which affect it in turn (Boccagni et al., 2020). It is a multi-layered space (re)produced by social and affective practices, memories, and imaginaries which, together, give meaning and significance to dwelling (Cieraad, 2018). It may ultimately be a place of destination as, or even more than, a place of origin. Even the dwelling of an immigrant household in the here-and-now, however, may be a crucial setting for place-related emotions. Domestic material cultures, as revealed by a variety of ordinary objects and by the ways to decorate the home, can engender meaningful connections with the homeland (Dibbits, 2009), besides being telling of the dwellers’ economic and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984). Through material culture, each of us shapes a domestic order that resembles a ‘social cosmology’ on a minimal scale (Miller, 2008). Objects can be both references of a nostalgic allegiance (Gans, 1979) and artifacts producing performative effects (Van der Horst, 2008). Either way, certain objects imaginatively carry people to other worlds and other times, regardless of their instrumental or aesthetic value. They play an intermediary role, as linkages to past (and sometimes future) homes through the narratives and stories which permeate them (Hurdley, 2006). The complex interaction between the objects spread in a dwelling and the ways to use them produces distinctive home atmospheres (Marschall, 2019). This does not rest only on material elements, though. The creation of a musical landscape, for instance, can significantly facilitate the performance of migrants’ belonging by echoing familiar sounds and reminding them that home can assume multiple locations (Li, 2013; Walsh, 2011). Indeed, a normatively positive sense of home can rest on the bridges that migrants reproduce between here and there, or between then and now, through sensuous affordances such as music (Berger & Mohr, 2010) or food production and consumption. The routines involved in preparing certain dishes, as well as their taste and smell, enable a complex entanglement of senses and meanings, places, and bodies (Bonfanti, Massa, & Miranda-Nieto, 2019). Food, in particular, is a critical component of post-migration homemaking, but also an affordance for the retention of ties with one’s past life in the country of origin (Miranda-Nieto & Boccagni, 2020). All the symbolic, social, and material practices whereby people, including migrants, may resignify a house as a home-like space have a major commonality. They embody a sort of promise, investment, or possibly a ‘bet’ into the future. Whenever someone tries to recreate a significant space within a dwelling, they are assuming that something relevant for their lives will happen there as a result. In this optic, home conflates a subjective dimension and a projective one. This spans across multiple temporalities (past, present, and future) and links together memories, dwelling practices, and expectations toward the future. The connection between these temporalities is not necessarily linear, and it changes over time. In this perspective, migrant dwellings are especially significant research sites, first, as provisional emplacements of ideal homes that are still to come (Cieraad, 2010); second, as intermediate steps within longer and open-ended housing pathways; and last, as performative environments where material aspects and affordances (Clapham, 2011; Gibson, 2014), combined with social relations and arrangements through habitus (Bourdieu, 1999), shape migrant multiple identities. For one, both the material infrastructures and cultures of a dwelling place provide valuable information not only about the current socio-economic condition of its dwellers, but also about their aspirations and ideas about what is socially desirable. Migrant and refugee homes do not

346  Research handbook on the sociology of migration simply embody their personal and collective memories, possibly framing them as a matter of nostalgia; they reveal how their future homes are expected to be. Thus, the longing for home is by no means limited to imaginations and desires for return. It is also embedded and enacted in social practices oriented to the future. This ‘productive nostalgia’ (Blunt, 2003), which is traceable in the complex interplay between memory, home, and identity, is expressed in the desire to recreate ‘home and homeland’ away from home. One’s home, however, is not a stable and immutable entity. Quite the opposite, it is a dynamic space that is continuously rebuilt, in terms of memories and projections, longings, and expectations, according to the changing relations migrants have with both the homeland and the country of settlement. In this optic, the ideal home does not necessarily coincide with the present dwelling, nor with a place in which migrants live for good. Highly telling of this projective ambivalence is the literature on transnational housing, as a major field of symbolic and economic investment of migrant resources. So-called remittance houses are worth studying both as markers of migrant social status and aspirations, and for their capacity to materialize an ideal of home, as well as the desire to return, regardless of its achievement (Boccagni & Bivand-Erdal, 2021; Boccagni & Pérez-Murcia, 2021; Pauli & Bedorf, 2018). In the second place, migrant homes are like stages within larger pathways in space and time. As such, they articulate (and are shaped by) the conditions migrants negotiate in other life spheres (e.g. work, family, legal status). Life course events in each of these domains affect both the capacity to make choices about housing and the meaning of housing. Moreover, and following Ward (1990), we can approach housing by looking not only at what it is but also at what it does in people’s lives. Its effects on dwellers’ lives can be traced through the ongoing interaction between the material home—and the opportunities it offers to social practices (Clapham, 2011; Heft, 1989)—and the ways in which people themselves understand, appropriate, and signify it. In this sense, home is not only a social construction. It is also a material place that shapes the identities and habitus (Bourdieu, 1984) of people inhabiting it. Home spaces can be researched as transitional spaces where migrants emplace changing belonging and more or less contradictory identities (Barrios-Aquino, 2017; Long & Oxfeld, 2004).

TO CONCLUDE: THE MIGRANT HOUSE/HOME AS A CRITICAL RESEARCH SITE FOR THE SOCIOLOGY OF MIGRATION This chapter has addressed the apparent dichotomy between home and house by unveiling the meanings and implications of these ways to look at the lived experience of place in migration studies. Most notably, investigating migrants’ differential access to the housing market over time enables us to capture distinctive patterns of reception and integration in so-called receiving societies. At the same time, any dwelling place is also a potential site of production of meaningful relationships—that is, a home—in ways that are afforded by, but are not reducible to, its material foundations. For international migrants, in particular, a home is a space in which references to present, past, and future are negotiated and materialized, in light of the relationship between home(land) and home as objects of desire. Home is therefore a privileged site to investigate subjective, emotional, and cultural aspects of migrants’ everyday lives, as they negotiate some working balance between ethnic retention and readaptation, often from an under-privileged social and economic condition.

Housing and home  347 By unpacking the mutual entanglements of house and home, we can better appreciate both structural and subjective aspects of the migrant experience. A joint consideration of the two categories in terms of ‘house/home’ (Handel, 2019) is a good place from which to advance research on migrants’ social position and status in the context of settlement, as well as on their strategies of allocation of limited resources for different and conflicting purposes. In short, their housing pathways are hardly separable from, and are rather informative about, their migration careers at large. Both housing and home, from different perspectives, have been the subject of a plethora of local case studies in the migration scholarship. Nevertheless, looking at the mutual co-production of house and home, or at the situated entanglement of the two notions, can inspire research cutting across disparate societal settings, and ultimately illuminate a fundamental dimension of human life. If the house/home complex is acknowledged as a crucial venue for migration studies, with all of its context-dependent variations, there are strong reasons to invest further in comparative and multi-sited research on housing settings and conditions connected by international migration. How the subjective and objective dimensions of the ‘house/home’ interplay shape the migrant experience, while being affected by it over time, is then a promising way ahead for comparative research in the sociology of migration.

NOTES 1.

This chapter was written in the scope of the projects ERC-HOMInG (‘The home-migration nexus’) and MIUR-FARE HOASI (‘Home and asylum seekers in Italy’). It is the result of a common elaboration, matured throughout the entire development of the HOASI (Home and Asylum-Seekers in Italy) research project. However, for academic purposes only, the introduction and the chapter conclusions are to be attributed to both authors, while section 2. ‘Housing and international migration: an overview’ and section 3. ‘Housing as lived experience of home: a time -based understanding’ are to be attributed to Enrico Fravega. 2. See https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​migrant​-integration/​intdossier/​immigrant​-housing​-in​-europe​-overview. 3. See, for example, UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137, Article 21; UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3, Article 11; the European Social Charter Revised, adopted in the framework of the Council of Europe (various articles); the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), Article 32. 4. See https://​www​.unrefugees​.org/​refugee​-facts/​camps/​.

REFERENCES Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2015). Strangers no more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Appadurai, A. (2013). Housing and hope. Places Journal. Retrieved from https://​placesjournal​.org/​ article/​housing​-and​-hope/​. Arbaci, S. (2007). Ethnic segregation, housing systems and welfare regimes in Europe. European Journal of Housing Policy, 7(4), 401–433.

348  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Asylum Information Database (2019). Housing out of reach? The reception of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe. Retrieved from https://​asylumineurope​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2020/​11/​aida​ _housing​_out​_of​_reach​.pdf. Balampanidis, D. (2020). Housing pathways of immigrants in the city of Athens. Housing, Theory and Society, 37(2), 230–250. Barrios-Aquino, M. (2017). Transcending home: Citizenship and belonging in the migrant experience. In M. Barrios-Aquino et al. (Eds.) Beyond the boundaries of home (pp. 49–62). Brighton: University of Sussex. Berger, J., & Mohr, J. (2010). A seventh man. London: Verso. Bertolani, B., Bonfanti, S., & Boccagni, P. (2021). At home in the gurdwara? Religious space and the resonance with domesticity in a London suburb. Religion, 51(3), 423–442. Blunt, A. (2003). Collective memory and productive nostalgia: Anglo-Indian homemaking at McCluskieganj. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21(6), 717–738. Blunt, A., & Dowling, R. (2006). Home. Abingdon: Routledge. Boccagni, P. (2022). At home in the centre? Spatial appropriation and horizons of homemaking in reception facilities for asylum seekers. In L. Beeckmans, A. Gola, A. Singh, & H. Heynen (Eds.) Making home(s) in displacement (pp. 139–154). Leuven: Leuven University Press. Boccagni, P., & Bivand-Erdal, M. (2021). On the theoretical potential of ‘remittance houses’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(5), 1066–1083. Boccagni, P., & Pérez-Murcia, L. E. (2021). Fixed places, shifting distances: Remittance houses and migrants’ negotiation of home in Ecuador. Migration Studies, 9(1), 47–64. Boccagni, P., Pérez-Murcia, L. E., & Belloni, M. (2020). Thinking home on the move. Bingley: Emerald. Bonfanti, S., Massa, A., & Miranda-Nieto, A. (2019). Whiffs of home: Ethnographic comparison in a collaborative research study across European cities. Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa, 12(2), 153–174. Bourdieu, P. (1977 [1970]). The Kabyle house or the world reversed. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.) Algeria 1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (Ed.) (1999). The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Les structures sociales de l’économie. Paris: Seuil. Bunnell, T. (2002). Kampung rules. Urban Studies, 39(9), 1685–1701. Carsten, J., & Hugh-Jones, S. (Eds.) (1995). About the house. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cieraad, I. (2010). Homes from home. Home Cultures, 7(1), 85–102. Cieraad, I. (2018). Home. In H. Callen (Ed.) The international encyclopedia of anthropology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Clapham, D. (2002). Housing pathways. Housing, Theory and Society, 19(2), 57–68. Clapham, D. (2011). The embodied use of the material home: An affordance approach. Housing, Theory and Society, 28(4), 360–376. Coolen, H., & Meesters, J. (2012). House, home and dwelling. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27, 1–10. da Piedade Morais, M., & de Oliveira Cruz, B. (2017). Housing demand and tenure choice in Brazilian urban areas. Institute for Applied Economic Research. Retrieved from http://​hdl​.handle​.net/​10419/​ 220314. Dadusc, D., Grazioli, M., & Martínez, M. A. (2019). Introduction: Citizenship as inhabitance? Citizenship Studies, 23(6), 521–539. Datta, A. (2016). The illegal city. London: Routledge. Dibbits, H. (2009). Furnishing the salon: Symbolic ethnicity and performative practices in Moroccan‐ Dutch domestic interiors. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(5), 550–557. Dobel, J. (2010). The rhetorical possibilities of ‘home’ in homeland security. Administration and Society, 42(5), 479–503. Duffy, D. (2007). The housing tenure of immigrants in Ireland. ESRI Working Paper. Retrieved from https://​www​.esri​.ie/​system/​files​?file​=​media/​file​-uploads/​2015​-07/​WP188​.pdf. Duyvendak, J. W. (2011). The politics of home. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Housing and home  349 Egger, E.-M. (2019). Migrants leaving mega-cities. World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER). Retrieved from https://​www​.wider​.unu​.edu/​publication/​migrants​-leaving​ -mega​-cities. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eurostat (2017). Migration integration. Retrieved from https://​doi​.org/​10​.2785/​295423. Forrest, R., & Kemeny, J. (1982). Middle-class housing careers. The Sociological Review, 30(2), 208–222. FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) (2017). Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey. Main results. https://​fra​.europa​.eu/​en/​publication/​2017/​second​-european​ -union​-minorities​-and​-discrimination​-survey​-main​-results. Gans, H. J. (1979). Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2(1), 1–20. Gauvain, M., & Altman, I. (1982). A cross-cultural analysis of homes. Architecture and Behavior, 2, 27–46. Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. New York and London: Psychology Press. Handel, A. (2019). What’s in a home? Toward a critical theory of housing/dwelling. Environment & Planning C: Politics and Space, 37(6), 1045–1062. Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(1), 1–30. Heller, A. (1995). Where are we at home? Thesis Eleven, 41, 1–18. Horr, A., Hunkler, C., & Kroneberg, C. (2018). Ethnic discrimination in the German housing market. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 47(2), 134–146. Hurdley, R. (2006). Dismantling mantelpieces. Sociology, 40(4), 717–733. IZA-ESRI (2011). Study on active inclusion of migrants. Final Report. Retrieved from https://​ftp​.iza​.org/​ report​_pdfs/​iza​_report​_43​.pdf. Kalantaryan, S., Gidley, B., & Caputo, M. L. (2017). Residential integration. In A. Weinar, A. Unterreiner, & P. Fargues (Eds.) Migrant integration between homeland and host society, Volume 1 (pp. 117–147). Cham: Springer. Kemeny, J. (1992). Housing and social theory. London/New York: Routledge. Kusenbach, M., & Paulsen, K. (2019). Home/house. In A. Orum (Ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of urban and regional studies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Li, W. W. (2013). Shifting selves in migration: Home, ageing in place and well-being. Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press. Lichter, D. T., Parisi, D., & Ambinakudige, S. (2020). The spatial integration of immigrants in Europe. Population Research and Policy Review, 39(3), 465–491. Liu, R. (2019). Hybrid tenure structure, stratified rights to the city, Beijing. Habitat International, 85, 41–52. Long, L. D., & Oxfeld, E. (Eds.) (2004). Coming home? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lukes, S., de Noronha, N., & Finney, N. (2019). Slippery discrimination: A review of the drivers of migrant and minority housing disadvantage. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(17), 3188–3206. Malheiros, J. (2002). Ethni‐cities: Residential patterns in the Northern European and Mediterranean metropolises – implications for policy design. International Journal of Population Geography, 8(2), 107–134. Marschall, S. (2019). ‘Memory objects’: Material objects and memories of home in the context of intra-African mobility. Journal of Material Culture, 24(3), 253–269. Massey, D. S. (2020). Still the linchpin: Segregation and stratification in the USA. Race and Social Problems, 12(1), 1–12. McKee, K., Leahy, S., Tokarczyk, T., & Crawford, J. (2021). Redrawing the border through the ‘Right to Rent’. Critical Social Policy, 41(1), 91–110. Miller, D. (2008). The comfort of things. Cambridge: Polity Press. Miranda-Nieto, A., & Boccagni, P. (2020). At home in the restaurant: Familiarity, belonging and material culture in Ecuadorian restaurants in Madrid. Sociology, 54(5), 1022–1040.

350  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Musterd, S. (2005). Social and ethnic segregation in Europe. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(3), 331–348. Musterd, S., & de Winter, M. (1998). Conditions for spatial segregation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(4), 665–673. Nicholls, C. M. (2010). Housing, homelessness and capabilities. Housing, Theory and Society, 27(1), 23–41. OECD (2015). Indicators of immigrant integration 2015: Settling in. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://​www​.oecd​.org/​publications/​indicators​-of​-immigrant​-integration​-2015​-settling​ -in​-9789264234024​-en​.htm. OHCHR (2017). In search of dignity: Report on the human rights of migrants at Europe’s borders. Retrieved from https://​www​.refworld​.org/​docid/​5a097c284​.html. Pauli, J., & Bedorf, F. (2018). Retiring home? Anthropology & Aging, 39(1), 48–65. Pérez-Soria, J. (2017). Mexican immigrants in the United States. Estudios Fronterizos, 18(37), 1–17. Ronald, R., & Lennartz, C. (2018). Housing careers, intergenerational support and family relations. Housing Studies, 33(2), 147–159. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North Holland. Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skifter Andersen, H., Andersson, R., Wessel, T., & Vilkama, K. (2016). The impact of housing policies and housing markets on ethnic spatial segregation: Comparing the capital cities of four Nordic welfare states. International Journal of Housing Policy, 16(1), 1–30. Smith, S. J. (Ed.) (2012). International encyclopedia of housing and home (Vol. 7). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Tao, L., Hui, E. C., Wong, F. K., & Chen, T. (2015). Housing choices of migrant workers in China: Beyond the Hukou perspective. Habitat International, 49, 474–483. Thorshaug, R. Ø., & Brun, C. (2019). Temporal injustice and re-orientations in asylum reception centres in Norway. Fennia, 197(2), 232–248. Tong, D., Zhang, Y., MacLachlan, I., & Li, G. (2020). Migrant housing choices from a social capital perspective: The case of Shenzhen, China. Habitat International, 96, 102082. Van der Horst, H. (2008). Materiality of belonging: The domestic interiors of Turkish migrants and their descendants in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Varley, A. (2013). Postcolonialising informality? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 31(1), 4–22. Walsh, K. (2011). Migrant masculinities and domestic space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36(4), 516–529. Ward, C. (1990). Talking houses: Ten lectures by Colin Ward. London: Freedom Press. Webster, C., Wu, F., Zhang, F., & Sarkar, C. (2016). Informality, property rights, and poverty in China’s ‘favelas’. World Development, 78, 461–476.

29. Sociabilities: kin, friends, and acquaintances in international migration Rocco Molinari

INTRODUCTION A relational approach to the study of international migration considers migrants, former migrants, and nonmigrants (both in the origin and destination contexts) as embedded in ongoing social relationships, capable of affecting both their economic and non-economic lives. These structures, which emerge from social interactions among kin, friends, and acquaintances, typically characterized by mutual obligation and interdependence, are likely to influence migration processes as well as to change with migration. The advantage of such an approach, in contrast to a focus on the individual, addresses the multiple forms that international migration assumes in practice. In most cases, the actors involved in international mobility processes are households, not single individuals. Family units may decide to migrate together or encourage one or more members to participate in foreign labor markets, differentiating household risks and responses to economic pressures. If migrants move alone, they are likely to maintain kin relationships that may precipitate further movement, for family reunification or return migration. In other words, each act of migration generates transnational linkages between migrants and their friends and acquaintances who stayed behind. Nonetheless, migrants and nonmigrants are also part of a community that includes former migrants, who, by virtue of kinship or friendship, provide information, help, and support, factors that affect their actual or eventual migratory and settlement trajectories. Relational or network approaches encompass a meso level of analysis in the study of international migration, connecting individual choices to structural (relational) factors, and improving our understanding of macro-level contextual outcomes. In short, studying the meso level helps us to understand why migration occurs and how migrants behave in the destination context. Two main perspectives dominate the study of migrants’ personal relationships. The first concerns the types of resources that circulate through interpersonal networks (e.g., material support, emotional support, information) and how resources are functionally activated to achieve different goals (Tilly & Brown, 1967; Boyd, 1989; Portes, 1995; Gold, 2005; Bashi, 2007; FitzGerald, 2014; Vacca, Solano, Lubbers, Molina, & McCarty, 2018). Scholars generally refer to the particular types of resources that inhere in personal network structures and generate reciprocal obligations as forms of social capital (Coleman, 1988; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993). The functional use of network resources has been studied in relation to a variety of migratory outcomes: from the migration decision to settlement trajectories; from job search to entrepreneurship; and from financial and social remittances to psychological well-being (see Gold, 2005 for a review). Second, sociability as such has been studied as an outcome of migration. According to the convoy model, over the life-span, individuals move with a ‘convoy’ of relationships that are 351

352  Research handbook on the sociology of migration shaped by individual and situational stability and discontinuity patterns (Antonucci, Langfahl, & Akiyama, 2003). The model applies to the migration context as well, given that geographical mobility implies changes in the way personal relationships, either new ones or with those left behind, are experienced and perceived. Furthermore, the migratory process itself generates contacts and interactions with a new social environment. Therefore, the extent to which migrants have relationships with the native population has often been considered an important dimension of migrant integration (Gordon, 1964; Heath & Schneider, 2021). Keeping these perspectives in mind, two main sites for personal relationships have been explored by scholars interested in migration processes, and their causes and consequences. First, sociability has been studied in sending communities, typically characterized by high emigration rates, exploring connections that link nonmigrants to former migrants. Accordingly, personal networks contribute to the decision-making process, influencing whether potential migrants decide to move. Furthermore, the presence, absence, or strength of transnational ties, which connect those who migrate and those who stay behind, may also influence return migration decisions. In this view, network structures are seen as important drivers of migration processes, stimulating the perpetuation of international movement. Second, sociability patterns have been examined as social interactions sustained and developed in the destination context. In such cases, network structures are generally conceptualized as personal ties among kin and friends within the same migrant community (sometimes referred as immigrant, co-ethnic, or community networks), between migrants and natives, or (much less frequently) among migrants of different ethnicities or nationalities. Even transnational relationships may be included in this framework, since their nature ostensibly changes after migration, the geographical distance leading to redefinition of the relationships between migrants and those left behind. In this chapter, I provide an overview of research studies on the sites for personal relationships in the migration process. The empirical works I have included almost entirely refer to international migration into Western countries, in particular, the United States and Europe, contexts in which migrant networks have been explored in-depth. However, some more general considerations may be applied to other, less explored, migration flows. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows. The next section highlights the importance of personal relationships before migration, presenting empirical studies that have conceptualized and investigated social networks as drivers of international mobility. I then elaborate the main approaches and findings concerning network structures after migration, with reference to resource mobilization, processes of relational change, and determinants of network diversity. The concluding section discusses the implications of these studies and highlights directions for future research.

NETWORKS AS DRIVERS: RELATIONAL STRUCTURES AND THE PERPETUATION OF INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT Neoclassical economics conceives of the migration decision as solely guided by an individual cost-benefit calculation, in which the employment condition of the destination country interacts with the human capital return at the individual level and produces an (expected) outcome. If the difference between this outcome and the one obtained in the origin country exceeds the costs associated with migration, the individual decides to migrate. This model, which focuses

Sociabilities: kin, friends, and acquaintances in international migration  353 on isolated, atomized decision-makers, has been challenged by network approaches to international migration, which consider new migrants, former migrants, and nonmigrants as linked to one another. According to network theory, once an individual moves abroad, a transnational link between actors located in the destination and sending areas is generated. These connections, which have not necessarily emerged for the purpose of migrating, lower the costs and risks of subsequent migration choices (Massey et al., 1993). Former migrants, through personal networks, may spread advice that reduces the risks associated with the first instance of migration, especially valuable when such movement is undertaken illegally. Former migrants can also provide new migrants with help and support, circulating information on the job market or supplying assistance and accommodation in the initial settlement period. Relationships between migrants and nonmigrants also imply the circulation of a culture of migration, which changes the attitudes and perceptions towards migration of those who have remained in the origin country, influencing their expectations and further migration decisions (Kandel & Massey, 2002; Heering, van der Erf, & van Wissen, 2004; Hernández-Carretero & Carling, 2012). Potentially, migration may be initiated in the absence of personal network ties, for a variety of reasons, including wage differentials between the origin and destination, household strategies in the face of economic pressure, structural needs of receiving countries’ industrial economies, wars, persecutions, and humanitarian protection needs (Czaika & Reinprecht, 2020). However, through cumulative causation, migration becomes a self-perpetuating dynamic process (Massey, 1990). Once started, networks provide the social structure through which geographical mobility occurs in practice: Once the number of network connections in an origin area reaches a critical threshold, migration becomes self-perpetuating because each act of migration creates the social structure needed to sustain it. (Massey et al., 1993, p. 449)

Two important corollaries are derived from these theoretical considerations. First, personal relationships, as structures, interact with the other political, economic, and institutional structures shaping international mobility processes; in particular, network structures and migration policies are highly interlinked. Restrictive migration controls and border reinforcement, for instance, may push migrants to become gatekeepers that facilitate the illegal entrance of new migrants through their informal relationships (Carling, 2004). Further, family reunification policies are shaped by the structure of migrant kin relationships, pointing to the importance of networks as migration drivers. Second, personal relationships affect the selectivity of migration and, consequently, the composition of the migrant population in the destination countries. In the absence of networks, migration implies high costs and risks and emigrants are likely to be positively selected in terms of socio-economic resources, motivation, and risk-taking propensity. When network structures expand, by lowering the costs of migration, they increase the size of the pool of potential migrants. Migration, therefore, through personal networks over time, becomes a less selective process (Massey et al., 1993; McKenzie & Rapoport, 2010). Empirically, migration scholars have faced the problem of how to operationalize networks, i.e., how to transform the concept into a measurable indicator. Most survey-based studies adopting an origin-country perspective have defined networks through the prevalence rate, measured as the proportion of migrants over nonmigrants aged 15+ in the sending community

354  Research handbook on the sociology of migration (Massey, Goldring, & Durand, 1994; McKenzie & Rapoport, 2007). Another possibility, when information on individual relationships is available, relies on collecting data that reveal whether individuals have kin, friends, or acquaintances who have previously migrated (Massey & Espinosa, 1997). Research studies have generally been interested in observing whether these variables are associated with changes over time in the propensity to migrate, also accounting for other potential drivers of migration. Generally, a large number of quantitative empirical studies, mostly exploring contemporary migration from Mexico to the United States, and from Africa to Europe, have found that international migration processes are substantively influenced by changes in the observed prevalence rate or other related measures, even when accounting for other relevant factors (Massey, Alarcón, Durand, & González, 1987; Massey & España, 1987; Massey & Espinosa, 1997; Palloni, Massey, Ceballos, Espinosa, & Spittel, 2001; Migali, 2018; Bertoli & Ruyssen, 2018). Qualitative studies have also confirmed the importance of network structures in shaping international migration processes (Maroufof, 2017; Düvell, 2019; Sue, Riosmena, & Lepree, 2019). However, it has been acknowledged that individuals also migrate in the absence of networks and that, due to exclusionary mechanisms, the relationship between networks and migration may follow an inverse U-shape (de Haas, 2010).

THE CONTINUING SIGNIFICANCE OF NETWORK STRUCTURES AFTER MIGRATION While the studies reviewed in the prior section show how network structures influence migration decision-making processes and the perpetuation of international movement, in this section, I address the large body of literature that has examined the relevance of migrants’ personal relationships for settlement trajectories in destination contexts. These include both pathways of economic integration and processes of social and relational change. Migrant Networks and Labor Market Trajectories Following the perspective on the functional use of resources circulating through networks, some scholars have investigated the importance of personal relationships for economic and labor market outcomes of immigrants, including entrepreneurship, employment opportunities, wages, and social mobility patterns (Munshi, 2003; Aguilera & Massey, 2003). A long-standing tradition within US-based studies has looked at the relevance of relationships for business development among immigrants and their descendants. In some circumstances, migrants participate in the dense and cohesive network structures characterizing immigrant enclaves, consisting of small immigrant enterprises, which provide their members with a variety of resources that facilitate their economic action and foster the engagement of other members in entrepreneurship (Wilson & Portes, 1980; Portes, 1995; Light & Gold, 2000). Other studies have emphasized how co-ethnic network structures, through exclusionary mechanisms and external opportunities, may serve as conduits within ethnic niches of receiving labor markets (Waldinger, 1998, 2005). More generally, as is the case for the native-born population, networks intervene in job search processes. Evidence exists that confirms the redundant information migrants obtain when using referrals and informal contacts as job

Sociabilities: kin, friends, and acquaintances in international migration  355 search strategies, which can hinder their occupational outcomes in destination countries (Elliot, 2001; Battu, Seaman, & Zenou, 2011; Giulietti, Schluter, & Wahba, 2013). According to this framework, scholars rely on the distinction introduced by Putnam (2000, 2007) between bonding and bridging social capital to explain migrant occupational trajectories (Lancee, 2010, 2012; Kanas, Chiswick, van der Lippe, & van Tubergen, 2012). The former includes ties with people ‘who are like me in some important way’, e.g., having the same ethnicity, through which redundant information is likely to circulate; the latter pertains to ties ‘who are unlike me in some important way’, connecting to valuable and qualified resources (Putnam, 2007, p. 143). This distinction has been criticized by Ryan (2011, 2016), who argues that bridging ties strictly depend on the social position of migrant connections, regardless of their ethnicity. Co-ethnic ties, if situated in higher-level social contexts, may provide access to important resources, and, conversely, contacts with natives may produce redundant information. When exploring resource access, it is thus important to focus on the relative social location of actors: migrants can have horizontal and vertical (weak or strong) ties that rapidly change over time and evolve dynamically (Ryan, Sales, Tilki, & Siara, 2008). Networks as Outcomes: Changing Relationships Over Time Alongside the emphasis on resources and the importance of network structures for social mobility outcomes, a large body of literature has investigated how migrants’ personal relationships change after migration. These studies embody a large variety of interconnected research themes: ongoing changes in the composition of migrant relationships; friendship-formation mechanisms; loneliness and social isolation as consequences of geographical mobility; the adaptation to sociability styles of destination contexts; the maintenance or weakening of transnational ties; and the development of inter-ethnic relationships. This literature represents a growing strand of research on different forms of migration that has applied a large variety of methods, from network analysis to qualitative and survey-related techniques. A first group of studies, that mostly explore the behavior of specific migration groups moving to Europe, has investigated how migrant relationships change in terms of composition, meanings, and identities, with an emphasis on temporality. A typical pattern of change moves from dense networks of co-ethnics and transnational ties, to mixed networks of ethnically diverse friends and acquaintances that have emerged in the destination context (Lubbers et al., 2010). Recently, there has been growing interest among migration scholars in understanding the processes through which migrants make new friends in new contexts (Conradson & Latham, 2005; Gill & Bialski, 2011; Ryan & Mulholland, 2014; Ryan, 2015). Qualitative studies of highly skilled migrants moving to Europe have emphasized the simultaneous presence of barriers and opportunities to friendship-making processes in new places, which may lead to diversified sociability patterns. Recent migrants may encounter obstacles to building new friendship ties: language difficulties, lack of familiarity with the destination country, and oppositional attitudes. However, over time, some migrants are likely to engage in new forms of relationships that extend their social contacts. Processes of friendship formation can emerge as a consequence of deliberate individual decisions (e.g., the desire to improve language skills), or opportunities offered by shared experiences in the new social context (e.g., parenting). Importantly, these processes have been largely observed among highly skilled migrants. Therefore, the capability of engaging bridging relationships and mobilizing social

356  Research handbook on the sociology of migration capital largely depends upon other forms of capital, including cultural capital (Ryan, 2015; Ryan et al., 2008). Migration scholars have also investigated how transnational relationships have changed over time and the identities and meanings associated with them (Ryan et al., 2008; Morosanu, 2013; Ryan, Klekowski Von Koppenfels, & Mulholland, 2015; Bilecen & Sienkiewicz, 2015). It is likely that kin relationships are maintained even many years after migration: new technologies facilitate transnational communications, home-country visits are common, and, in some cases, parental visits to the destination country serve as important conduits for care and emotional support. In contrast, most studies have found that, due to the absence of shared experiences, transnational friendship ties tend to fade after migration. The weakening of friendship ties over time with those left behind has been associated with the shifting identities of migrants. Migration as a process implies a changing self that has consequences on how transnational relationships are perceived and weakened or maintained in practice (Ryan & D’Angelo, 2018). Other studies encompass a more general perspective, investigating the impact of international migration on the overall sociability patterns of migrants. This has led to a theoretical dichotomy between processes of decreased connectedness and social isolation, on the one hand, reinforced by the assumption of relational disruption due to geographical mobility (Weiss, 1973; Putnam, 2000), and, on the other hand, processes of migrant adaptation to the sociability styles of the receiving contexts, partly inspired by the relational dimension of assimilative pathways (Gordon, 1964). In both cases, little direct empirical evidence has been offered. Indeed, to properly assess such a research problem, one should be able to follow the relational trajectory of migrants from the origin to the destination context observing changes before and after migration. Longitudinal data of this kind are rarely available. However, Bartram (2019), in comparing sociability measures of intra-European migrants and stayers from the same origin countries, finds support for the adaptation hypothesis. Generally, cross-sectional comparisons of this sort neglect the fact that migration is a selective process. Identifying differences between migrants and stayers may not necessarily be a direct consequence of migration events. Nonetheless, some empirical studies have found that migrants generally rely on a smaller size of strong and trustworthy confidants than observed among the native population, suggesting higher risks of isolation post-migration (van Tubergen, 2014; Bilecen & Vacca, 2021). These findings mostly emerge from large surveys collecting core discussion network measures in destination countries, i.e., information on people with whom the interviewees discuss important personal matters (Marsden, 1987). More recently, migrants have also been observed to rely on a smaller number of weak ties than natives (Hofstra, Corten, & van Tubergen, 2021). The idea that migration has a disruptive effect on individuals’ social relations has also been explored using indirect measures. Feelings of loneliness, that pertain to a subjective evaluation of the discrepancy between a desired and an achieved network of relationships (de Jong Gierveld, van Tilburg, & Dykstra, 2018), have been studied in relation to migration, highlighting how threats to relationships may differently affect migrants at different stages of their settlement. Empirical studies have found higher levels of loneliness for first-generation migrants than natives (Koelet & de Valk, 2016; van den Broek & Grundy, 2017). Evidence exists that second generations, migrant students, and adolescents generally exhibit no differences with respect to natives or stayers (Neto & Barros, 2000; Rich Madsen et al., 2016; Neto, 2016). Further, a large body of research has focused on elderly migrants, showing how they are subject to specific risk factors. First, they embody individual characteristics generally asso-

Sociabilities: kin, friends, and acquaintances in international migration  357 ciated with loneliness, such as low socio-economic status (van Tilburg & Fokkema, 2021). Second, older migrants are more likely to lack certain important social protective factors, having less access to a sizable, satisfying, and mixed network of kin and non-kin relationships (de Jong Gierveld, Van der Pas, & Keating, 2015; Cela & Fokkema, 2017; ten Kate, Bilecen, & Steverink, 2020). Therefore, migration is usually considered as a strongly isolating factor, which challenges social policies in the long run. Networks as Outcomes: Determinants of Inter-Ethnic Relationships A well-established strand of research has focused on another dimension of changing relationships post-migration: how migrants form inter-ethnic ties. The aim to understand ethnic segregation mechanisms associated with international migration, which may affect many contexts (from schools, to neighborhoods or regions), has inspired this literature. In recent years, ethnic diversity in both migrant and native networks has been studied through different types of relationships: marriages, school friendships, confidants, leisure time contacts, and romantic relationships. Kalmijn (1998) suggests three mechanisms responsible for ethnic closure in personal relationships: homophily, meaning that individuals prefer to have ties with others that are similar to them (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001); opportunities, meaning that people face contextual constraints that shape the likelihood to meet diverse others; and third parties, meaning that individuals are influenced by others in their relational choices, e.g., peers, kin, and parents. Empirical studies have been primarily based on surveys conducted in Western European countries, collecting information on the personal contacts of migrant respondents. In some cases, surveys have been collected among adolescents within school cohorts, which represent relatively closed environments in which ethnic segregation mechanisms have been observed (Moody, 2001; Smith, van Tubergen, Maas, & McFarland, 2016). These works generally aim at identifying the factors associated with individual inter-ethnic relationships in a given context. First, some research focuses on aspects directly related to migratory status. Generational status may impact the development of outgroup ties: second-generation youth are socialized within destination country schools and show increasing similarity to natives, improving their opportunities and preferences to befriend ethnically diverse peers (van Tubergen, 2015). Further, migrant settlement intentions may affect network diversity, since temporary migrants exhibit a lower propensity to invest in new relationships (Martinovic, van Tubergen, & Maas, 2015). Second, ethnic diversity in personal relationships has been observed in relation to cultural diversity, the latter shaping both preferences and opportunities to meet peers of the same ethnicity. Some research, using longitudinal data to assess causal direction, has emphasized the role of host-country language difficulties as a cultural barrier that hampers the development of inter-ethnic relationships (Martinovic, van Tubergen, & Maas, 2009). Other studies have highlighted the importance of norms, values, attitudes, and traditions (Martinovic, 2013; van Tubergen, 2015; Smith, 2018), or parental influence on adolescents’ inter-ethnic attitudes and practices (Smith, Maas, & van Tubergen, 2015). These findings suggest that migrants that maintain higher levels of ingroup traditions and hostility towards other groups have lower levels of network diversity. Religion and religiosity have also been considered as key relational divides, especially with regard to the experience of Muslim migrants to Western European countries. In many contexts, native populations react with increasing suspicion to Muslim culture. Furthermore,

358  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Muslim migrants may maintain religious identities and ingroup conservative traditions through generations (Drouhot & Nee, 2019). Research has shown that Muslim migrants have very low rates of intermarriage and religiosity is generally associated with fewer outgroup relationships (Carol, 2016).

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, I have reviewed relational approaches to international migration, spanning from a focus on the resources that inhere in personal networks that affect migrant trajectories, to the investigation of the shifting relationships experienced by migrants. Network approaches have contributed to remarkable advancements in the study of international migration, posing some challenges for future research. One of the most relevant contributions of approaches emphasizing resources lies in the attempt to overcome the assumptions concerning atomized actors, common in neoclassical economics. Both microeconomic explanations of migration and assimilation theory are deeply rooted in the idea of subjective decision-making, either in terms of cost-benefit calculation or human capital investment and return over time. This atomistic view is challenged by network theory, which has provided theoretically grounded analytical tools showing that networks are self-feeding relational structures that perpetuate international movement. Furthermore, network theory offers an explanation for why assimilation fails in many concrete cases and why migrants face persistence disadvantage. Therefore, personal networks account for both causes and consequences of geographical mobility. Nonetheless, very little is known about the importance of network resources for non-economic outcomes. Resources can be material, but also non-material; the role of the latter for settlement trajectories of international migrants remains under-investigated. Furthermore, studies on the functional use of resources for migrants’ economic action are largely tied to the concept of ethnicity. Less is known on which resources are mobilized though other dimensions, for example, the social position of the actors involved. I have also reviewed research studies that seek to explore various forms of migrant relationships as outcomes. This strand of research, adopting various perspectives, has enriched our comprehension of migrant relational behavior in destination contexts, enhancing our knowledge concerning social integration. However, some problems emerge. First, the large heterogeneity of concepts and operationalization of migrant sociability patterns make it difficult to compare results that move in the opposite direction. Second, many studies are static in nature. However, migrant relationships tend to change considerably over time and through generations. Adopting a dynamic perspective may, therefore, be of crucial importance when studying changing relationships. A dichotomy appears to characterize this literature, between small-scale studies, on the one hand, in some cases longitudinal, mostly based on non-representative sub-groups of the migrant population in the destination context and, on the other hand, large-scale representative static analyses. Finally, most systematic approaches have investigated migrant relationships through the lens of ethnicity. Considering that migrants face ongoing sociability patterns, comprised of multiple relationships (as qualitative research has highlighted), a more comprehensive analytical effort to map this diversity is still needed.

Sociabilities: kin, friends, and acquaintances in international migration  359

REFERENCES Aguilera, M. B., & Massey, D. S. (2003). Social capital and the wages of Mexican migrants: New hypotheses and tests. Social Forces, 82(2), 671–701. Antonucci, T. C., Langfahl, E. S., & Akiyama, H. (2003). Relationships as outcomes and contexts. In F. R. Lang & K. L. Fingerman (Eds.) Growing together: Personal relationships across the life span (pp. 24–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartram, D. (2019). Sociability among European migrants. Sociological Research Online, 24(4), 557–574. Bashi, V. F. (2007). Survival of the knitted: Immigrant social networks in a stratified world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Battu, H., Seaman, P., & Zenou, Y. (2011). Job contact networks and the ethnic minorities. Labour Economics, 18(1), 48–56. Bertoli, S., & Ruyssen, I. (2018). Networks and migrants’ intended destination. Journal of Economic Geography, 18(4), 705–728. Bilecen, B., & Sienkiewicz, J. J. (2015). Informal social protection networks of migrants: Typical patterns in different transnational social spaces. Population, Space and Place, 21(3), 227–243. Bilecen, B., & Vacca, R. (2021). The isolation paradox: A comparative study of social support and health across migrant generations in the U.S. Social Science and Medicine, 283, 114204. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boyd, M. (1989). Family and personal networks in international migration: Recent developments and new agendas. International Migration Review, 23(3), 638–670. Carling, J. (2004). Emigration, return and development in Cape Verde: The impact of closing borders. Population, Space and Place, 10(2), 113–132. Carol, S. (2016). Like will to like? Partner choice among Muslim migrants and natives in Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(2), 261–276. Cela, E., & Fokkema, T. (2017). Being lonely later in life: A qualitative study among Albanians and Moroccans in Italy. Ageing and Society, 37(6), 1197–1226. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. Conradson, D., & Latham, A. (2005). Friendship, networks and transnationality in a world city: Antipodean transmigrants in London. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(2), 287–305. Czaika, M., & Reinprecht, C. (2020). Drivers of migration: A synthesis of knowledge. IMI Working Paper Series, 163, 1–45. de Haas, H. (2010). The internal dynamics of migration processes: A theoretical inquiry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1587–1617. de Jong Gierveld, J., Van der Pas, S., & Keating, S. (2015). Loneliness of older immigrant groups in Canada: Effects of ethnic-cultural background. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 30(3), 251–268. de Jong Gierveld, J., van Tilburg, T. G., & Dykstra, P. A. (2018). New ways of theorizing and conducting research in the field of loneliness and social isolation. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.) The Cambridge handbook of interpersonal relationships (pp. 391–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drouhot, L. G., & Nee, V. (2019). Assimilation and the second generation in Europe and America: Blending and segregating social dynamics between immigrants and natives. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 177–199. Düvell, F. (2019). The ‘great migration’ of summer 2015: Analysing the assemblage of key drivers in Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(12), 2227–2240. Elliott, J. R. (2001). Referral hiring and ethnically homogeneous jobs: How prevalent is the connection and for whom? Social Science Research, 30(3), 401–425. FitzGerald, D. S. (2014). The sociology of international migration. In C. B. Brettell and J. F. Hollifield (Eds.) Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (pp. 115–147). New York and London: Routledge. Gill, N., & Bialski, P. (2011). New friends in new places: Network formation during the migration process among Poles in the UK. Geoforum, 42(2), 241–249.

360  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Giulietti, C., Schluter, C., & Wahba, J. (2013). With a lot of help from my friends: Social networks and immigrants in the UK. Population, Space and Place, 19(6), 657–670. Gold, S. J. (2005). Migrant networks: A summary and critique of relational approaches to international migration. In M. Romero and E. Margolis (Eds.) The Blackwell companion to social inequalities (pp. 257–285). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. New York: Oxford University Press. Heath, A. F., & Schneider, S. L. (2021). Dimensions of migrant integration in Western Europe. Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 51. Heering, L., van der Erf, R., & van Wissen, L. (2004). The role of family networks and migration culture in the continuation of Moroccan emigration: A gender perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(2), 323–337. Hernández-Carretero, M., & Carling, J. (2012). Beyond ‘kamikaze migrants’: Risk taking in West African boat migration to Europe. Human Organization, 71(4), 407–416. Hofstra, B., Corten, R., & van Tubergen, F. (2020). Beyond the core: Who has larger social networks? Social Forces, 99(3), 1274–1305. Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 395–421. Kanas, A., Chiswick, B. R., van der Lippe, T., & van Tubergen, F. (2012). Social contacts and the economic performance of immigrants: A panel study of immigrants in Germany. International Migration Review, 46(3), 680–709. Kandel, W., & Massey, D. S. (2002). The culture of Mexican migration: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Social Forces, 80(3), 981–1004. Koelet, S., & de Valk, H. A. G. (2016). Social networks and feelings of social loneliness after migration: The case of European migrants with a native partner in Belgium. Ethnicities, 16(4), 610–630. Lancee, B. (2010). The economic returns of immigrants’ bonding and bridging social capital: The case of the Netherlands. International Migration Review, 44(1), 202–226. Lancee, B. (2012). Immigrant performance in the labour market: Bonding and bridging social capital. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Light, I., & Gold, S. (2000). Ethnic economies. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., Lerner, J., Brandes, U., Ávila, J., & McCarty, C. (2010). Longitudinal analysis of personal networks: The case of Argentinean migrants in Spain. Social Networks, 32(1), 91–104. Maroufof, M. (2017). The role of social networks in Georgian migration to Greece. European Journal of Migration and Law, 19(1), 34–56. Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 122–131. Martinovic, B. (2013). The inter-ethnic contacts of immigrants and natives in the Netherlands: A two-sided perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(1), 69–85. Martinovic, B., van Tubergen, F., & Maas, I. (2009). Dynamics of interethnic contact: A panel study of immigrants in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 25(3), 303–318. Martinovic, B., van Tubergen, F., & Maas, I. (2015). A longitudinal study of interethnic contacts in Germany: Estimates from a multilevel growth curve model. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(1), 83–100. Massey, D. S. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 56(1), 3–26. Massey, D. S., Alarcón, R., Durand, J., & González, H. (1987). Return to Aztian: The social process of international migration from Western Mexico, Vol. 240. Berkeley: University of California Press. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19(3), 431–466. Massey, D. S., & España, F. G. (1987). The social process of international migration. Science, 237(4816), 733–738. Massey, D. S., & Espinosa, K. E. (1997). What’s driving Mexico–U.S. migration? A theoretical, empirical, and policy analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 102(4), 939–999.

Sociabilities: kin, friends, and acquaintances in international migration  361 Massey, D. S., Goldring, L., & Durand, J. (1994). Continuities in transnational migration: An analysis of nineteen Mexican communities. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1492–1533. McKenzie, D., & Rapoport, H. (2007). Network effects and the dynamics of migration and inequality: Theory and evidence from Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 84(1), 1–24. McKenzie, D., & Rapoport, H. (2010). Self-selection patterns in Mexico–U.S. migration: The role of migration networks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(4), 811–821. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. Migali, S. (2018). International migration drivers: An empirical investigation. In Joint Research Centre (European Commission) (Ed.) International migration drivers: A quantitative assessment of the structural factors shaping migration (pp. 35–48). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology, 10(3), 679–716. Morosanu, L. (2013). Between fragmented ties and ‘soul friendships’: The cross-border social connections of young Romanians in London. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(3), 353–372. Munshi, K. (2003). Networks in the modern economy: Mexican migrants in the U.S. labor market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(2), 549–599. Neto, F. (2016). Predictors of loneliness among Portuguese youths from returned migrant families. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 425–441. Neto, F., & Barros, J. (2000). Psychosocial concomitants of loneliness among students of Cape Verde and Portugal. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 134(5), 503–514. Palloni, A., Massey, D. S., Ceballos, M., Espinosa, K., & Spittel, M. (2001). Social capital and international migration: A test using information on family networks. American Journal of Sociology, 10(5), 1262–1298. Portes, A. (1995). The economic sociology of immigration: Essays on networks, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1320–1350. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. Rich Madsen, K., Trab Damsgaard, M., Smith Jervelund, S., Christensen, U., Stevens, G. G., Walsh, S., … Holstein, B. E. (2016). Loneliness, immigration background and self-identified ethnicity: A nationally representative study of adolescents in Denmark. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(12), 1977–1995. Ryan, L. (2011). Migrants’ social networks and weak ties: Accessing resources and constructing relationships post-migration. The Sociological Review, 59(4), 707–724. Ryan, L. (2015). Friendship-making: Exploring network formations through the narratives of Irish highly qualified migrants in Britain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(10), 1664–1683. Ryan, L. (2016). Looking for weak ties: Using a mixed methods approach to capture elusive connections. The Sociological Review, 64(4), 951–969. Ryan, L., & D’Angelo, A. (2018). Changing times: Migrants’ social network analysis and the challenges of longitudinal research. Social Networks, 53, 148–158. Ryan, L., Klekowski Von Koppenfels, A., & Mulholland, J. (2015). ‘The distance between us’: A comparative examination of the technical, spatial and temporal dimensions of the transnational social relationships of highly skilled migrants. Global Networks, 15(2), 198–216. Ryan, L., & Mulholland, J. (2014). French connections: The networking strategies of French highly skilled migrants in London. Global Networks, 14(2), 148–166. Ryan, L., Sales, R., Tilki, M., & Siara, B. (2008). Social networks, social support and social capital: The experiences of recent Polish migrants in London. Sociology, 42(4), 672–690. Smith, S. (2018). Befriending the same differently: Ethnic, socioeconomic status, and gender differences in same-ethnic friendship. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(11), 1858–1880.

362  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Smith, S., Maas, I., & van Tubergen, F. (2015). Parental influence on friendships between native and immigrant adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(3), 580–591. Smith, S., van Tubergen, F., Maas, I., & McFarland, D. A. (2016). Ethnic composition and friendship segregation: Differential effects for adolescent natives and immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 121(4), 1223–1272. Sue, C. A., Riosmena, F., & Lepree, J. (2019). The influence of social networks, social capital, and the ethnic community on the US destination choices of Mexican migrant men. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(13), 2468–2488. ten Kate, R. L., Bilecen, B., & Steverink, N. (2020). A closer look at loneliness: Why do first-generation migrants feel more lonely than their native Dutch counterparts? The Gerontologist, 60(2), 291–301. Tilly, C., & Brown, C. H. (1967). On uprooting, kinship, and the auspices of migration. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 8, 139–164. Vacca, R., Solano, G., Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2018). A personal network approach to the study of immigrant structural assimilation and transnationalism. Social Networks, 53, 72–89. van den Broek, T., & Grundy, E. (2017). Loneliness among Polish migrants in the Netherlands: The impact of presence and location of partners and offspring. Demographic Research, 37, 727–742. van Tilburg, T. G., & Fokkema, T. (2021). Stronger feelings of loneliness among Moroccan and Turkish older adults in the Netherlands: In search for an explanation. European Journal of Ageing, 18(3), 311–322. van Tubergen, F. (2014). Size and socio-economic resources of core discussion networks in the Netherlands: Differences by national-origin group and immigrant generation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(6), 1020–1042. van Tubergen, F. (2015). Ethnic boundaries in core discussion networks: A multilevel social network study of Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(1), 101–116. Waldinger, R. (1998). Network, bureaucracy, and exclusion: Recruitment and selection in an immigrant metropolis. In F. Bean & S. Bell-Rose (Eds.) Immigration and opportunity: Race, ethnicity, and employment in the United States (pp. 228–259). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Waldinger, R. (2005). Networks and niches: The continuing significance of ethnic connections. In G. C. Loury, T. Modood, & S. M. Teles (Eds.) Ethnicity, social mobility, and public policy (pp. 342–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wilson, K. L., & Portes, A. (1980). Immigrant enclaves: An analysis of the labor market experiences of Cubans in Miami. American Journal of Sociology, 86(2), 295–319.

30. Migrant associations and communities Margit Fauser

INTRODUCTION Migrant community organizing and the emergence of migrant associations are among the most classical topics in the sociology of migration. These formations have been part and parcel of the theorization of migration since the early twentieth century, starting with the Chicago School of sociology, and have remained on the research agenda since, with varying intensity and from increasingly diverse research perspectives. The early focus on collective phenomena in the context of migration within migration theory shows that migration from the beginning has not been considered merely an individual decision with individual consequences. Rather, the processes of migration are related to family, social groups, and communities, and their formal and informal networks and associations, that is, the meso-level. In multiple ways, meso-level organizing is interconnected with macro-level influences and consequences, namely, migration and the collective expressions emerging out of it are tied in with wider social change and societal transformation – two levels of sociological inquiry that sometimes have been lost in the debate on the individual effort, failure or success to integrate. As the study of migrant community organizing has become diverse, not one single theory has emerged but rather various theoretical strands and frameworks exist (Fauser, 2012b; Moya, 2005; Vermeulen, 2006). Scholarly interest can be divided into two large camps. On the one side, scholars are interested in understanding what the consequences of such formations are for individuals, communities, and society at large. Scholarship in this camp revolves around the ‘ethnic paradox’, the question of whether formations premised on ethnic identity help or hinder incorporation. On the other hand, a broad research field exists investigating what the determinants and shaping factors are, why and how migrant collective organizations emerge and change or disappear. Much of the research in both camps has been immigration country-centered. Only more recently, transnational approaches have focused their attention on the role associations play in the ‘homeland’, and on the influence homeland institutions have on them. This scenario has also transformed the original concern into a ‘transnational paradox’ that debates whether ‘homeland’ involvement is detrimental for the processes of settlement and incorporation or is, rather, beneficial (Fauser, 2012b, pp. 18ff.). Increasingly migrant associations’ simultaneous agendas for situations ‘here’ and ‘there’ are being documented in the context of globalization. Meanwhile, migrants’ cross-border involvement today concerns a variety of issue areas and fields of study in international affairs, ranging from political struggles and development projects to humanitarian aid and religious mobilization (Dijkzeul & Fauser, 2020a). This chapter elaborates the major strands in the sociological research on migrant communities and, in particular, their associations. It discusses the main approaches and empirical findings, and their gaps. It thereby shows the characteristics of the social organization of migrant communities and the relevance of migrant collective organizing, and critically discusses whether ethnic and migrant categories should stand alone when trying to understand 363

364  Research handbook on the sociology of migration the sociological processes associated with migration. The next section offers a definition of the phenomenon. The third section scrutinizes the debate and findings as regards the ‘ethnic paradox’. Section four details approaches that explain the causes and forces shaping migrant community organizing. The fifth section accounts for transnational research that looks beyond the immigration country and onto the international arena. Lastly, some final remarks summarize the diversity of this research field.

DEFINITION: WHAT IS A MIGRANT ASSOCIATION? Classically, migrants have founded their associations as mutual aid and benefit societies, first aid institutions, (nationalistic) political associations, cultural clubs, religious communities, advocacy groups, hometown associations, and secret societies (Moya, 2005; Park & Miller, 1969). Some of the early functions have been taken over by the state and private businesses today, especially in the immigration countries of the Global North. Yet many concerns remain on the agenda of migrant communities and other purposes and goals have been included over time. In addition, while public and private social security schemes, for example, have decreased the need for mutual aid associations in many parts of the world (Moya, 2005, p. 855) such organizations still exist and continue pooling member resources to their benefit. At the very least, this situation persists for those in precarious statuses, who have scarce access to the formal protection system in the place where they reside and who may come from countries where such protection systems barely exist. The phenomenon of migrant community organizing is conceptualized through a number of terms, including ethnic (voluntary) associations or ethnic institutions more broadly, and immigrant or migrant organizations; there is also a particular focus on refugee(-based) and refugee-community organizations (Griffiths, Sigona, & Zetter, 2005). More recent terms include diaspora organizations, especially where communities are active in the field of social and economic development and humanitarian aid and in international politics, with scholarship also investigating them as ethnic lobbies (Dijkzeul & Fauser, 2020b). Very generally, community organizing concerns associations that count on voluntary membership, setting them apart from the non-voluntary nature of other institutions such as those of the state. Research investigating immigrant institutions more broadly has also included newspapers, banks, and, sometimes, schools. As the notion of association refers to discernible groups of members and research thus focuses on detectable formations, whether formally institutionalized or more informal, other more spontaneous and transitory forms of cooperation and looser networks are usually outside the scope of such research. However, an important characteristic of the migrant association is its embeddedness in and, in fact, the fluid boundaries toward a larger community that the association often attempts to address, mobilize, or represent (Dijkzeul & Fauser, 2020b). By and large, migrant associations are founded by and composed of individuals who are born in a country other than that of their residence, namely, migrants and their children. They sometimes also refer to further generations and those articulating a particular collective identity, usually premised on the ethnic categorizations upon which organizing occurs. Yet, the predominant focus on ethnicity as the main organizing principle among migrants is now increasingly criticized. Not least, it may overshadow other types of organizations and their alliances that emerge in the context of migration but are not limited to its challenges, such

Migrant associations and communities  365 as feminist networks (Landolt & Goldring, 2009). What is more, the extended notion of the migrant covering several generations of descendants of foreign-born parents has been criticized. Most research instead follows associations as they self-define their identity in terms of ethnicity, nationality, or migrancy, even though, in part, this reference is an indication of the influence of certain conditions in its environment.

THE ETHNIC PARADOX: ARE MIGRANT ASSOCIATIONS A BRIDGE TOWARD OR BARRIER TO INCORPORATION? Perhaps the key concern in the scholarship on migrant communities and their associations revolves around the question of whether these serve as a bridge toward migrant incorporation or lead into a trap for the migrant and become a barrier to cohesive societies. The scholarship addressing such questions investigates the role migrant social formations play in the processes of incorporation of individuals or communities as a whole, looking into the consequences for their social and economic adaption and for political incorporation. Early on, at the beginning of the twentieth century, scholarship from the Chicago School stressed the bridging function of immigrant institutions. New immigrants would arrive in an unfamiliar environment in which they formed or encountered institutions from their ‘own group or nationality’ that helped them ‘make life go’ (Park & Miller, 1969, p. 120). These institutions offered many practical solutions to the need for housing, work, and banks, as well as in case of sickness or death. They facilitated arrival through the material resources they provided and the cultural and psychological support they offered. At first, these institutions, loyal to their old country, supported migrant adaptation and the cultural transition to mainstream society. In their early study on migrant communities in the United States, Park and Miller summarized what has been termed the ethnicity paradox (see Fauser, 2012b) in the following way: The present immigrant organizations represent a separateness of the immigrant groups from America, but these organizations exist precisely because they enable the immigrants to overcome this separateness. They are signs, not of the perpetuation of immigrants’ groups here, but of their assimilation. (Park & Miller, 1969, pp. 306–307)

Whether migrant associations are supportive for interpersonal contact within the immigrant community or, rather, between migrants and non-migrants, and migrants of other backgrounds, has been investigated by Breton in a prominent study conducted in 1960s Canada (Breton, 1964). The study focuses on the question of whether more ‘institutional complete communities’ with many diverse institutions formed around ethnic identity, such as churches and other religious organizations, professional associations, newspapers, and educational and recreational clubs, as well as welfare organizations, lead to more or less co-ethnic personal contacts on the individual level and within the respective migrant community. The findings indicate that the more completely a community is organized, the more likely migrants are to accommodate themselves within that structure rather than within those of mainstream society or other ethnic groups. However, Breton’s judgment differs from many other earlier and later approaches; he highlights that ‘the integration of the immigrant should not be seen from a purely assimilationist point of view’ (1964, p. 193). Thus, while certain migrant groups seem well served by their communities they also exemplify ethnic pluralist societies with partially separate social lives.

366  Research handbook on the sociology of migration The bridging function and migrant solidarity thesis have remained high on the agenda, especially in the field of social policy. Migrant and refugee assistance has come to been seen well, if not best, served by self-help and community associations, who would share experiences and identities with their members and clients. On that basis, the support of migrant associations to the benefit of migrant communities and individuals is often politically acknowledged today. The US government has provided funding to refugee mutual assistance associations since the 1980s as part of its refugee resettlement policies (Bloemraad, 2005; Majka & Mullan, 2002). Other governments, including those of several European immigration states, regions, and cities have incorporated migrant associations into their welfare structures more broadly (Fauser, 2012b; Jenkins, 1988). This trend has generally expanded in the recent course of welfare state reforms that involve more and more civil society actors, partly fueled by diversity and intercultural discourses. In this vein, migrant associations are now often seen as partners in social service delivery and social work. Slowly, their formal role, and their more informal mutual-aid networks, have also been recognized as crucial for both local and transnational social protection assisting their peers, although this field is still not well researched. At the very least, this phenomenon challenges the predominant focus on discrete associations; looser, more informal, or sporadic forms of self-organizing and mutual assistance must also be considered. While their targeted support is often a key premise, the effects on communities are often less clear, varying considerably from case to case. In their investigation of the potential benefits of refugee-mutual assistance associations in the US, Majka and Mullan (2002) find largely different results for different groups. While Eastern Europeans have benefited from their associations in terms of their socio-economic progress, South-East Asian communities seem better served by mainstream institutions. However, as a matter of institutional developments and path dependencies, US institutions have still targeted the profile of the earlier waves of South-East Asian refugees when Eastern Europeans fled their countries. Political sociologists have exhibited a similar interest in investigating the consequences of migrant organizing for political incorporation. Following Putnam’s civic community approach, these authors ask how the migrant civic community and the social capital resulting from it is related to political participation. Fennema and Tillie (1999) argue that communities with more ethnic or migrant social capital, that is, those with denser and more interrelated associational networks, have more political trust and will participate more in formal politics. This finding has served to explain the variation in the political participation of various migrant communities with different numbers of associations and varying density among them. Other researchers have taken this question further, onto the individual level (Jacobs & Tillie, 2004) and investigated individual membership and its effects on political participation, leading to the incorporation of other factors such as gender, education, language proficiency, and employment status. While different factors have been found to matter in different countries, and available data and indicators are often difficult to compare, membership in migrant associations shows consistent effects regarding higher political participation (Jacobs & Tillie, 2004; Pilati & Morales, 2016). The notion that those who are alike would form associations and re-create the communities that they have known from ‘home’ has been taken for granted in much of this scholarship. Ethnic identities are often conceptualized as pregiven rather than a response to a particular environment and a specific historical moment, namely, a situated category of practice (Brubaker, 2013). This perspective has obscured group formation and mobilization among migrant communities that is not primarily or not exclusively based on ethnicity (Landolt &

Migrant associations and communities  367 Goldring, 2009). Critics have suggested to consider the intersectional nature of individuals’ multifaceted identity, potentially shaped by ethnic markers or national origin, but also by gender, class, age, sexuality, and religion, among other factors. This critique is also relevant beyond the individual level and points to the internal hierarchies and divisions within communities as well as the potential relationships that migrant associations may establish with other types of organizations. However, the emergent in- and out-group collaborations and conflicts have not received sufficient scholarly attention thus far.

CAUSES AND SHAPING FORCES What stimulates and shapes migrant collective organizing? The most relevant influences have been attributed either to migrant community characteristics or to the particular political-institutional context. The Migrant Community Migration scholarship highlights several factors relevant to the migrant community in order to explain why different national or ethnic groups exhibit different numbers and types of associations in the process of arrival and settlement at a new place. In that sense, research has found that Turks, Moroccans, and Surinamese organize differently in the Netherlands (Fennema & Tillie, 1999), as do the Spanish, Italians, Greeks, and Turks in Germany (Puskeppeleit & Thränhardt, 1990), or the Moroccans, as compared to the Senegalese, in Spain (Ancin, 2004). The explanations for such differences are provided on the basis of characteristics such as the cultural backgrounds of migrants and especially cultural differences, as compared to the mainstream society. The resources and social capital of the migrant community are also considered, together with the organizational traditions prior to migration. Moreover, the pattern of migration, in particular the size and volume of one particular group at a given point in time, is a factor (Breton, 1964; Vermeulen, 2006). Some limitations of this approach include the fact that cultural differences, as such, hardly provide a basis for broad generalization. An extensive historical and cross-country literature review (Moya, 2005) shows that first, a group needs to perceive itself as different from others. Second, ‘it does not follow logically, and the evidence does not support, that the greater the real or perceived difference is the easier it will be for them to develop their own institutions’ (Moya, 2005, p. 840). Hence, the concentration on the migrant community and the pre-migratory experiences cannot account for differences in the formations of migrant actors across time and space, or in other words, within different contexts. As far as the size of the community and the dynamics of migration are concerned, researchers caution against a simplistic relationship. A large community does not automatically translate into many organizations when conflictual relationships predominate or when associations compete for resources (Vermeulen, 2005). Thus, while some communities are too small to form a rich associational landscape, others are too large and too heterogenous to find much common ground upon which to organize. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that migrant resources are also, to an important extent, influenced by the migration regime that is decisive for migrants’ legal statuses, access to formal employment, social services, and other support (Fauser, 2012b).

368  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Political Opportunity Structures In accounting for the external factors shaping migrant mobilization and organizing, some scholars employ institutional-political opportunity structures, an approach well anchored in social movement theory. A few studies have also drawn on organizational theory to detail the environment within which migrant associations adapt (Pries & Sezgin, 2012; Soysal, 1994). In general, the political opportunity structure approach holds that migrant organizing depends on whether powerful groups and, in particular, governments are receptive to migrants and their claims (Schrover & Vermeulen, 2005). What makes institutional analyses difficult to compare is that they often specify their framework through vastly different institutions. Some use typologies of national models of citizenship and integration, while others look into policies and legislation or include specific instruments at the national or local levels. Typologies of integration models distinguish four different types, with certain effects for migrant organizations. First, in the transient perspective on migrant stays, reflected in non-policies—integration is not envisaged. This approach is exemplified by European immigration early state stances on labor migration recruitment, typical of many new immigration countries. Somewhat similarly, the United States is generally classified as laissez-faire; migrant incorporation is not the business of the state. Second, the assimilationist approach advocates the one-sided adaptation of new immigrants to the receiving society, which curbs ethnic identity formation. Third, the ethnic pluralist or multiculturalist approach tolerates and even promotes cultural diversity and provides symbolic and material resources to this end, including support for migrant associations. Finally, a more recent intercultural approach puts more emphasis on social cohesion, conviviality, and dialogue among cultures, groups, and individuals and tends to avoid mono-ethnic attention (Alexander, 2003; Castles, 1995). However, looking into the general philosophy concerning migrants and their incorporation into a country is likely to overshadow important details. There is no automatic relationship between a certain approach and one set of national policies or particular instruments. Similar approaches may translate into different policies and instruments, while different approaches can lead to similar instruments. One related aspect here is that state attention and funding may support as well as divide the field of actors, whether migrant or non-migrant, by favoring certain groups over others. A number of studies show that it makes a great difference to whom and under which conditions and requirements authorities provide financial and symbolic support (Bloemraad, 2005; Caponio, 2005; Vermeulen, 2005). For instance, the United States is usually classified as rather laissez-faire and, thus, it is not particularly supportive of community organizing, even though its funding for refugee mutual assistance associations has been a crucial force in the development of Vietnamese organizing (Bloemraad, 2005). Specifically, a study comparing the experiences of Vietnamese organizations in the US city of Boston and Toronto, Canada shows that the size of the community and the numbers as well as the types of organizations that exist in each of the cities are fairly similar. Yet, organizations in Boston are part of the social service-infrastructure in refugee resettlement, while newcomers to the general migrant-supportive environment in Toronto are accommodated by multi-ethnic agencies. A comparison of Italian cities shows that the attitudes of different local governments can go hand in hand with similar policies on migrant organizations. Although the cities of Milan, Bologna, and Naples have been governed by different political parties, which displayed divergent attitudes on migrants and their organizations, and, thus, were likely to offer different opportunities to migrant organizations, the results of a study by Caponio (2005) has proven this

Migrant associations and communities  369 expectation wrong. Authorities in all three cities are strikingly similar in the concentration of funding for Italian (welfare) organizations, leading to the marginal role of migrant associations in service provision and minimal political influence (Caponio, 2005). A comparative analysis of Barcelona and Madrid, in turn, reveals similar approaches and attitudes articulated in the two cities that go along with very different instruments as regards collective migrant actors, resulting in more and usually smaller associations in Barcelona and fewer, yet larger and some exceptionally well-resourced organizations in Madrid (Fauser, 2012b). These results caution against generalizations from abstract policy models and call for detailed analysis of particular cases and trajectories in the context of historically changing migration and integration policies in general and for certain legal or national categories of migrants in particular.

TRANSNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON MIGRANT ORGANIZATIONS, INCORPORATION, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS As a consequence of the immigration-country focus in migration studies, migrants’ cross-border ties and practices and the homeland relations of their collective formations have long been ignored. At the same time, sometimes expressly and, more often, implicitly, transnational involvement has been considered detrimental to the process of migrant incorporation. In the past two decades, a transnational perspective in migration research has become more established and the debate on the migration–development nexus has further contributed to rendering the collective transnational involvements among migrants increasingly visible (Dijkzeul & Fauser, 2020a; Portes & Fernández-Kelly, 2015; Pries & Sezgin, 2012). At first, transnational research on migrant associations had focused on village and hometown associations, in which their role and impact in community development was central. Soon, research also started to address these associations’ political involvements ‘back home’, mobilizing the diaspora for regime change, participating in the country’s domestic and foreign affairs, and claiming rights for emigrant citizens. More recently, scholars have initiated empirical investigations into the relationship between transnational and incorporation-oriented goals and on the consequences such dual agendas can have on individual incorporation in places of immigration. Meanwhile, the research on transnational migrant organizing has become a broad and diversified field that cuts across the areas of development studies, international relations, (transnational) social movement research and, not least, integration research, although these still often constitute rather discrete study fields (Dijkzeul & Fauser, 2020a). When it comes to the question of what makes a migrant association transnational, we find several, partly different, answers within this scholarship. For instance, research informed by organizational sociology suggests a narrow definition of a transnational migrant organization, decentralized, with branches in at least two countries, which are at the same time strongly coordinated among them (Pries & Sezgin, 2012). Most scholarship, however, is concerned with the transnational, that is, cross-border, engagement, activities, and characteristics of migrant associations. Others insist on the notion of simultaneity as a particular feature of transnational associations displayed on their dual agendas concerned with social and political dynamics ‘here’ and ‘there’. As part of the larger migration–development debate, scholarship has been interested in the impact of transnational organizations on the places of origin. At first, this research had mir-

370  Research handbook on the sociology of migration rored the great developmental enthusiasm of that debate. Studies have revealed how migrant associations channel their collective financial remittances into infrastructure projects in home villages and use social remittances, such as organizational knowledge and accountability mechanisms, for controlling local corruption and guaranteeing proper project management (Bada, 2016; Levitt, 2001). Hometown associations have also started pressuring local authorities and national governments for stronger and more transparent intervention in rural communities, for example. Meanwhile, research reflects a certain disenchantment, as it has often come to document only few and small changes, if at all. Moreover, conflict and disagreement between migrants and non-migrant villagers seems to hinder effective implementation of projects while it also shows the power differences between the two groups. Several studies argue that socio-economic and also gender inequalities tend to be reinforced through transnational engagements. Bada (2016), for example, shows how US-based Michoacánian hometown associations on the one side invest in local projects of their choice that do not necessarily meet the most crucial needs of the rural villages. Frequently, migrant communities tend to give priority to cultural and recreational issues, while local communities identify socio-economic or infrastructural needs in their village (see also Levitt, 2001). On the other side, migrants often do not come from the most marginal sites. This scenario contributes to further marginalization for those villages that were already scarcely supported by public expenditures and now find themselves disconnected from migrants abroad, while the Mexican state concentrates its matching fund initiatives on migrants’ hometown investments. Similarly, Lampert (2012) shows that Nigerian organizations in London often support established power structures in immigrant communities and home villages so that collective investments frequently contribute to the material or symbolic display of elite leadership. Moreover, women are generally not well represented in many of these organizations. For example, existing Nigerian migrant women’s organizations, rather than representing a strong voice in gender equality, have been found to insist on the role of women as mothers and home-makers. In parallel, and sometimes connected with their development engagement, migrant associations have been identified as political agents involved with homeland affairs. They have claimed their belonging and rights from their countries of origin, including voting, dual citizenship, or property rights. Migrant groups are also involved in homeland politics, participate in extraterritorial branches of political parties from their country of origin, or exercise political influence in other ways to address the domestic or foreign policy issues of that country. A particular version of this political participation is what has been termed ‘diaspora politics’, and sometimes ‘ethnic lobbies’, especially in the discipline of international relations. Diaspora politics describe activities in the country of immigration that are meant to effect political reform or regime change in the country of origin or to strengthen or alter their home governments’ international position, or that of particular actors, in territorial conflict or peace negotiations, for example. Such diaspora efforts rest on ethnic lobby interest groups, social movement organizations, community organizations, and homeland political party branches, as Zach (2020) has identified among the Irish diaspora operating in the United States. Like many other diasporas, its activities involve indirect lobbying of the government of the country of immigration and its foreign policies, as well as the mobilization of the wider public and the transformation of public opinion. Conversely, transnational immigrant politics target the government and institutions in the country of origin, yet aim at the situation in the country of immigration, again indirectly lobbying one government’s foreign policy (on the emigration side) to advance support of the migration group from the government of the immigration

Migrant associations and communities  371 country or directly demanding (more) consular aid in the place of residence. In this vein, migrant organizations have also self-organized information campaigns, radio programs, or advisory work accompanying the process of emigration (Fauser, 2012a; Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003). In addition to development aid and political lobbying, migrant organizations are today involved with many more topics and provide direct assistance and humanitarian aid to refugee communities, in disaster relief, or mobilize for migrants’ labor rights (see the contributions in Dijkzeul & Fauser, 2020a). Transnational activism has also raised concerns in the scholarship on integration debates. Similar to the view on the paradoxical relationship between continued ethnic identification and increasing integration that would be bridged in the course of time, migrant organizations have long been seen as subject to a ‘transnational paradox’ (Fauser, 2012b, pp. 18ff.). While originally related to the politics of the country of origin, over time, migrant associations were expected to gradually come into closer contact with the institutions in the country of settlement and lessen ties to their ‘home’ country (Layton-Henry, 1990). However, more and more research now shows that many associations formed by migrants in fact display simultaneous agendas, with activities targeting the situation and the rights of migrants in the places they reside in parallel to their engagement with the places they come from (Dijkzeul & Fauser, 2020a; Fauser, 2012b; Portes, Escobar, & Arana, 2008). This sometimes includes simultaneous events and campaigns in both countries, as has been observed for the case of Kurds claiming cultural rights in Turkey, Germany, and other European countries, and on the European level (Kastoryano, 2003), as well as among Mixtec indigenous movements demanding minority recognition in the United States and Mexico at the same time (Rivera-Salgado, 1999). Prominently, scholars have argued that transnational migrant organizing is not incompatible with immigrant incorporation and has sometimes served as a ‘vehicle for successful incorporation’ (Portes et al., 2008, p. 1029). Conversely, partly promoted by the current migration–development debate, established local migrant organizations actively working toward incorporation have also started to become transnationally active (Fauser, 2012b). What shapes transnational organizing? In line with the broader research on migrant associations, factors identified in driving and shaping their transnational activism include community characteristics and migratory dynamics at a given point in time. Other factors concern the political and institutional contexts, now including influences from both countries of origin and settlement, ranging from hinderance to ignorance to active support (Portes et al., 2008; Pries & Sezgin, 2012). Research is still somewhat inconclusive in its assessment of the consequences of the policies of the immigration country. While some authors argue that assimilation pressure contributes to fostering transnational activism as a response, others consider that multiculturalism provides the basis for cross-border community involvement. However, the multicultural integration policies of many countries have aimed at promoting internal diversity while curtailing homeland ties. Today, many immigration states have joined the global migration–development initiatives promoted by the World Bank and the United Nations. The ups and downs of national and local efforts to involve migrant organizations in development cooperation seem to have great influence on their evolution. The case of Ghanaian organizations in the Netherlands shows how such initiatives first intended to tap into the place-specific and cultural knowledge of migrants for development. When policy evaluation documents only limited success, such programs are discontinued. As a consequence, some organizations that had become dependent on funding faced serious resource problems, while many had already become increasingly dissatisfied with the growing emphasis on migration management and

372  Research handbook on the sociology of migration return within migration–development initiatives (Nijenhuis, 2020). Home countries have become supportive of migrant involvement in their places of origin, even more strongly than in immigration states, while in the past, many emigration states were rather hesitant or turned their back on those who had left. Major emigrant states have incorporated migrants into their national development projects and extended emigrant citizenship rights, with Mexico and its matching funds mentioned above (Délano, 2014) acting as a role model for many subsequent initiatives. Consequently, migrant associations have become partners to political parties from home countries in their efforts to campaign abroad, while migrant organizations also exist as extra-territorial party branches (Fliess, 2021).

FINAL REMARKS The study of migrant communities and their associations has moved from being a classical topic related to concerns over migrant incorporation to a wide and diversified field of research into processes of migration, development, diaspora mobilization, and international politics more broadly. While crucial to the sociology of migration, this diversity also reflects the interdisciplinary interest in migrant organizing. In different ways, this literature is informed by theorizations of the processes and models of migrant incorporation, ethnicity and culture, the civic community, political opportunity structures and social movements, organizational theory (although surprisingly little), social policy, social inequalities, gender and intersectionality, and development and political change, to name the most important. The multiplicity of their simultaneous goals, the multiple scales and places relevant to their engagements, and the embeddedness within communities that reach beyond formal membership stand as features that distinguish migrant associations from many other types of voluntary associations, and from their ideal-typical definition. Migrant organizations are a vital element of modern pluralist societies today. They represent a crucial element in the processes of migration. Their study sheds light on the ways in which migrants stand for themselves and for others and for how societies respond to them. They exist as cultural, leisure, and sports associations, as welfare organizations and advocates for social, health, and educational rights, and as development and humanitarian aid organizations. To which degree the organizations also address wider political issues beyond migration and the concerns of diasporas who have fled their countries should be addressed in future research. What is known is that sometimes they are crowded out by other, often more established mainstream organizations or by the state. Much research has been done on the factors that shape migrant organizations and on the influence they exercise on the situation of migrants and their communities. Yet, their contributions to society and social change at large have been rarely investigated. In this vein, future research should pay more attention to their networks with other actors, their role in particular social and policy fields, and whether and how they diverge from other associations. How are migrant organizations embedded in the larger landscape of voluntary organizations, local networks, and state-civil society organizations, at local and national levels, and transnationally? How do they engage with trade unions, church-based organizations, non-religious groups, and social movements, feminist networks, and those concerned with climate change? How do migrant organizations contribute to advancing local and global themes not exclusively related to migration and the situation of migrants? What are their collaborations along gender, class, or ideological lines, and how do they join global

Migrant associations and communities  373 agendas on poverty, inequalities, sustainability, health, or climate change? While the study of migrant communities and their associations has become a rich and diverse field, many such questions remain or emerge on our contemporary research agenda, in which migration is a crucial but not exclusive element of global society.

REFERENCES Alexander, M. (2003). Local policies toward migrants as an expansion of host-stranger relations: A proposed typology. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(3), 411–430. Ancin, D. (2004). El asociacionismo de los inmigrantes marroquíes y senegaleses en la ciudad de Granada. Actes del IV Congrés sobre la immigració a Espanya: Ciutadania i Participació, Girona. Bada, X. (2016). Collective remittances and development in rural Mexico: A view from Chicago’s Mexican hometown associations. Population, Space and Place, 22(4), 343–355. Bloemraad, I. (2005). The limits of de Tocqueville: How government facilitates organisational capacity in newcomer communities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(5), 865–887. Breton, R. (1964). Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and the personal relations of immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 70(2), 193–205. Brubaker, R. (2013). Categories of analysis and categories of practice: A note on the study of Muslims in European countries of immigration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(1), 1–8. Caponio, T. (2005). Policy networks and immigrants’ associations in Italy: The cases of Milan, Bologna and Naples. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(5), 931–950. Castles, S. (1995). How nation-states respond to immigration and ethnic diversity. New Community, 21(3), 291–308. Délano, A. (2014). The diffusion of diaspora engagement policies: A Latin American agenda. Political Geography, 41(1), 90–100. Dijkzeul, D., & Fauser, M. (Eds.) (2020a). Diaspora organizations in international affairs. London and New York: Routledge. Dijkzeul, D., & Fauser, M. (2020b). Introduction: Studying diaspora organizations in international affairs. In D. Dijkzeul & M. Fauser (Eds.) Diaspora organizations in international affairs (pp. 1–24). London and New York: Routledge. Fauser, M. (2012a). Disentangling migrant transnationalism. In D. Halm & Z. Sezgin (Eds.) Migration and organized civil society: Rethinking national policy (pp. 44–59). London: Routledge. Fauser, M. (2012b). Migrants and cities: The accommodation of migrant organizations in Europe. London: Routledge. Fennema, M., & Tillie, J. (1999). Political participation and political trust in Amsterdam: Civic communities and ethnic networks. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25(4), 703–726. Fliess, N. (2021). Campaigning across continents: How Latin American parties link up with migrant associations abroad. Comparative Migration Studies, 9(1), 119. Griffiths, D., Sigona, N., & Zetter, R. (2005). Refugee community organisations and dispersal. Bristol: Bristol University Press. Jacobs, D., & Tillie, J. (2004). Introduction: Social capital and political integration of migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 419–427. Jenkins, S. (Ed.) (1988). Ethnic associations and the welfare state: Services to immigrants in five countries. New York: Columbia University Press. Kastoryano, R. (2003). Between Europe and nation-states: The Turkish transnational community. In R. Sackmann, B. Peters, & T. Faist (Eds.) Identity and integration: Migrants in Western Europe (pp. 198–203). Aldershot: Ashgate. Lampert, B. (2012). Diaspora and development? London‐based Nigerian organisations and the transnational politics of socio‐economic status and gender. Development Policy Review, 30(2), 149–167. Landolt, P., & Goldring, L. (2009). Immigrant political socialization as bridging and boundary work: Mapping the multi-layered incorporation of Latin American immigrants in Toronto. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(7), 1226–1247.

374  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Layton-Henry, Z. (1990). Immigrant associations. In Z. Layton-Henry (Ed.) The political rights of migrant workers in Western Europe (pp. 94–112). London: Sage. Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Majka, L., & Mullan, B. (2002). Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered: South‐East Asians and Eastern Europeans in Chicago. International Migration, 40(2), 71–92. Moya, J. C. (2005). Immigrants and associations: A global and historical perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(5), 833–864. Nijenhuis, G. (2020). A roller coaster of policy shifts: Ghanian diaspora organisations navigating Dutch migration and development policies. In D. Dijkzeul & M. Fauser (Eds.) Diaspora organizations in international affairs (pp. 85–104). London and New York: Routledge. Østergaard-Nielsen, E. (2003). Transnational politics: The case of Turks and Kurds in Germany. London: Routledge. Park, R. E., & Miller, H. A. (1969). Old world traits transplanted. New York: Arno Press and The New York Times. Pilati, K., & Morales, L. (2016). Ethnic and immigrant politics vs. mainstream politics: The role of ethnic organizations in shaping the political participation of immigrant-origin individuals in Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(15), 2796–2817. Portes, A., Escobar, C., & Arana, R. (2008). Bridging the gap: Transnational and ethnic organizations in the political incorporation of immigrants in the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(6), 1025–1055. Portes, A., & Fernández-Kelly, P. (Eds.) (2015). The state and the grassroots: Immigrant transnational organizations in four continents. New York: Berghahn Books. Pries, L., & Sezgin, Z. (Eds.) (2012). Cross border migrant organizations in comparative perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Puskeppeleit, J., & Thränhardt, D. (1990). Vom betreuten Ausländer zum gleichberechtigten Bürger: Perspektiven der Beratung und Sozialarbeit, der Selbsthilfe und Artikulation und der Organisation und Integration der eingewanderten Ausländer aus den Anwerbestaaten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Freiburg i.B.: Lambertus-Verlag. Rivera-Salgado, G. (1999). Mixtec activism in Oaxacalifornia: Transborder grassroots political strategies. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(9), 1439–1458. Schrover, M., & Vermeulen, F. (2005). Immigrant organisations. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(5), 823–832. Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vermeulen, F. (2005). Organisational patterns: Surinamese and Turkish associations in Amsterdam, 1960–1990. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(5), 951–973. Vermeulen, F. (2006). The immigrant organising process: The emergence and persistence of Turkish immigrant organisations in Amsterdam and Berlin and Surinamese organisations in Amsterdam, 1960–2000. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Zach, D. (2020). Conflict and peacebuilding. In D. Dijkzeul & M. Fauser (Eds.) Diaspora organizations in international affairs (pp. 150–175). London and New York: Routledge.

31. Migration and the welfare state Grete Brochmann

INTRODUCTION The welfare state dimension of international migration has increasingly entered the political agenda. Several upheavals have contributed to sentiments that immigration is a threat to the sustainability of comprehensive welfare states. In Europe, immigration pressures from war and crisis-filled regions in the Global South have escalated, alongside high levels of labor migration within the borderless EU area, largely from the south and the east to the north and west. After the large 2015 refugee influx, in which the limits of governance became disturbingly clear to the more or less affected EU member states, immigrant challenges became high politics. Yet, also outside of Europe, the juxtaposition of immigration and social rights has become a contentious issue. In fact, access to welfare rights is probably one of the most pressing issues in national contexts when dealing with modern immigration. This chapter will discuss this interface, firstly, by presenting some theoretical approaches, with special emphasis on sociology-related perspectives. Thereafter, the migration dimension will be analyzed in relation to Esping-Andersen’s The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism from 1990, with exemplifications from today’s discourse on the migration challenge to welfare state sustainability. The welfare state mechanisms in relation to the questions of inclusion and social cohesion will thereafter be discussed. Lastly, the chapter will make an empirical sojourn around the world to discuss variation outside of Europe when it comes to the immigration– welfare nexus. Nevertheless, the main perspective in the chapter will be inspired by the European scene, with its internal complexities. The chapter will argue that there is no unitary relationship between immigration and the welfare state worldwide. On the one hand, the impact of newcomers depends on the economic, institutional, and political features of particular welfare and labor regimes. On the other hand, the differential generosity of distinct welfare regimes affects their attractiveness—the ‘pull factors’—for potential migrants (although in different ways and degrees). Moreover, institutional edifices shape the kinds of instruments governments employ in their effort to both integrate and/or limit the detrimental effects of large-scale immigration. In other words, the welfare state structure itself contributes to establishing the outcomes of immigration in a national context. On top of this, it is argued that the current challenges immigration poses to welfare states cannot be properly understood without bringing international interdependencies and regulations into the analysis.1 Even though welfare policies in many ways are considered the last bastion of the nation-state, Leibfried and Pierson’s term ‘semi-sovereign’ welfare state (1995) coins this interdependence—within Europe and globally.

375

376  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

THEORETICAL APPROACHES Even though welfare state concerns in relation to immigration seem rather new in international discourse, tensions and conflicting interests have fostered an underlying unease for decades. The first scholar to address this unease explicitly, US political scientist Gary Freeman, with his now famous article from 1986—‘Migration and the Political Economy of the Welfare State’—postulates that a deep-seated contradiction exists between inclusive, generous welfare policies and comprehensive international migration. In arguing both systemically and normatively, Freeman claims that welfare states must be closed to protect ‘the collective good component’ from overutilization by outsiders. Freeman argues in a twofold manner: firstly, immigrants would undermine the position of national workers in accepting jobs at wages and standards below the established norms (what today is called ‘social dumping’), and, secondly, immigrants would have a tendency to erode the ‘normative consensus’ on which generous welfare systems depend: ‘When the welfare state is seen as something for “them” paid by “us”, its days as a consensual solution to societal problems are numbered’ (Freeman, 1986, p. 62). Although the dividing line between political science and sociology is quite blurred in the context of migration studies, it is possible to delineate a more sociological approach by drawing on works of prominent scholars in that discipline. In fact, some of the critics following Freeman’s path-breaking article have pointed in a sociological direction. He has been challenged for his lack of institutional analysis, i.e. that he has overlooked the ‘institutional repertoires’ said to structure the impact of immigration and diversity on welfare nation-states.2 Sociological analysis may contribute, in particular from an institutional angle, to the understanding of preconditions for the inclusion of newcomers. In fact ‘integration’, which has become a generic term for different ways of approaching the inclusion processes of newcomers to nation-states, is originally a sociological concept (borrowed from mathematics), introduced by one of the founders of the discipline—Émile Durkheim (1858–1917). In sociology, integration usually depicts both a process in which the participants are included (and include themselves) as parts of society as a whole, and a condition or an order, i.e. a state with some kind of stability. The contrast to integration is usually labeled marginalization in relation to individuals and disorder or ‘anomie’ on a societal level. Anomie describes, according to Durkheim (2007), a state of uprooting, or breakdown of moral values, standards, or guidance for individuals to follow in a society. The welfare state as an entity has been associated with both dimensions of the integration concept; an institutional vehicle for the inclusion of individuals as members of society as a whole, and as a sort of order—a cohesive society that takes care of its citizens, thereby contributing to stability over time. Later, in postwar sociology, British scholar T. H. Marshall (1893–1981) would become central in developing an understanding of the access to social rights—a pillar in the generation of modern welfare states. His essay from 1950, ‘Citizenship and Social Class’, has become a standard reference in welfare research, through his analysis of the rights of citizens to economic and social security in a broad sense, through education, health care, pensions, and other services, in order to function as equal members of the society in which they reside. But these classical sociologists do not relate specifically to migration in their work. In practice, their basic unit of analysis is the bounded and sovereign nation-state, and the inclusion and exclusion mechanisms that take place within it. So when Freeman highlights the connection—and, in his view, the contradiction—between the entrenched welfare state and international migration, a whole new discourse emerges within the social sciences.

Migration and the welfare state  377 The last half of the twentieth century entailed the generation of some welfare state structure in most OECD countries. Equal access to social rights among the members of society is a foundation of modern governance in liberal democratic states, representing an important prerequisite for the social integration and cohesion of society in a Durkheimian sense. Beyond this equal access dimension, a number of postwar welfare states have introduced the redistribution of resources (through taxes, fees, or transfers), in order to level out the standard of living among the constituency. Nevertheless, generous redistributive welfare states must control their geographical borders in some sense, in order to delineate access to membership in the social space where economic and social redistribution takes place. The exact kind of delineation varies, but usually there is a combination of hardcore border control, access selectivity according to category of migrant, or gatekeeping of the welfare system as such. This apprehension is partially economically embedded, i.e. new members must be productively absorbed into the labor market in order not to become burdens on public budgets; yet, there can be additional social or cultural concerns. The US philosopher Michael Walzer claims that boundaries and bonds interact in the arena of social justice: ‘The idea of distributive justice presupposes a bounded world within which distributions take place: a group of people committed to dividing, exchanging, and sharing social goods, first of all among themselves’ (1983, p. 31). Kymlicka has added to this discourse through his concept of social membership, as compared to the ethics of universal human rights. The ethics of such membership presupposes belonging, commitment, and a sense of bounded solidarity (Kymlicka, 2019). This ‘generalized’ or ‘impersonal’ reciprocity has been seen as a precondition for establishment of the trust-based social citizenship of modern welfare states (Ferrera, 2005; Putnam, 1993; Rothstein, 2017). Citizenship is by definition exclusive—it distinguishes foreigners from natives. The significance of boundedness or relative social closure is particularly pronounced in relation to social citizenship, as regards material redistribution, thus involving difficult questions concerning justice, equity, and reciprocity (Ferrera, 2005). There has been much scholarly debate on the so-called ‘magnet effect’ of welfare states. This chapter will not delve into the opposing positions in that respect,3 but will simply state that there is de facto considerable immigration pressure on the ‘generous’ welfare states of the OECD; in other words, welfare states receive many more immigrants than what is merely driven by labor demand. When it comes to theoretical hypothesizing about the interface of international migration and the welfare state, it is today possible to roughly single out four (sometimes interconnected) positions, all of which have central sociological underpinnings. The first position is concerned with economic and normative sustainability, namely, the fact that it is necessary to control inflow, as immigrants are seen as a potential burden on welfare budgets, and could thus undermine national redistributive solidarity. This position is in line with Freeman’s basic argument: ‘generous’ welfare states simply cannot be open to large-scale immigration. Benhabib’s concept of bounded universalism (2002) alludes to the same idea—internal solidarity must be combined with economically and socially motivated access restrictions. The second concerns the interplay between boundaries and bonds, more in line with Walzer’s (1983) thesis; the feeling of generalized solidarity among the population—seen as necessary to sustain the basic institutions and legitimacy of the welfare state—depends on external boundaries. This ‘high fences make good neighbors’ argument often underlies the ‘social cohesion’ approach, which has become more prominent over the last decade. The social

378  Research handbook on the sociology of migration cohesion approach assumes that increasing ethnic or cultural diversity weakens Freeman’s (1986) ‘normative consensus’, gradually undermining the foundation of the generalized trust required to maintain redistributive welfare states (Alesina & Glaser, 2004; Goodhart, 2004; Wollebæk, 2016). A third position seeks to disprove the social cohesion approach through empirical research, arguing that good welfare states can serve as a resource in preventing the potentially negative effects of immigration and diversity (Banting & Kymlicka, 2006; Crepaz, 2008). Welfare state institutions (like schools, health care, and social security) contribute—through social investment—to establishing and reproducing generalized trust, which also extends to newcomers and, not least, to their offspring. An interesting version of this institutional traction comes from Crepaz’s (2008) emphasis on the timing aspect of the establishment of the welfare structure itself. He argues that it is easier to include immigrants in the redistributive system for cases in which the welfare model was in place before comprehensive immigration started to increase. Within this more positive position, others argue that the fiscal impact—that is, the detrimental effects of immigration on welfare expenditure and funding—is not significant, and that ailing European welfare states will need extra labor to cope with growing needs for elderly care and shrinking workforces, resulting from aging populations (OECD, 2016). Lastly, Koopmans (2010) argues that, institutionally and culturally, unfortunate combinations of welfare institutions and multicultural policies are causing poor socio-economic integration. Koopmans claims that easy access to equal rights and maintenance of traditional lifestyles and gender relations, when combined with generous welfare extension, lead to low labor market participation, spatial segregation, and overrepresentation in criminal statistics. Some of these four perspectives can be relevant at the same time in various welfare state settings, and their respective significance may differ based on the institutional features and political dynamics of the receiving state. However, common to all these approaches is a nation-state mode of argumentation. To a large extent, this type of argument makes sense, as there are few entities within the international political economy that are more directly related to national considerations. At the same time, even the welfare state has been circumscribed by international regulations over the last decades. Nation-states themselves have, by democratic means, decided to join international conventions or communities, which serve to limit their maneuvering space, including the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and various International Labour Organization conventions, and, in the European context, the EU single market—the EU acquis. This international legislation, in different ways, commits the welfare states to refrain from either border control or gate-keeping in their welfare system.

MIGRATION AND THE DIFFERENT WORLDS OF WELFARE CAPITALISM Considering the centrality of the welfare or social rights dimensions, both for immigration governance and for the wellbeing of immigrants themselves, it is puzzling how long it has taken before welfare scholars started examining the immigration–welfare nexus in earnest. In Europe, the most prominent model for the study of ‘welfare capitalism’ has been developed by the Danish sociologist Gøsta Esping-Andersen (1990). This seminal work has been a standard reference for most social science discourses on welfare state models over the past three decades. But international migration was not expressly a part of the analysis, hardly mentioned

Migration and the welfare state  379 at all. Despite this fact, Esping-Andersen’s analytical framework can be useful when adding the immigration dimension to the field of interest, as his typology helps us as a heuristic device for unearthing the structural preconditions for the handling of immigration in different welfare state contexts. Esping-Andersen’s (1990) ‘Three Worlds’ distinguish between the liberal Anglo-Saxon model, the conservative continental model, and the social-democratic Scandinavian model.4 The liberal Anglo-Saxon model has been known for flexible labor markets, liberal employment protection, decentralized wage setting yet high income gaps, and limited welfare policies, in terms of scope and compensation rates. The conservative, continental model, often called the Bismarckian model, is marked by occupational, insurance-based social security; work is the entrance ticket to many of the protection schemes, and strong social partners take care of core industrial workers, which implies insider/outsider divides in the workforce. Finally, the Scandinavian model is funded by taxes and has been characterized by strong social protection, i.e. high expenditure and comprehensive public services of high quality, provided within a residence-based universalistic frame, which means that legal newcomers have access to income security from day one. Moreover, this model is signified by active labor market policies, coordinated wage setting, and well-regulated labor markets, with a compressed wage structure and limited social inequality. The generous and redistributive Scandinavian model presupposes that a large part of the population is employed (Brochmann & Dølvik, 2018). Esping-Andersen’s ideal types can be extended within Europe and beyond. For example, the Mediterranean (limited) welfare states, combined with a large informal sector in the labor market, now play an important role in the European migration complex, as the first gateways to the EU territory. The Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, with their liberalization processes over the last decades, have been left with meager public welfare services, which may have contributed to a drain on their human resources through mass emigration to Western Europe (Brochmann & Dølvik, 2018). Furthermore, the CEE countries have stubbornly refused to take in immigrants in the aftermath of the 2015 refugee influx, ostensibly to avoid a burden on their societies. The point in using the welfare model approach is to substantiate how different national formations—labor market structures and institutional features of the welfare state—equip states very differently in their absorption capacity (Brochmann & Grødem, 2019; Collier, 2013) of different kinds of immigrants, such as low-skilled or high-skilled workers. The different systems have varied institutional instruments and conditions for handling immigration, and the various national approaches also have differential impacts on migrant opportunities and their prospects for life quality and mobility in the country of settlement. The different models also vary in terms of cost-benefit structures in relation to immigration, a fact that often has political repercussions. Firstly, there exist differences among various categories of migrants—notably among refugees and ‘family migrants’, as compared to different groups of labor migrants, depending on the rights and benefits to which they are entitled. Secondly, there is variation among immigration regimes with differences in strictness, priorities, and selectivity in admission procedures. Lastly, differences exist between welfare systems predominantly relying on insurance principles funded through contributions (typically Bismarckian) and occupational pension funds, and more universalist, redistributive systems funded through taxation. Tax-based systems are more accessible to newcomers than contribution-based systems; accordingly, it may thus be more expensive and increase vulnerability for the receiving state if immigrants have problems

380  Research handbook on the sociology of migration in the labor market. In contrast, receiving states with meager welfare provisions, and a large informal sector in the labor market (e.g. Italy), may facilitate a situation in which citizens become dependent on ‘cheap foreign labor’ in order to secure basic care such as for children or elderly relatives (Sciortino, 2013). The absorptive capacity of the national labor market is crucial for the impact of immigration on the welfare state, and it tends to influence both the attractiveness of a country as an immigrant destination and the share of arriving immigrants that become economically self-reliant or remain dependent on welfare state support (NOU, 2017, p. 2). The labor market participation and revenue contributions of immigrants vary indeed with economic and demographic conditions in the destination country, and among employment regimes with different working conditions, minimum wages, and segmentation; they are also influenced by the work incentive effects of benefit schemes with different generosity levels relative to the wages of available jobs (Dølvik, 2013). The liberal, Anglo-Saxon model’s flexible labor markets with huge wage disparities are in general considered the most easily accessible for migrant labor—predominantly in low-paid jobs—and their strict ‘work-first’ policies imply that the financial burden of those who cannot find work is limited. In the continental and Southern models, labor markets have traditionally been associated with higher entry barriers to standard employment, stronger insider/outsider divides, and lower employment rates than in the liberal/Anglo-Saxon model, resulting in weaker (regular) job opportunities for newcomers (Gallie, 2007). Yet, the partial deregulation in recent decades has—especially in the recovering German economy—opened up rapidly growing, secondary, low-wage markets employing and attracting rising shares of migrant workers both from Eastern and Southern Europe (Wagner & Hassel, 2016). Prior to the euro-crisis, the secondary and informal segments of the job markets in Italy and Spain similarly attracted huge inflows of Eastern European and third-country labor migrants (Pérez & Rhodes, 2017).5 In the unevenly developed, southern welfare states, the public costs of immigrants working in the informal sector have been (comparatively) low (Brochmann & Dølvik, 2018). Despite higher employment rates, the egalitarian labor markets of the Scandinavian model have often been hard to enter for immigrants, due to high productivity and skill requirements resulting from the high wage floors set by collective bargaining. Accordingly, the gap in employment rates among third-country nationals (TCNs)6 and natives is higher in Scandinavian countries than in most other European countries (NOU, 2011, p. 7). The unemployment rates among immigrants are around three times as high as in the majority population, and the growth in the immigrant populations is a major factor behind the rise in relative income poverty in Scandinavia—most pronounced among groups from Africa and Asia. The financial viability of the more ‘generous’ Scandinavian welfare states has increasingly come on the agenda, and immigration is among the factors featuring in these discussions (NOU, 2011, p. 7; Andersen, 2012). Moving beyond Europe, the study of the migration–welfare nexus has been more limited. Covering the ‘rest of the world’ in terms of the sociology of the welfare state and international migration is of course impossible in a short text, not least because the term ‘welfare state’ needs to be qualified in many contexts. In which regions and national settings is it reasonable to talk about welfare states proper, and, moreover, welfare states for whom? The Arabian Gulf, for example, may have well developed welfare facilities for the native population, yet with more or less complete exclusion of foreign citizens (see, for example, Eibl, 2020). The empir-

Migration and the welfare state  381 ical diversity is huge (Greve, 2018). Some sort of residual welfare for the population probably exists in most places, at least in terms of educational facilities and maybe health care, but within the scope of this chapter, it seems meaningful to limit the scrutiny to welfare states that are akin to Esping-Andersen’s (1990) triptych model, i.e. welfare states often labeled ‘established welfare states’ (Kuhlmann, 2018), which roughly corresponds with the affluent states in the OECD. Consequently, this chapter will only touch upon the—historically speaking— major immigration countries beyond Europe: the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. All these countries belong to the club of the Anglo-Saxon welfare state model. Of the two North American countries, Canada is the most developed welfare state (Reitz, 2014). It has also been the Anglo-Saxon country with the most explicit pro-immigration policy over the years. Canada is thus often used in Scandinavia as a point of reference in the ‘sustainability of the welfare state discourse’, particularly among those who favor a liberal access policy. The comparison does not necessarily hold, however, as the Canadian welfare structure is quite different from the universalist Scandinavian model. The compensation level is clearly lower, but more importantly, Canadian immigration policy proper is, in the first place, selective in favor of skilled labor in demand, and, moreover, their welfare policy towards newcomers is to a large extent based on sponsorship (Koning & Banting, 2011). The Scandinavian ‘equal treatment from day one’ is structurally much more accommodating towards newcomers, and therefore also more vulnerable. In the United States, the limited public welfare system has been even more restrained towards immigrants since the 1996 reforms. Before these reforms were implemented, there was a rather principled discussion in Congress about the trade-off between migrant rights and migrant numbers: ‘Should the number of needy immigrants be reduced, but immigrant access to federal welfare assistance maintained, or should the number of needy immigrants remain high and their access to welfare assistance curtailed?’ (Martin, 2014, p. 68). The debate resulted in the 1996 welfare reforms, which allowed the numbers of immigrants to remain high, with their access to benefits restrained. Over the last decade, the question of numbers has again reached a peak on the political agenda. Both Canada and the United States embrace market-based welfare solutions, in which privatization and work-fare policies7 have predominated over the years. There are nevertheless clear differences between the two countries, both in terms of public attitudes, as well as with regard to welfare provisions. Australia, a classical immigrant settler country (close to 30 percent of the population is foreign born),8 is also a welfare state, clearly involved in social policies and service provision for immigrants. The Australian welfare state is universalistic to a certain extent, yet with more market-based elements than its Scandinavian counterpart and with more involvement of non-governmental organizations. The role of the state includes responsibility for the provision of a basic safety net. Thrift and private institutions are to a large extent expected to provide effective coverage. The welfare of immigrants has been seen as the responsibility of society as a whole (Jakubowicz, 1989). Family migrants have long constituted the largest immigration category. There was a change of tide in 1996, in which a more restrictive line was introduced with regard to non-economic migrants. Most new arrivals must now wait for two years to apply for nearly all social security benefits. The government has cut more specialized services for immigrants, including language programs, income support, and ethno-specific health care services (Vasta, 2004). The potential for self-sufficiency is today a defining feature of the country’s immigration policies (Castles, Vasta, & Ozkul, 2014).

382  Research handbook on the sociology of migration New Zealand is also a country of high immigration. The 2018 census revealed that more than 27 percent of the population is foreign born (StatsNZ, 2018). Increasing diversity has been a long-term trend, with Asian and Pacific immigrants predominating over the last decades. Policy changes during the 2000s have encouraged skilled and temporary immigration (Castles & Miller, 2009). New Zealand reformed its (basically Anglo-Saxon) welfare system during the 1990s. Social assistance became targeted and more conditional in order to reduce benefit dependency, with a strong focus on improving the rate of employment. This line was reinforced in a reform package in 2012–2013, introducing more sanctions and obligations (KPA, 2018). There are special services for migrants and refugees to assist them in settling in New Zealand and finding work; yet, they must wait two years for a number of social benefits. As this overview has shown, different national welfare systems have different institutional preconditions for handling immigration and its outcomes. There are nevertheless similarities across these specificities in terms of attempted retrenchments over the last years. Even the Scandinavian universalist welfare models have (to different degrees) tried to delineate access to welfare benefits for newcomers. Sweden is the country in which the universalist tradition remains most intact, but it has nevertheless reduced the level of compensation in most benefit programs—for all residents. The work-line9 approach has steadily been gaining ground. Denmark, and to a lesser extent, Norway, have moved away from the universalist tradition by introducing waiting time for access to certain transfers, a new development clearly targeting immigrants (Brochmann, Jensen, Nielsen, & Skaksen, 2020), in order to install the more ‘immigration robust’ features of welfare institutions, as the political argument goes.

SOCIAL INVESTMENT AND SOCIAL COHESION So far, this chapter has been primarily occupied with a political economy-inspired perspective on the connection between immigration and (different kinds of) welfare states. This line of framing has a tendency to become ‘problem oriented’; a ‘deep-seated contradiction’ in the words of Freeman (1986), alluding to immigration as a ‘disturbance’ to be tackled as adequately as possible. But already the ‘selectivity’ issue indicates that certain kinds of immigrants are actively desired, as they contribute to society in different ways. Skilled workers from abroad are welcomed in most places, as they add flexibility and competence to the labor markets, and cultural diversity may also be valued for bringing new perspectives to society. But it is beyond doubt that welfare states prefer to have access control, and that the welfare dependency ratio, at least among some immigrant groups, is worrying to politicians in receiving welfare states. Nevertheless, when newcomers de facto arrive and settle, another logic takes over—the ‘logic of inclusion’, in Castles’ words: ‘[F]ailure to grant social rights to any group of residents leads to social division and can undermine the rights of the majority’ (2004, p. 869). This points to a double-edged sword for welfare governments. It can easily become dysfunctional not to include newcomers on an (as much as possible) equal basis. Exclusion means marginalization, which tends to become expensive in the long run, as far as people have rights to stay. Moreover, in countries with traditions of trust and equity—as in Scandinavia— immigration-related inequality and residential segregation spells eroding social cohesion and political instability. So, immigrants had better be included, as seen from both a humanitarian and a welfare state-systemic perspective.

Migration and the welfare state  383 Consequently, most advanced welfare states have implemented various kinds of integration policies, specifically targeted measures aimed at equipping newcomers with the resources they need to be capable residents, or, later, citizens, of their new home countries. Such programs come in various forms—some directly targeted, like the Scandinavian ‘Introduction programs’, lasting a couple of years for newly arrived ‘humanitarian immigrants’, others more in line with mainstream policies. Most programs include settlement assistance, language training, access to social services, educational elements, and job training. Integration policies often follow a social investment logic: the state is (to varying degrees) willing to spend money on low-skilled (or mismatched) newcomers in order to enhance their capacities to match the demand side of the labor market. Productive employment among immigrants points to a double gain; people are removed from the welfare budgets and, at the same time, they become taxpayers. But there are also important social and cultural dimensions of integration policies. As argued by Marshall (1950), people must have access to general social rights in the society in which they reside, in order to function as equal members. In other words, they must also be socialized through rights-based inclusion, in a broad sociological sense; they need to use their own agency within the surrounding opportunity structures. And this mechanism is important for society as a whole—it is important for social cohesion—i.e. a trust-based and amenable welfare society. In this way, Crepaz’s approach, outlined in the theoretical section, makes sense. The welfare state can be seen as a ‘self-amending’ device. The challenges posed by immigration to a system of relative social closure can be ameliorated through the means of the system itself. Most members of modern welfare states today know that it is not as clear cut as this, even though there may be some truth to it. Even the most advanced and most accommodating welfare states (e.g. Sweden and Norway) experience challenges in the realm of integration, segregation, gang criminality, cultural conflict, etc. And there are political repercussions to this situation. Popular support for restrictions on access to refugees, for family reunification, citizenship, and welfare support for newcomers has increased throughout Europe, with anti-immigrant parties gaining ground (ESS, 2016). The term absorption capacity is thus indirectly extended to the social and cultural sphere as well; the de facto capacity, and, not least, the political willingness among the native-born to include more newcomers. Immigration and integration are combustible issues in many national contexts, often politically polarized. Cultural conflicts have been connected to welfare state sustainability, fueling discussion on the limits of solidarity. In the midst of increasing internationalization, there are political currents in the direction of a renationalized social citizenship. Many liberal democracies are caught in growing tension between what can be labeled as the ‘conflicting logics of solidarity’, i.e. global solidarity through the human rights regime or traditional solidarity through nation-states under pressure—and the bounded social contract. In Europe, there is even an intermediate logic, namely, the regional solidarity entailed in the EU project (Brochmann & Dølvik, 2018, p. 509). All receiving welfare states must balance economic interests, social needs, and humanitarian responsibilities in their immigration policies. Thus, the nation-states are today confronted with a host of tensions between conflicting national interests and the international regulations to which they have committed themselves.

384  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

CONCLUSION This chapter has addressed the sociology of migration and the welfare state—a huge and complex field of study. Consequently, a very rough portrait has been charted, in an attempt to map a messy terrain. The basic endeavor has been to show the variation in the interplay among welfare state structures, labor market dynamics, and social-cultural parameters, all within an internationally defined territory. The overarching conclusion must be that there is no unitary relationship between immigration and the welfare state. The outcome of the concrete relationship in national contexts relies on a series of distinct dimensions: historical factors attached to social and cultural traditions, as well as the political economy. Furthermore, immigration and the welfare state coexist in a dynamic relationship, in which the prime sociological mechanisms operate on a daily basis, with individuals using their agency to carve out a living and influence their surroundings, bounded by the institutions and the cultural legacy of the local environment. For the classical sociologists, like Émile Durkheim, and, later, Talcott Parsons, integration is closely related to social order, which again depends on a common framework of norms and values to be sustained. This common frame of reference is at the same time subject to change, as members of society—actors with individual interests—may influence the very normative basis of society. This is also a sociological fact of contemporary society. With new groups of people increasingly immigrating and settling in democratic welfare states, the basis for political legitimacy will also change. As in most social systems, this is going to involve various kinds of conflicts, and the outcome for the welfare state as such is in no way carved in stone.

NOTES 1. See Brochmann and Dølvik (2018) for an equivalent analysis in the European context. 2. See, in particular, Bommes and Geddes (2002), Banting and Kymlicka (2006), and Crepaz (2008). 3. The chapter does not deal with how and to what extent welfare attractiveness influences international migration compared to other factors. See Nannestad (2007) for a discussion of the pull forces of welfare states. 4. There is a substantial literature on criticism of the Esping-Andersen approach, which is not addressed in this chapter. 5. Spain received some 4 million labor migrants from Eastern Europe, Africa and elsewhere during the boom prior to the 2008 financial crisis, while Italy was a prime destination for Romanian and Bulgarian labor migrants, along with large numbers of labor migrants from Africa and refugees from the wider Middle East. 6. Nationals from countries outside the European Union. 7. Work-fare policies are governmental schemes under which people who receive welfare transfers and are able to work, must work. 8. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2019). 9. A policy strongly emphasizing the importance of work, sometimes implying conditional access to welfare programs.

Migration and the welfare state  385

REFERENCES Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. L. (2004). Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Andersen, T. M. (2012). Migration og den nordiske velfærdsmodel. Økonomi og Politik, 4, 16–27. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2019). Population. Retrieved from https://​www​.abs​.gov​.au/​statistics/​ people/​population. Banting, K., & Kymlicka, W. (Eds.) (2006). Multiculturalism and the welfare state: Recognition and redistribution in contemporary democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benhabib, S. (2002). Transformations of citizenship: The case of contemporary Europe. Government and Opposition, 37(4), 439–465. Bommes, M., & Geddes, A. (Eds.) (2002). Immigration and welfare: Challenging the borders of the welfare state. New York: Routledge. Brochmann, G., & Dølvik, J. E. (2018). The welfare state and international migration: The European challenge. In B. Greve (Ed.) Routledge handbook of the welfare state, 2nd edition (pp. 508–523). London and New York: Routledge. Brochmann, G., & Grødem, A. S. (2019). Absorption capacity as means for assessing sustainable immigration. EMN Norway Occasional Papers. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Brochmann, G., Jensen, B., Nielsen, B. W., & Skaksen, J. R. (2020). Velfærdsstat og befolkning i Skandinavia. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Castles, S. (2004). The factors that make and unmake migration policies. International Migration Review, 38(3), 852–884. Castles, S., & Miller, M. (2009). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world, 4th edition. New York: Guilford Press. Castles, S., Vasta, E., & Ozkul, D. (2014). Australia: A classical immigration country in transition. In P. L. Martin, P. M. Orrenius, & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.) Controlling immigration: A global perspective (pp. 128–150). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Collier, P. (2013). Exodus: Immigration and multiculturalism in the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crepaz, M. M. (2008). Trust beyond borders: Immigration, the welfare state, and identity in modern societies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dølvik, J. E. (2013). Grunnpilarene i de nordiske modellene: Tilbakeblikk på arbeidslivs- og velferdsregimenes utvikling. Fafo Report No. 13. Oslo. Durkheim, E. (2007). On suicide. New York: Penguin. Eibl, F. (2020). Social dictatorships: The political economy of the welfare state in the Middle East and North Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. European Social Survey (2016). Version Notes, ESS8 – 2016 Documentation Report. Retrieved from http://​www​.​europeanso​cialsurvey​.org/​. Ferrera, M. (2005). The boundaries of welfare: European integration and the new spatial politics of protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freeman, G. (1986). Migration and the political economy of the welfare state. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 485, 51–63. Gallie, D. (2007). Production regimes, employment regimes and the quality of work. In D. Gallie (Ed.) Employment regimes and the quality of work (pp. 1–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goodhart, D. (2004). Too diverse? Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind good society and the welfare state? Prospect, February 20. Greve, B. (Ed.) (2018). Routledge handbook of the welfare state, 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge. Jakubowicz, A. (1989). The state and the welfare of immigrants in Australia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12(1), 1–35. Kia Piki Ake Welfare Expert Advisory Group (KPA) (2018). History of the New Zealand welfare system. Retrieved from http://​www​.weag​.govt​.nz/​background/​history​-welfare​-system/​. Koning, E. A., & Banting, K. (2011). The Canadian model of immigration and welfare. NOU, 2011: 7-Velferd og migrasjon: den norske modellens framtid, 354–371.

386  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Koopmans, R. (2010). Trade-offs between equality and difference: Immigrant integration, multiculturalism and the welfare state in cross-national perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(1), 1–26. Kuhlmann, J. (2018). What is a welfare state? In B. Greve (Ed.) Routledge handbook of the welfare state, 2nd edition (pp. 13–22). London and New York: Routledge. Kymlicka, W. (2019). The ethics of membership in multicultural societies. Paper presented at the closing conference of the GOVCIT project, Oslo, Norway. Liebfried, S., & Pierson, P. (1995). Semisovereign welfare states: Social policy in a multitiered Europe. In S. Liebfried & P. Pierson (Eds.) European social policy: Between fragmentation and integration (pp. 43–78). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin, P. L. (2014). The United States: The continuing immigration debate. In J. Hollifield, P. L. Martin, & P. Orrenius (Eds.) Controlling immigration: A global perspective (pp. 48–77). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Nannestad, P. (2007). Immigration and welfare states: A survey of 15 years of research. European Journal of Political Economy, 23(2), 512–532. NOU (2011). 2, Velferd og migrasjon. Den norske modellens framtid. Oslo: Barne-, likestillings- og inkluderingsdepartementet. NOU (2017). 2, Integrasjon og tillit. Langsiktige konsekvenser av høy innvandring. Oslo: Justisdepartementet. OECD (2016). International Migration Outlook. Retrieved from https://​www​.oecd​-ilibrary​.org/​social​ -issues​-migration​-health/​international​-migration​-outlook​-2016​_migr​_outlook​-2016​-en​#:​~:​text​=​The​ %202016​%20edition​%20of​%20the​,recent​%20immigrants​%20in​%20OECD​%20countries. Pérez, S., & Rhodes, M. (2017). The evolution and crises of the social models in Italy and Spain. In J. E. Dølvik & A. Martin (Eds.) European social models from crisis to crisis: Employment and inequality in the era of monetary integration (pp. 177–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Reitz, J. G. (2014). Canada: New initiatives and approaches to immigration and nation building. In J. Hollifield, P. L. Martin, & P. Orrenius (Eds.) Controlling immigration: A global perspective (pp. 88–116). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Rothstein, B. (2017). Solidarity, diversity and the quality of government. In K. Banting & W. Kymlicka (Eds.) The strains of commitment: The political sources of solidarity in diverse societies (pp. 300–326). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sciortino, G. (2013). Immigration in Italy: Subverting the logic of welfare reform? In E. Jurado & G. Brochmann (Eds.) Europe’s immigration challenge: Reconciling work, welfare and mobility (pp. 77–95). London and New York: I. B. Tauris. StatsNZ (2018). 2018 Census. Stats NZ. Vasta, E. (2004). Community, the state and the deserving citizen: Pacific Islanders in Australia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(1), 195–213. Wagner, B., & Hassel, A. (2016). Move to work, move to stay? Mapping atypical labour migration into Germany. In J. E. Dølvik & L. Eldring (Eds.) Labour mobility in the enlarged single European market (pp. 125–158). Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defence of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books. Wollebæk, D. (2016). Tillit under press. Syn og Segn, 16(3).

32. The religious migrant Tuomas Martikainen1

INTRODUCTION: WORLD RELIGIONS ON THE MOVE The end of the Cold War and the associated bipolar world politics signified a new phase in globalization that changed global identity politics. Religion has played a salient role in this process. The growing importance of religion is usually attributed to the rise of political Islam, but similarly, the US religious right, the neo-Hindutva movement in India, and the global rise of Pentecostalism are related to shifts in the global political economy. As these movements reflect, religious identification across the world continues to be important, despite ongoing secularization (Haynes, 2009). More specifically, the growth of international migration brings about new religious constellations, unbalances existing religious equilibria in many parts of the world, and fuels identitarian struggles both among migrants and natives in destination countries (Bramadat & Koenig, 2009). In response, religious activities are increasingly controlled by states worldwide, pointing to religion’s persistence in providing people with meaning and community that, at times, challenge the national order of things (Fox, 2008; Fox & Akbaba, 2015). Religion has long been a significant research area in migration studies, particularly regarding migrant settlement. Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other places of worship have been important places for meeting co-ethnics, sustaining cultural traditions, and acting as sites of cultural adaptation or social closure. However, religion was neglected in post-Second World War US and Western European migration studies, perhaps due to the rapid secularization at the time. Nevertheless, as postwar migrant communities matured, religious institutions were established and the public role of religion grew, immigrant religions became a major topic in Western scholarship from the late 1990s onwards (e.g., Ebaugh & Chafetz, 2000; Stepick, 2005; Warner & Wittner, 1998). Increasingly diverse post-Cold War migration flows reflected the world’s religious diversity in global cities, such as London and New York, as well as on a more limited scale in smaller migrant receiving localities. In the scholarship on religion, growing national and local religious diversity led to a change of emphasis in the study of world religions, which, until then, had embodied a mainly historical, textual, and regional focus, but would soon take up anthropological and sociological methods and theories to understand the world’s religions at one’s doorstep (Cadge & Ecklund, 2007; Hinnells, 1997; Kivisto, 2014). This chapter looks at the religious aspects of international migration, with a special emphasis on the role of religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, temples, and other religious associations. The chapter starts with an overview of changes in the world’s religious demography that have underpinned global migratory movements over the past several decades, setting the tone for the future. It then examines premigration issues in the country of origin and shows how religion is one visible factor among others influencing migrant selectivity in global migration streams. The rest of the chapter looks at the role of religious institutions in the migrant settlement process, as well as how these religious institutions become embedded in the 387

388  Research handbook on the sociology of migration host country. I suggest that it requires a generational perspective to illuminate the long-term adaptability of religion to new contexts. Throughout the chapter, migrants’ age and gender are highlighted, as, on the one hand, international migrants tend to be young adults, and, on the other hand, different migration streams have remarkably different gender patterns.

DEMOGRAPHY, MIGRATION, AND RELIGION The world is urbanizing, though with great national and regional variety in terms of country internal and international migration propensity. While the exact numbers of country internal migrants are difficult to know, it is estimated that every year, hundreds of millions of people change their address, primarily moving to nearby areas and generally towards larger urban concentrations; tens of millions move greater distances (Bell, Charles-Edwards, Bernard, & Ueffing, 2018; United Nations, 2019b). Apart from country internal migration, international migration moves five to ten million people annually to new countries, often to major metropolitan areas. International migration has constantly risen over the last half century, and in 2020, the international migrant stock was estimated at 281 million individuals, representing 3.6 percent of the world’s population (United Nations, 2020). However, migrants constitute a far greater share in major immigrant receiving regions. As international migrants are usually young adults of childbearing age, their impact on population development is greater than their sheer population size. The combination of low fertility and high migration that is found in many parts of the developing world, which receives two thirds of all immigrants, changes population structures significantly (Coleman, 2006). For example, numerous major urban areas in Europe and North America have already switched majority-minority shares, as migrants and their descendants have become the larger share of local populations (Crul, 2016). The recent interest in localized urban religious diversity is tightly bound with international migrants changing local ethnic and religious realities around the migrant receiving world (Eck, 2001). Moreover, transnational diasporic connections and migrant return flows bring changes even to countries of origin (Anghel, Fauser, & Boccagni, 2019). We are currently living through a quiet, global, demographic revolution of religious affiliation, which creates new balances between the world’s religious traditions. Over the past century, the world has not only become more populous, but also more secular and Islamo-Christian, as illustrated in Table 32.1. While Christianity is still the largest religion, the rise of Islam has been steady, and Chinese religions have largely fallen under Communist rule. Moreover, based on current population projections, the share of the religiously unaffiliated will decrease due to lower fertility in more secularized countries, and the continuing growth of Islam challenges Christianity as the world’s largest religious tradition (Johnson & Grim, 2013, pp. 10–11, 111–114), which, according to the Pew–Templeton Global Religious Futures Project, could take place around 2070 (Pew Research Center, 2015). Moreover, the world’s population balance turns increasingly in favor of Asia and Africa, the two continents that host most of the world’s youth (United Nations, 2019a). These religious and demographic changes are combined with continuing human mobility and the cultural transitions associated with it, likely leading to a burgeoning religious vitality and innovation, exemplified by the rise of megachurches and numerous religious renewal movements around the urbanizing developing world (e.g., Goh & van der Veer, 2016; Miller & Yamamori, 2007). It is possible that the future dynamos of religious innovation will be found in places still unknown. However, it is

The religious migrant  389 worth noting that religious affiliation is different from actual religious praxis, its intensity, and its relative importance to people, though affiliation carries some weight in overall value orientation (cf. Norris & Inglehart, 2011). Table 32.1

Adherents of religions worldwide, 1910–2050 (percentage) 1910

2010

Christians

34.8

32.8

2050 35.8

Muslims

12.6

22.5

27.5

Hindus

12.7

13.8

13.6

Agnostic and atheists

0.2

11.8

8.7

Buddhists

7.9

7.2

6

Chinese folk-religionists

22.2

6.3

4.1

Others

9.6

5.6

4.3

Total

100

100

100

Source: Johnson & Grim (2013, pp. 10, 112).

International migration does not affect religions equally, and migration propensity differs among religions. The religious composition of international migrants in 2010, presented in Table 32.2, indicates that among the main religions, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are overrepresented, while others, including the unaffiliated, migrate less than the global average. The migration of Jews represents a special case; an astonishing 25 percent of Jews live outside of their country of birth. This is in part explained by the large number of post-Soviet emigrants to Israel and other countries. In sheer numbers, 49 percent of all international migrants are Christian and 27 percent are Muslim. While other religions have lower shares, we still find a great many Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others who have found a new home outside of their country of origin (Pew Research Center, 2012). Still, it is important to note that international migration is increasingly globalized since the 1990s; consequently, we easily find people of all origins and religions across the world. This situation has been characterized as the diversification of international migration, leading to religious superdiversity in the main hubs of arrival, as well as in many smaller migration centers around the world (Becci, Burchardt, & Giorda, 2016; Vertovec, 2007). Table 32.2

Religious affiliation of international migrants in 2010 Affiliated

Percentage

Christian

105 670 000

49

Muslim

58 580 000

27

Hindu

10 700 000

5

Buddhist

7 310 000

3

Jewish

3 650 000

2

Other religions

9 110 000

4

19 330 000

9

Unaffiliated

Source: Pew Research Center (2012).

From the perspective of global receiving regions, we can see that current international migration to North America comes primarily from Central America and Asia, and most immigrants are Christian. However, as both the United States and Canada are among the top receiving

390  Research handbook on the sociology of migration countries in the world, arrivals include basically followers of all religions of the world. For Europe as a whole, the situation is similar, though Christians are fewer (56 percent) and Muslims constitute a greater share (27 percent). Moreover, the variations in migrant numbers and composition are vast among European countries. With regard to migrants moving to the Islamic world, including North Africa, the Middle East, and certain Asian regions, most are Muslims, including major flows of temporary workers to the Gulf region. In Latin America, most migrants are Christian. In sub-Saharan Africa, Christians and Muslims constitute the great majority of migrants. Religiously, the most diverse migratory region is the Asia-Pacific (Pew Research Center, 2012). Based on future demographic projections (e.g., Pew Research Center, 2015; United Nations, 2019a), we can estimate that in the forthcoming decades, there will be hundreds of millions of young people looking for life opportunities in the Islamic world, Islamo-Christian sub-Saharan Africa, and Muslim-Hindu India. While most of them will find opportunities nearby, many of them will be attracted to seek opportunities in the more prosperous but aging North America, Europe, and, perhaps, China. If this will be the case, we can estimate that Christians, Muslims, and Hindus will constitute the majority of migrants in the coming decades. Still, it seems that the most likely international migrants are those from the upward-aspiring classes from middle-income countries; accordingly, economic development will certainly affect what the main countries of departure will be, influencing the detailed religious composition of future migration flows. For example, the great financial success of China in the past decades has created both immense country internal migration as well as an increase in the global Chinese diaspora. Besides demography, future migration flows will be shaped by a complex mix of geographical distance, colonial history, economy, language, cultural preferences, etc. on the side of the potential migrants, as well as economic interests and governance efforts by receiving countries. Moreover, we shall still witness people seeking refuge, so political and environmental factors will continue to play a key role.

THE MOBILE HOMO RELIGIOUS Like most of the world’s population, international migrants are religious (Pew Research Center, 2012). Still, for the majority, religion is not the prime mover in international migration. The most obvious religious migrants are missionaries and religious officials moving to work in a different country. The exact figures are not known, but they likely number in the several hundreds of thousands. For example, there were an estimated 425,000 Christian international missionaries in the world in 2020 (Zurlo & Johnson, 2019, p. 942). Some religious groups are well known for their international missions, including the Mormon Church, the Hare Krishna movement, and the Tablighi Jamaat. That many Catholic priests in Western countries are foreign-born is a well-known fact, including every sixth priest in the United States (Hopfensperger, 2019). Many Muslim countries send imams to their diasporas; for example, Turkey provides transnational support in numerous ways (Bruce, 2020). Hindu and Buddhist temples in the diaspora also have sent or requested pujari or monks for taking care of their activities (e.g., Jacobsen & Kumar, 2004). Historically, missions and diasporas have played a key role in the global spread of religions (e.g., Hanciles, 2021; Kuiper, 2021; Learman, 2004).

The religious migrant  391 Religion can be a factor in the choice of destination country and area, because religious affiliation, alongside kinship and ethnic ties, can play a role in choosing a desirable destination. We find ethnic and religious concentrations of people in all major migrant receiving localities. Peggy Levitt’s acclaimed book, The Transnational Villagers (2001), looks at the migration network that links a town in the Dominican Republic and the city of Boston in United States, in which the Catholic Church has played a crucial part. Likewise, Jains from India have a presence in Antwerp, Belgium, due to their involvement in the international diamond business, for which Belgium is a significant hub. This is no coincidence; Michael Backman (2005, p. 160) claims that eight of ten diamonds sold in the world are handled by Jains. Marriage migration is another important feature of contemporary life, where religion is certainly important for many, as minority religion members seek suitable partners from their countries of origin, as well as from elsewhere in the diaspora. For example, the Ahmadiyya Muslims have created an international matrimonial Ristha Nata agency that helps in finding suitable partners (Langewiesche, 2021, pp. 252–253). Some religious groups are persecuted in their countries of origin, including members of minority religions and religious sects, such the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan, the Bahais in Iran, and Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. The recent genocide and exodus of Yazidis from the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (2014–2019) is just one of the last in a long history of persecutions (Cheterian, 2021). Historical examples of persecuted religious groups are numerous, including the Amish and Mennonites who moved from Central Europe to North America, as well as the worldwide Jewish diaspora. Persecuted groups are overrepresented among refugees, and religious persecution is recognized by the 1951 Refugee Convention as a reason to grant international protection. Even key religious figures can experience exile, exemplified by Ayatollah Khomeini (in exile 1964–1979), the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso (in exile since 1959) and the Turkish Fethullah Gülen (abroad since 1999). Another type of religion-centered human mobility is based on sacred geography, amplified by skyrocketing international tourism. Some of the world’s most visited events and sites are decisively religious, such as the Hindu Maha Kumbh Mela in India, the Shia Muslim Arba’een in Iraq, and the Muslim Hajj to Mecca, all of which attract millions of people. Holy places are highly visited, including Jerusalem for the Abrahamic religions, the Vatican for Catholics, and the Golden Temple in Amritsar, India, for Sikhs. Significant religious places and events are not only sites of pilgrimage and touristic visits, but also may lead to permanent settlement and the establishment of major transnational businesses (Raj & Griffin, 2015). Many well-known religious teaching institutions or significant teachers draw people to stay for prolonged periods of time. For instance, the Orthodox Christian monasteries at Mount Athos, Greece, major Islamic and Christian universities, and the ashrams of Indian gurus bring international visitors to stay in places they would not frequent otherwise. The politicization of religion, along with increasing transnational connectivity, have led many states to monitor and control immigrant religions in order to prevent unwanted cultural, political, and religious ideas and practices from spreading among the national population (Bramadat & Koenig, 2009). Missionaries as well as migrant religious officials are one target group. The question of ‘sent imams’ has created much controversy in European countries during the 2000s, as the imams were claimed to prevent local Muslims from integrating into mainstream society or, in some cases, radicalizing them (Haddad & Balz, 2008). In many parts of the world, religious restrictions are severe and influence a large part of the immigrant population, rather than just a few individuals (Fox, 2008). For example, Saudi Arabia is an

392  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Islamic theocracy, in which proselytization and practice of other religions is forbidden and conversion from Islam is punishable by law. The restrictions also apply for non-Muslim temporary workers in the Kingdom that number in the millions (US Department of State, 2019). Restrictions also exist in more liberal states; for example, the US-led global ‘war on terror’ significantly hindered transnational religious activities across the world in its efforts to prevent funding of religious terrorist activities (e.g., Chong, 2013). Nevertheless, religious parties try to circumvent such restrictions, as was the case in the former Soviet Union, into which bibles were smuggled by imaginative means (Boel, 2014). While there have been great migrations earlier in human history that incurred major religious changes, the current level of migration-related religious diversity is qualitatively new. All religions now have global diasporas that can travel and communicate with each other with relative ease. This situation has not only changed the geographical spread of religions, but also well-established religious traditions have felt the change. For example, African American Islam has been going through renewals since the arrival of Muslims from the Islamic world (Curtis & Johnson, 2019, pp. 345–352). Religions are also controlled more often than earlier, as has been documented in relation to Islamic minorities in Europe (e.g., Račius et al., 2021). In sum, even if religion is not among the key determinants of migration for most international migrants, it is something to take seriously in our analysis of migrants.

SETTLING IN A NEW COUNTRY Migrant settlement can be viewed from the perspective of the individual and the family, the local community, and the society, as well as from a broader perspective of transnational relations, diaspora, and the sending state. From the perspective of the immigrant, migration always changes the immediate local physical and social environment. Other changes in the cultural, religious, linguistic, etc. environments are a matter of degree, with significant variation. Because so much of international migration takes place between neighboring countries, culturally close societies with longstanding ties, and within established migration networks, many migrants do not experience great changes, and have support structures that cushion settlement. For example, if a French Catholic individual moves to Francophone Switzerland, they may continue with their religious practices much as at home, even in a new parish with new people. A somewhat similar case can be found within socially closed communities. If a Haredi Jew moves from Buenos Aires to New York, little may change in their life, though the societies are in many respects different. However, for many others, the changes can be substantial, including legal and social restrictions on practicing one’s religion, or being outright banned and illegal (Fox, 2020). The study of migrant religions often focuses on communities and individuals that face more significant changes. While this overemphasizes the significance of migration-related changes, it nevertheless reminds us of migration’s disruptive potential. As the psychology of religion has highlighted, religious changes often occur at moments of transition and personal crises, such as young adulthood, partnership formation, a loss of one’s closest, or traumatic events (Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2018). As migration certainly qualifies for many as a life-changing moment, it is no wonder that early, qualitative studies of immigrant religion viewed international migration as a ‘theologizing’ event, in which an increase in the observed significance of religion was interpreted as a coping mechanism in a stressful situation (e.g., Eck, 2001). Religious beliefs

The religious migrant  393 and practices can indeed comfort and provide meaning in stressful and difficult situations, and co-religionists in a new congregation may provide support and aid (Ebaugh & Chafetz, 2000). However, later studies have questioned this approach, not solely by rebutting it, but by looking at the broader context of change and selectivity among immigrants (e.g., Massey & Higgins, 2011). Phillip Connor (2014), among others, suggests that immigrants’ overall religiosity tends to conform to that in society in general, implying assimilation to societal values and norms. Within such an overall change, different individual outcomes are obviously possible, but the main trend is to become more like the majority population, not primarily through conversion, but rather in overall value orientation and intensity of religious practice. Hence, we may expect that the migrant can become either more or less religious depending on one’s starting point, as well as the society in which one now lives. However, a significant barrier to societal assimilation can be hostility or rejection from the majority society, which can lead to turning inward and seeking comfort from migrant peers. The broader societal sphere has been referred to as ‘the context of reception’, meaning that many opportunities and efforts for migrants are constrained by society, its practices, regulations, and other pre-existing social structures (Stepick & Stepick, 2009). As religion is among the many societally regulated spheres of life, it directly affects the possibilities for communal religious practice, as well as opportunities to establish and operate religious associations and gain public recognition for them. Even if the private sphere remains less regulated, we may see difficulties in accessing required religious artifacts and products, such as halal products for many European Muslims. Helen Rose Ebaugh and Janet Saltzman Chafetz (2000) take up the significance of whether the migrants happen to belong to a religious minority or majority, and whether the migrant comes from a religious majority or minority background. For example, if a migrant leaves as a persecuted religious minority member and becomes non-persecuted or, even, a religious majority member, the change is heartfelt in many respects. Even the move from majority to minority can be stressful, making many previously self-evident rights and opportunities obsolete. In these cases, such banal issues as observation of the religious calendar and the availability of religiously sanctioned products become meaningful. One important feature relates to the role of private and public religious performances. Personal religious practices may remain quite intact after migration; for example, praying and many religious rituals can often be conducted at home. Religions are, however, somewhat different in what can or should be done at home, and what should or must be performed together with others. Hindu and Buddhist migrants can easily continue with home-based piety and erect a small altar with deities, and Christians and Muslims likewise can engage in private prayer. However, as regular communal religious services are considered either obligatory or preferred among Muslims and Christians, participation requires collective effort and the founding of religious associations, if none already exist. Organizational processes are often sanctioned by law and public authorities, requiring both localized knowledge in organizational activities and principles, as well as skills in funding and creating such common efforts, and religion-specific skills in running places of worship. Because religious specialists are not usually prevalent among migrants and help from one’s religious group is not always available, many immigrant congregations are run by lay people with initially limited skills in doing so (Kivisto, 2014; Warner, 2000). I have studied the organizational processes of immigrant religions in Finland and followed many communities’ developments over time (Martikainen, 2004, 2013). My findings reveal that those migrants able to participate in existing congregations face fewer hurdles in their

394  Research handbook on the sociology of migration communal religious activities than others. They can simply enter a church or mosque, and start to participate, eventually asking for native-language events or teaching to be added to the congregation’s activities. If the group is sufficiently large, they might either receive a visiting preacher or have one permanently employed in the local community. However, those migrants that start from scratch must go through the process of finding a suitable space, organizing funding, creating ties with other institutions that may support them and be able to organize religious activities, and navigating local and state bureaucracies to gain the required approvals. It often takes years to achieve all this and progress is commonly disrupted by power struggles between competing factions, often leading to splinter groups that shatter existing resources. However, after a time, communities do become established, and depending on their own interests, they may be included in local religious and public networks of various sorts. As they become organized, religious associations generally adapt to the local and national organizational field, which may be considered a structural adaption process that also affects religious practice beyond the obvious, many times leading to innovative solutions vis-à-vis tradition. R. Stephen Warner (2000) has proposed that as immigrant religious communities adapt to the United States, they also adapt to the de facto congregationalism normative for the US religious organizational model. Warner’s model immigrant congregation could be summarized as a voluntary, multi-functional membership association defined by ethnic exclusiveness that has lay leadership, systematic fundraising, and hired professionals (Warner, 2000, 277). This assimilation makes the communities effective organizations in the US environment. Similar observations have been made also in other countries, and, from a theoretical perspective, they can be understood as forced organizational assimilation or coercive isomorphism (see DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Warner’s position has been, to some extent, challenged by Wendy Cadge (2008), who points to more varied outcomes in her study of Hindu temples in the United States. Nevertheless, the key point of organizational adaptation to existing national models seems to hold. Ebaugh and Chafetz (2000) provide useful ideal types of migrant religious organizations, as either ‘congregational structures’ or ‘community centers’. The congregational model focuses mainly on religious activities and education, whereas the community center model provides wider services, such as cultural and sports activities. The specific activities are necessarily sanctioned by the surrounding society, its welfare provision structures, and legal framework. However, as many immigrant religious organizations have a broader interest in maintaining specific ethno-religious traditions, they envision a community center model that would serve the community more broadly.

LIVING IN A DIASPORA Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other places of worship represent one element, often hubs, in the social fabric of immigrant communities, which may include a wide variety of cultural, economic, political, and social institutions. They are also practical as well as symbolic centers for keeping touch with the diaspora, others of the same group living elsewhere. Transnational connections have long existed, becoming a major research topic in the 1990s. The various material and non-material flows that move between countries, including transnational religious links through moving religious specialists, remittances, information, and material artifacts, allow for the emergence of transnational social fields (Levitt, 2001).

The religious migrant  395 Even though religious associations often play an important role in bringing migrant communities together, they can also be a source of division. For example, the Finnish settlers to the United States in the nineteenth century were divided in their loyalties. Some Finns were active Lutheran (Christian) churchgoers, while others preferred to join in workers’ socialist activities, and considered religious activities reactionary. The division was brought from the home country, and it defined the community’s internal relations for more than a century (Kaunonen, 2014). Similarly, today’s Iranian diaspora is to a large extent composed of refugees from the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Religiosity among Iranians abroad is remarkably low, which, in part, is related to the nature of the diaspora itself, dissenters of the Iranian theocracy, not aided by the fact that many Iranian Shia mosques abroad are collaborating with the current Islamic regime (Gholami, 2015). Therefore, we should not automatically expect that migrants from a certain country or religion simply reproduce or transplant the religion common in their country of origin. Moreover, patterns of religious affiliation and behavior appear to be remarkably different between immigrant groups, making generalizations difficult (e.g., Massey & Higgins, 2011). While many migrant communities live in the shadows and alleys of mainstream society, at times, they draw public attention and interest. The politicization of religion in Europe over the past two decades has brought many migrant religions, migrant Islam in particular, into close contact with public authorities. For example, the so-called Muhammed cartoon controversy over images of the Prophet Muhammed in the Danish Jyllands Posten newspaper in 2005 drew heavily on stereotypical portrayals of Muslims as conservative, ‘backward’, and ill-suited for living in Western democracies (Eide, Kunelius, & Phillips, 2008). This and similar cases have led authorities to search for Islamic discussion partners in issues of migrant integration, anti-radicalization activities, and other efforts to support a peaceful coexistence. Immigrant religions that are drawn into public networks feel pressure to conform to existing state-religion models and to learn how the receiving society functions. Previously existing religious communities may invite newcomers to join in common efforts at religious dialogue, thereby gradually opening the horizon to wider societal participation and action (Martikainen, 2015). The success of religious transmission to the second generation is the litmus test for the migrant community, at least for those communities that view religion as a central part of their identity. Migrant children commonly participate in religious teachings at churches or temples, including the provision of knowledge regarding not only religion but also the sources of their culture and ethnicity (Ebaugh & Chafetz, 2000, pp. 432–433). Even if religious education in one’s religion is provided in public schools, migrant communities make efforts to deliver knowledge of their own particular traditions (Martikainen, 2004, pp. 227–230). Beside the family and the ethnic group, the role of peers is significant, as shown by de Hoon and van Tubergen (2014). In Europe and North America, emerging studies of migrant second-generation religious lives suggest that the general direction of change moves towards assimilation in religious behavior, with the exception of those groups that seclude themselves from society due to xenophobia or other reasons (Connor, 2014, pp. 96–104; Kasselstrand & Mahmoudi, 2020). Arguably, transmission is easiest in societies that view immigrants as a distinct group and do not necessarily require assimilation to the host society, and do not severely restrict their activities. The most challenging are those societies that either forbid immigrants’ communal religious activities altogether or that support full integration or assimilation into society. In Western countries, it is mainly a question of the latter. Moreover, religious conversion may be an assimilation strategy, though it is not usually a large-scale phenomenon.

396  Research handbook on the sociology of migration A paradoxical feature of many long-established migrant religious communities is that while, on the one hand, they have more or less assimilated into the new social context, on the other hand, they may include antiquated religious features, if compared to their countries of origin. As connections to the old homeland have become less common, and as the diaspora’s ethno-religious identity predates that of the current situation in the homeland, these communities can become containers of religious features that once were mainstream in the homeland, but are no longer prevalent. However, the opposite may be the case, and innovative practices and beliefs may take hold due to new circumstances. One must look at these phenomena case by case. Regardless, as time passes, the once-new religion becomes an integrated part of the new society. Sometimes, it remains at the margins of society, looked down upon, turned inward, or even persecuted. At other times, it may become an essential part of the national narrative, or disappear. Nevertheless, different origins may become re-evoked in their meaning as times change, and become embedded in new narratives and struggles, as occurred in the ethno-religious restructuring of the Balkans in the 1990s.

CONCLUSION Religion is seldom the main reason for migration, but after generations, it can be one of the few factors that remind descendants of their origins. The focus in the study of immigrant religion is often on the first generation, the migrants themselves, and their efforts to continue their religious practice in a new society. However, more important for the long-term effects of migration are how communities manage to overcome generational barriers; the experience of the second generation in being brought up in a new home country significantly changes their priorities from those of their parents. Even the most basic activities in most migrant congregations support this position. Religious communities emphasize both religious activity and the religious teaching of the next generation. For many, religions harbor the most significant communal values and lifestyle choices that they wish to carry on. Most immigrant religion research has been conducted in Europe, North America, and Oceania, including the traditional settler societies of Australia, Canada, and the United States. The same countries are also among those that grant most religious freedoms in the world. Therefore, the general scholarly knowledge in the field may have some biases that are not yet recognized. Looking at migrants’ religious lives outside these areas would not only widen our scope, but likely even expand our understanding of the many roles of religion in migrant settlement. Perhaps the least known area are those countries with greater religious barriers and restrictions, but that nevertheless receive many migrants, as well as the impact of return migration and diasporas to countries of origin.

NOTE 1. I would like to thank the editors, as well as Professors Alex Stepick and Peter Beyer for their valuable comments on the chapter.

The religious migrant  397

FURTHER READING Connor, P. (2014). Immigrant faith: Patterns of immigrant religion in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. New York: New York University Press. Ebaugh, H. R., & Chafetz, J. S. (Eds.) (2000). Religion and the new immigrants: Continuities and adaptations in immigrant congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Kivisto, P. (2014). Religion and immigration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

REFERENCES Anghel, R. G., Fauser, M., & Boccagni, P. (Eds.) (2019). Transnational return and social change: Hierarchies, identities and ideas. London: Anthem Press. Backman, M. (2005). Inside knowledge: Streetwise in Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Becci, I., Burchardt, M., & Giorda, M. (2017). Religious super-diversity and spatial strategies in two European cities. Current Sociology, 65(1), 73–91. Bell, M., Charles-Edwards, E., Bernard, A., & Ueffing, P. (2019). Global trends in internal migration. In T. Champion, T. Cooke, & I. Shuttleworth (Eds.) Internal migration in the developed world: Are we becoming less mobile? (pp. 76–97). London: Routledge. Boel, B. (2014). Bible smuggling and human rights in the Cold War. In L. van Dongen, S. Roulin, & G. Scott-Smith (Eds.) Transnational anti-communism and the Cold War (pp. 263–275). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bramadat, P. & Koenig, M. (Eds.) (2009). International migration and the governance of religious diversity. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Bruce, B. (2020). Imams for the diaspora: The Turkish state’s International Theology Programme. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(6), 1166–1183. Cadge, W. (2008). De facto congregationalism and the religious organizations of post-1965 immigrants to the United States: A revised approach. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 76(2), 344–374. Cadge, W., & Ecklund, E. H. (2007). Immigration and religion. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 359–379. Cheterian, V. (2021). ISIS genocide against the Yazidis and mass violence in the Middle East. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 48(4), 629–641. Chong, A. (2013). Neoliberalism and counterterrorism laws: Impact on Australian Muslim community organizations. In T. Martikainen & F. Gauthier (Eds.) Religion in the neoliberal age: Political economy and modes of governance (pp. 161–176). Farnham: Ashgate. Coleman, D. (2006). Immigration and ethnic change in low-fertility countries: A third demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 401–446. Connor, P. (2014). Immigrant faith: Patterns of immigrant religion in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. New York: New York University Press. Crul, M. (2016). Super-diversity vs. assimilation: How complex diversity in majority-minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(1), 54–68. Curtis IV, E. E., & Johnson, S. A. (2019). The transnational and diasporic future of African American religions in the United States. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 87(2), 333–365. De Hoon, S., & van Tubergen, F. (2014). The religiosity of children of immigrants and natives in England, Germany, and the Netherlands: The role of parents and peers in class. European Sociological Review, 30(2), 194–206. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Ebaugh, H. R., & Chafetz, J. S. (Eds.) (2000). Religion and the new immigrants: Continuities and adaptations in immigrant congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Eck, D. L. (2001). A new religious America: How a ‘Christian country’ has become the world’s most religiously diverse nation. New York: Harper.

398  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Eide, E., Kunelius, R., & Phillips, A. (2008). Transnational media events: The Mohammed cartoons and the imagined clash of civilizations. Gothenburg: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. Fox, J. (2008). A world survey of religion and state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, J. (2020). Thou shalt have no other gods before me: Why governments discriminate against minorities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, J., & Akbaba, Y. (2015). Restrictions on the religious practices of religious minorities: A global survey. Political Studies, 63(5), 1070–1086. Gholami, R. (2015). Secularism and identity: Non-Islamiosity in the Iranian diaspora. London: Routledge. Goh, D. P., & van der Veer, P. (2016). Introduction: The sacred and the urban in Asia. International Sociology, 31(4), 367–374. Haddad, Y., & Balz, M. J. (2008). Taming the Imams: European governments and Islamic preachers since 9/11. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 19(2), 215–235. Hanciles, J. J. (2021). Migration and the making of global Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. Haynes, J. (2009). Introduction. In J. Haynes (Ed.) Routledge handbook of religion and politics (pp. 1–7). London: Routledge. Hinnells, J. R. (Ed.) (1997). The new Penguin handbook of living religions, 2nd edition. London: Penguin Books. Hood, R. W., Jr., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2018). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach, 5th edition. London: Guilford Press. Hopfensperger, J. (2019). Catholics turn to foreign priests to ease clergy shortage. Star Tribune, October 12. Retrieved from https://​www​.startribune​.com/​catholics​-turn​-to​-foreign​-priests​-to​-ease​-clergy​ -shortage/​562922192/​. Jacobsen, K., & Kumar, P. (Eds.) (2004). South Asians in the diaspora: Histories and religious traditions. Leiden: Brill. Johnson, T. M., & Grim, B. J. (2013). The world’s religions in figures: An introduction to international religious demography. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Kasselstrand, I., & Mahmoudi, S. (2020). Secularization among immigrants in Scandinavia: Religiosity across generations and duration of residence. Social Compass, 67(4), 617–636. Kaunonen, G. (2014). Religious activities of the Finns: An examination of Finnish religious life in industrialized North America. In A. Kostiainen (Ed.) Finns in the United States: A history of settlement, dissent, and integration (pp. 107–130). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Kivisto, P. (2014). Religion and immigration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kuiper, M. J. (2021). Da’wa: A global history of Islamic missionary thought and practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Langewiesche, K. (2021). Dialectics between transnationalism and diaspora: The Ahmadiyya Muslim community. In J. Cornelio, F. Gauthier, T. Martikainen, & L. Woodhead (Eds) Routledge international handbook of religion in global society (pp. 247–257). London: Routledge. Learman, L. (2004). Buddhist missionaries in the era of globalization. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Martikainen, T. (2004). Immigrant religions in local society: Historical and contemporary perspectives in the City of Turku. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press. Martikainen, T. (2013). Religion, migration, settlement: Reflections on post-1990 immigration to Finland. Leiden: Brill. Martikainen, T. (2015). Reconfiguring the societal place of religion in Finland: Islamic communities move from the margins to partner in civil society. In J. Garnett & S. L. Hausner (Eds.) Religion in diaspora: Cultures of citizenship (pp. 121–137). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Massey, D. S., & Higgins, M. E. (2011). The effect of immigration on religious belief and practice: A theologizing or alienating experience? Social Science Research, 40(5), 1371–1389. Miller, D. E., & Yamamori, T. (2007). Global Pentecostalism: The new face of Christian social engagement. Berkeley: University of California Press. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2011). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The religious migrant  399 Pew Research Center (2012). Faith on the move: The religious affiliations of international migrants. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Pew Research Center (2015). The future of world religions: Population growth projections, 2010–2050. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Pew–Templeton Global Religious Futures Project. Račius, E., Müssig, S., Akgönül, S., Alibašić, A., Nielsen, J. S., & Scharbrodt, O. (2021). Yearbook of Muslims in Europe: Volume 12. Leiden: Brill. Raj, R., & Griffin, K. (Eds.) (2015). Religious tourism and pilgrimage management: An international perspective, 2nd edition. Wallingford: CABI. Stepick, A. (2005). God is apparently not dead: The obvious, the emergent, and the still unknown in immigration and religion. In K. Leonard, A. Stepick, M. Vasquez, & J. Holdaway (Eds.) Immigrant faiths: Transforming religious life in America (pp. 11–37). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira. Stepick, A., & Stepick, C. D. (2009). Diverse contexts of reception and feeling of belonging. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(3). Retrieved from https://​www​.qualitative​-research​.net/​index​.php/​ fqs/​article/​view/​1366. United Nations (2019a). World population prospects 2019: Highlights. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations (2019b). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations (2020). International migration 2020: Highlights. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. US Department of State (2019). 2019 report on international religious freedom: Saudi Arabia. Washington, DC: US Department of State. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. Warner, R. S. (2000). Religion and new (post-1965) immigrants: Some principles drawn from field research. American Studies, 41(2/3), 267–286. Warner, R. S., & Wittner, J. G. (Eds.) (1998). Gatherings in diaspora: Religious communities and the new immigration. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Zurlo, G. A., & Johnson, T. M. (Eds.) (2019). World Christian encyclopedia, 3rd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

33. Sport and migration Max Mauro

INTRODUCTION In undertaking a review of the research conducted on the relationship between migration and sport, one is presented with two quite distinctive fields; although tangentially connected, they point to different problems and issues. One field focuses on the migration of athletes and players, and their impact on national leagues and competitions. It is (understandably) related to sport as a component of the modern entertainment industry, the spectacle of sport, and is interested primarily in the migration of labor within this sector. Such a process has economic and cultural implications; for example, foreign players may become nationals of the country of destination and represent it at international level. Their personal trajectory may therefore influence the way a nation ‘imagines’ itself and its sense of national identity seen through national sporting teams. However, broadly speaking, the migration of sport personnel is more relevant to a particular industry rather than to society at large. A second field of investigation brings to the fore the role that sport, as actively practiced or watched by young people and adults, plays in the process of integration of immigrants into a new society. This field has been growing at a steady pace over the past two decades, especially in Europe, North America, and Australia. Numerous studies have been produced that highlight particular facets of sport and physical culture in facilitating or complicating the settlement trajectories of immigrants. Policy interventions, such as those by European institutions, have further instigated projects and research initiatives across different countries. The aim of this chapter is to provide a condensed review of the empirical research conducted on sport and physical culture as sites of socialization and inter-cultural dialogue with and within immigrant communities. In doing so, it will leave aside the migration of sporting labor and sport as a media event, and focus instead on the practice of sport and physical culture in the context of immigration. The chapter will address the main thematic subject areas, paying attention to the theoretical perspectives adopted by researchers in this particular sociological field. To conclude, the chapter will highlight potential avenues for future research in the area of migration and sport.

A RECENT FIELD? A thematic search on SportDiscus, the most popular bibliographic database for sport studies, reveals that the topic of ‘sport and migration’ has a relatively short history within the social sciences and the humanities. The first academic publications appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but 90 percent of the publications matching either ‘sport and migration’ or ‘sport and immigration’ were published since the second half of the 1990s, and, more prominently, since the 2000s. The majority of these publications address the transnational migration of elite athletes, with a minority focusing on the sport practices of specific immigrant communities, 400

Sport and migration  401 as seen from the perspective of sport historians (for example, the Irish in Scotland or Jewish women in the United States), or on the sociological aspects of sport and physical activity among immigrant communities. However, this latter field encompasses a rich variety of sub-themes, which take into account different perspectives in addressing concepts such as integration, acculturation, assimilation, ethnic diversity, multiculturalism, and interculturalism. By searching for these concepts in combination with ‘sport’ and/or ‘physical activity’, we are presented with a wider array of scholarly publications that examine sport in relation to immigration. Over the past century, human migration has contributed to the transformation of the social and demographic landscape of large parts of the world. According to the World Migration Report (IOM, 2020), between 1970 and 1985, international migration accounted annually for approximately 2.3 percent of the world population (in 1970, international migrants numbered an estimated 84,460 million). In 2020, international migrants were estimated at 271,642 million and accounted for 3.5 percent of the world population, demonstrating that migration has remained a constant feature of our societies, but its impact globally is not remarkably different today from what it was fifty years ago. At the same time, however, over the last twenty years, from 2000 to 2020, the number of refugees has increased from 14 million to 41 million. Since the 1920s, sport has become a key component of mass popular culture in many countries, particularly in Europe and in the Global North. Its importance increased globally after the Second World War, and particularly since the 1970s, following the growth of highly mediatized mega sporting events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. To this day, in numerous countries on every continent, the most watched broadcasts in the history of national television are international sporting events. However, it is only in the last two decades that social researchers have started to look critically at the role of sport in immigrants’ lives. How can this be explained? On the one hand, since the 1980s, immigration has become more prominent in public discourse in many Western societies, especially in relation to a perceived threat to the social cohesion of national communities posed by newcomers. Such a trend has instigated policy interventions and research initiatives having as their focus the ‘social integration’ or the ‘assimilation’ of immigrants. For example, as early as 1981, the European ministers for sport adopted a resolution on ‘sport for migrants’ (Gasparini, 2010). Since then, and particularly starting from the 2000s, major European institutions have been at the forefront of the debate around the use of sport as a tool for enhancing the social inclusion of immigrants, and they have made available funding for several national and transnational interventions. This development reflects and reinforces a broader policy discourse around sport and physical activity that became popular across Western Europe during the 1970s and the 1980s, exemplified in the motto ‘Sport for all’ (Hylton & Totten, 2013). Since the second half of the 1970s, sport has been increasingly used as a tool of state policy intervention to address a multiplicity of issues broadly related to social inclusion and public health, such as ‘juvenile delinquency’, the marginalization of ethnic minorities, or the wellbeing of the elderly population. In the second half of the 1990s, the belief in the power of sport to address social issues entered into the policies and the funding criteria of transnational organizations such as the United Nations. In 2001, UN secretary general Kofi Annan introduced the UN Office on Sport for Development and Peace (UNOSDP), in application of the General Assembly Resolution 71/60 on ‘Sport as a means to promote education, health, development and peace’ (United Nations, 2017). Since then, Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) has developed into

402  Research handbook on the sociology of migration a specific policy sector, particularly popular in international cooperation projects and peace interventions. Taking stock of these distinct developments, which all contribute to a new popular discourse around sport, we can better understand how sport and physical activity are today widely identified as sites in which to observe and often to promote the integration of immigrants into destination societies. At the same time, it is clear that the interest in sport and physical activity in connection with integration and social cohesion reflects primarily Western policy agendas and preoccupations.

CONTEXTS AND PERSPECTIVES Research on sport and physical activity among immigrants tends to focus on a few emerging issues that all point to the relations between immigrant and hosting communities, and to the ways sport may facilitate or complicate such relations. Although both sport and immigration are factors in and outcomes of globalization, most research adopts the nation state as its structural and epistemological framework. Analyses are informed by different declinations of the ‘nation form’ (Balibar, 1991), which influence ideas about citizenship and inclusion. For example, studies conducted on sport among recent immigrants in historical immigration countries such as Canada (Doherty & Taylor, 2007; Stack & Iwasaki, 2009) and Australia (Jeanes, O’Connor, & Alfrey, 2014; Maxwell, Foley, Taylor, & Burton, 2013) discuss ‘settlement’ and ‘adaptation’, while studies conducted in European countries, such as Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, and Italy (Hassan & McCue, 2013; Lundkvist, Wagnsson, Davis, & Ivarsson, 2020; Poli, Berthoud, Busset, & Kaya, 2012; Russo, 2019) tend to be more interested in the contribution that sport can make to patterns of ‘integration’ and ‘intercultural dialogue’. The case of Europe is particularly compelling, not only because a large number of studies are conducted on this continent, but also because these studies appear directly influenced by policy discourses promoted by European institutions, such as the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, and the European Commission. These discourses, although powerful on a symbolic level, conceal historical differences in the interpretation of leading concepts and practices at the national level. A defining moment in this debate has been the publication of the report, ‘Sport and Multiculturalism’, by the European Commission, which includes a review of the policy approaches in this field in 25 member states of the European Union. The report highlights that sport can provide ‘a crucial contribution to intercultural dialogue between young people’ (Amara, Aquilina, & Henry, 2004, p. 2). This sentiment is also echoed in statutory documents such as the White Paper on Sport produced by the European Commission (EC, 2007) and the Treaty of Lisbon (EU, 2007). The White Paper on Sport stresses that ‘sport can also facilitate the integration into society of migrants and persons of foreign origin as well as support inter-cultural dialogue’ (EC, 2007, p. 13). Concepts such as ‘integration through sport’ and ‘intercultural dialogue’ are ubiquitous in European policy documents on sport and underpin conspicuous European programs and funds. For example, the Sport Migrant Integration Platform, launched by the Council of Europe in 2016, lists 56 projects in 20 different countries as of 2020. Almost half (25) focus on football, while seven have a multisport profile. Historically, European countries have adopted and implemented different conceptualizations of ‘integration’ as a normative program, and followed different interpretations of

Sport and migration  403 ‘multiculturalism’, based on their national legislation and cultural traditions. These differences are reflected in their sport policy interventions. For example, the German government and the main German sporting bodies, through the program, ‘Integration through sport’, have promoted projects to attract ‘individuals with migrant background’ toward established sport clubs as a way to entice social and cultural integration into German society (Braun & Nobis, 2016). In Norway, sport federations have devised projects aimed at increasing sport participation among the members of specific ethnic communities or faiths, such as Muslim women, which appear to be underrepresented in sporting clubs (Walseth, 2016). In France, on the contrary, cultural and ethnic differences among the population are traditionally downplayed in public policy and public discourse, in line with the republican tradition that advocates a form of ‘civic nationalism’ (Caron, 2013). Consequently, policy interventions in the field of sport are subsumed in categories such as ‘social exclusion’ or ‘urban policy’. Despite these differences, however, Gasparini (2010, p. 18) believes that ‘there is indeed an observable tendency to standardise official mechanisms, stimulated by the sports and social policies of the EU and the Council of Europe’. A further outcome of European policies, especially with regard to transnational projects, is that countries and national organizations are encouraged to work together on what is, inherently, a transnational and global issue. One such example is the Sport Inclusion Network, based in Vienna and supported by the European Commission, created in 2011 with the aim ‘to raise awareness, increase networking and sharing of best practices among European and national sport stakeholders how to pro-actively involve migrants in and through sport’ (SPIN, n.d.). A similar comparative angle is provided by the report of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on ‘Racism, ethnic discrimination and exclusion of migrants and minorities in sport’ (FRA, 2010), which delves into critical aspects of sport participation among immigrants and ethnic minorities in the European Union.

THE GREAT SPORT MYTH A recurring theme in the sociological study of sport participation among immigrant communities is the evaluation of the actual efficacy of sport interventions in promoting social inclusion and integration. This theme requires researchers to critically tackle a particular dimension of what Coakley (2015) defines, in looking at broader sport policy issues, as the faith in the ‘Great Sport Myth’ (GSM). According to him, ‘[W]ell-positioned and powerful people foster and prey on that faith as they use the GSM to camouflage personal interests related to projects in which sport is presented as a tool for solving problems and contributing to individual and collective development’ (Coakley, 2015, p. 403). Although migration is not the main focus of Coakley’s analysis, GSM represents an appropriate theoretical tool for describing and explaining sport policies targeting immigrant and ethnic minority communities. As noted earlier, there are abundant examples of the influence exercised by the Great Sport Myth among policymakers and increasingly powerful transnational organizations. However, sport can engender feelings of both inclusion and exclusion, and it can even, in some cases, further marginalize immigrant and ethnic minority communities. Over the years, studies conducted in different countries have put the belief in the apotropaic effect of sport participation to the test, producing evidence that sport is hardly a one-dimensional phenomenon. For example, some studies have contested the efficacy of

404  Research handbook on the sociology of migration ‘sports-based interventions’ to promote social inclusion (Elling, De Knopp, & Knoppers, 2001; Kelly, 2008, 2011; Krouwel, Boonstra, Duyvendak, & Veldboer, 2006), while others have questioned the ‘integrative power’ of sport events targeting immigrant communities (Müller, van Zoonen, & de Roode, 2008) and highlighted the mechanisms of exclusion active in organized sport (Elling & Claringbould, 2005; Spracklen, Long, & Hylton, 2015). At the same time, some studies evidence that sport can be an agent of positive change in working with refugees and asylum seekers (Pizzolati & Sterchele, 2016; Stone, 2018). In recent years, the debate has shifted toward the understanding of the role of sport and physical activity in building social and cultural capital. In policy studies, the concept of social capital is very often linked to citizenship and community building (Holmes, 2009), and it is therefore particularly significant in the context of migration. Bourdieu (1977, 1978) argues that the capability of the individuals to fully partake in society depends on a series of skills (knowledge, abilities) that can be accrued in family and educational environments (cultural capital) and through social activities, including also sport activities (social capital). According to Bourdieu, the distribution of cultural capital across different classes depends on the social, economic, environmental, and cultural milieu in which individuals were brought up and inhabit. Smith and colleagues (Smith, Spaji, & McDonald, 2019) have carried out a systematic review of scholarly literature with the aim of understanding to what extent participation in sport and physical activity contributes to the cultural capital of immigrants. Although only a few studies make the link among sport, migration, and cultural capital their explicit focus, many identify and explore elements of cultural capital in sport and the physical activity of immigrants and people with a migrant background (comprised in the category ‘Culturally and Linguistically Diverse’ migrants—CALD). The findings of the review show that ‘migrants’ cultural capital can be both an asset to, and a source of exclusion from, sport participation’ (Smith et al., 2019, p. 851). However, they further stress that ‘participation in sport and physical activity can contribute to the production of new forms of cultural capital that are valued in the dominant culture’ (Smith et al., 2019, p. 858). An important lesson that emerges from this area of research is that cultural capital is something that migrants can bring to their sporting practices in the destination country in the form of pre-existing capital, but also something that they negotiate and (re)construct to develop forms of cultural hybridity. This finding is particularly relevant for diasporic communities, whose attachment to and identification with cultures is fluid and evolving. It further reflects the claim that ‘sport is one of the primary grounds for the contestation, construction, and resistance of cultural identities’ (Smith et al., 2019, p. 862). To a large degree, the geographical distribution of the studies included in the review by Smith et al. (2019) reflects the relevance of the topic ‘sport and migration’ across the world, and the dominant role of the Global North in determining the research agenda. Nearly 41 percent of the studies were based in Europe, with 27 percent from the UK. Other studies emerged from Australia (27 percent), Canada (18 percent), and the United States (13 percent). The methodological approaches adopted by the researchers included in this review can also serve as an indication of the wider tendencies in the sociological study of immigrant sporting cultures: 31 studies were qualitative, seven were quantitative, and seven employed a mixed methods design.

Sport and migration  405

SPORT AND THE REFUGEE CRISIS As evidenced by the World Migration Report (IOM, 2020), the number of refugees and displaced persons has been on the increase for the last twenty years. This growth stems from the aggravation of historical inequalities across the Global North and the Global South, evidenced by ongoing conflicts and wars in several countries across Africa and Asia, chronic economic crises, and large-scale displacement triggered by climate and weather-related hazards. The majority of refugees and displaced persons are hosted in the Global South, with countries such as Uganda, Pakistan, Colombia, and Jordan among the most affected. Five countries (Turkey, Colombia, Pakistan, Uganda, and Germany) host more than half of the 20.7 million refugees assisted under the mandate of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR, 2020). In light of these developments, it is understandable that researchers interested in the role of sport and physical activity in relation to immigration are increasingly devoting specific attention to refugees and displaced persons. This focus often involves looking beyond the epistemological boundaries of the state and the nation state, and outside of conventional paradigms such as ‘integration’, ‘settlement’, and ‘acculturation’, to engage with living conditions that are chronically precarious. As of 2020, according to the UNHCR (2020), the number of stateless persons has reached 4.2 million. Large numbers of refugees live in enormous camps such as the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, home to nearly 78,000 people (Reliefweb, 2020). In this camp, different organizations and governments are involved in sporting projects. For example, the European football governing body (UEFA), through the UEFA Foundation for children, has set up a program worth €320,000 to provide coaching education, children training and materials, and to support the organization of clubs and leagues (UEFA Foundation, 2020). In this project, in the words of the organization, ‘sport is used to raise awareness of social issues and impart the life skills necessary in the context’. Over the past decade, a few studies have examined the workings of projects such as the one promoted by UEFA in Jordan, and more broadly looked at their impact on children’s wellbeing and the development of sport activities organized in refugee camps (Cheung-Gaffney, 2018; Maharmeh, 2013). While these cases offer the opportunity for studies to be produced in the Global South, the distribution of research outcomes is still largely skewed toward the Global North. Spaaij et al. (2019) have conducted a review of the literature concerning the engagement of refugees and forced migrants in sport and physical activity. They observe that before 2008, the literature on this topic was minimal, escalating since 2017. Nearly half of the 83 publications included in the review had been published between 2017 and 2019. Forty percent of the studies are based in Europe, most notably in Germany (9 percent), the United Kingdom (9 percent) and the Netherlands (7 percent), and 17 percent are based in North America (USA 10 percent, and Canada 7 percent). Three publications (4 percent) originate from Turkey; all of which focus on Syrian refugees in the country. Only five studies (6 percent) are situated in the Global South, namely in Kenya, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, and Indonesia. Spaaij et al. (2019, p. 14) argue that ‘there is a stark discrepancy between the research sites of the published studies and the locations where the majority of the world’s displaced people actually reside’. To some extent, this is understandable, considering the location of universities with more research resources and the policy priorities within many of the countries in which these universities are based. However, the authors contend that research in this field should challenge the Eurocentric bias, as it reproduces the historical unequal power relations which

406  Research handbook on the sociology of migration have characterized much anthropological and sociological research throughout the twentieth century (‘white’ people writing about the ‘other’). What is at stake, in this as in other research fields, is the need to decolonize research and academia in general (Barnes, 2018).

YOUNG PEOPLE AND BELONGING A further thematic area that characterizes the sociological study of immigrant sport and physical activity looks at young people, first- and second-generation immigrants, and issues of belonging. This thematic focus is a particularly fertile area of inquiry for a growing number of scholars from different fields (education, youth studies, migration studies, and the sociology of sport) who have endeavored to investigate sport and leisure as important venues for the negotiation of identity and belonging among young refugees and immigrant youth. This should not come as a surprise, given the prominence of sporting cultures in the socialization and the imaginary of children and young people, and the ways they are utilized to define group identity, affiliation, and citizenship (Giardina & Donnelly, 2008). Young people growing up in much of the Global North are immersed in societies that are increasingly diverse in terms of ethnic, national, and racial backgrounds. In this context, young people’s experiences of belonging in and through sport may take new and, to some extent, unprecedented, trajectories. As noted by Mata-Codesal and colleagues (Mata-Codesal, Peperkamp, & Tiesler, 2015, p. 3), ‘[L]eisure is central for processes of home-making, identity building, and meaning-making, and compels us to go beyond functionalist ideas of the role of leisure in assimilating, integrating or coping’. Issues of belonging, identity, and home-making, particularly among young people, demand the adoption of flexible theoretical and epistemological perspectives on the part of researchers (Mauro, 2019). However, such perspectives often stand in contrast to governments and transnational organizations’ unwavering belief in the positive role of sport and leisure in bridging cultures among young people, and in contributing to the social cohesion of societies. There is no automatic link between involvement in sport and feelings of belonging; nevertheless, sport may engender different forms or dimensions of belonging. It may contribute to bonding capital, as a way to strengthen the bond between members of a group, a community, or people of the same ethnic or national background, but also in bridging capital, helping to create connections with people outside of our social milieu. For example, in her study with a group of young Muslim women in Norway, Walseth (2006, p. 455) notes that sport can be perceived as ‘a place of refuge’, since ‘sport participation might lead to feelings of belonging that transcend traditional communities with face-to-face contact among members’. According to Spaaij (2015), based on a study of young African refugees in Australia, belonging can be defined as a process that is ‘dynamic and situational: it can shift and change over time, be contested and plural’ (Spaaij, 2015, p. 305). He recognizes sport as a site for the creation of belonging ‘at multiple scales’: to a team or club, to the immigrant community, and, more broadly, to the majority society. As evidenced by studies conducted in other countries, these dimensions of belonging may be exclusive or consequential, and be dependent on specific causes. For example, a sense of belonging to a team or a sporting club may be affected by experiences of success and individual recognition (Adler Zwahlen, Nagel, & Schlesinger, 2018). Positive team dynamics may engender feelings of belonging beyond the team and the club, to include the local community in which immigrant families are considered ‘newcomers’

Sport and migration  407 (Mauro, 2016). Membership in so-called ‘ethnic clubs’ (clubs set up by members of an immigrant community) may be used by young people as performative public spaces in which to project conflicting versions of ethnic and immigrant identity (Rommel, 2011). In the end, any discussion concerning belonging must also take into account the structural facets that affect patterns of identification and affiliation among migrant youth in and through sport. The question of citizenship and the degree of legal rights granted to the migrant subject are significant factors in the development of a sense of belonging (Burrmann, Brandmann, Mutz, & Zender, 2017). Furthermore, the question of sport participation among youth of immigrant background and belonging cannot be separated from issues of racism and discrimination (Bradbury, 2011). For example, across Europe, Black people, and those perceived to be ‘non-nationals’ in any given country, are regularly exposed to abuse and discrimination in their sporting practices (FRA, 2010) Despite increased attention from sporting bodies, these problems have not diminished; instead, they persist as a constant feature of youth sport in many countries (Fleming, 2016).

CONCLUSION Over the last three decades, sport has emerged as an increasingly popular research site for social scientists interested in the processes of social integration among immigrants. It further attracts the attention of scholars, educators, and policymakers working with refugees and asylum seekers. This should not come as a surprise, for sport is both a popular cultural practice and a global spectacle, with manifold implications for modern societies. As such, sport is often interpreted as a transcultural language that people can share and utilize, regardless of the continent or country in which they are born or raised. It is precisely such a perception that leads many governments and transnational organizations to promote the idea that sport can be proficiently used as a tool to solve social problems and contribute to individual and collective development. Sociological research conventionally aims at putting this belief to the test. Numerous studies have been carried out to evaluate policy interventions or programs that utilize sport activities with immigrants and refugees. Other studies target the autonomous sporting practices of immigrant groups to observe intercultural exchanges and the workings of cultural and social capital. Most of these studies evidence that sport and physical activity can engender feelings of both inclusion and exclusion, depending on the circumstances and certain recurring factors, such as the attitudes of sporting bodies toward immigration, the availability of spaces and opportunities to practice sport, and the recognition and appreciation of pre-existing cultural capital in immigrant communities. However, sport can arguably be successful in bringing people together across different cultures, in transferring athletic and moral skills to young people, and can be a catalyst for socialization among people of all ages. Overall, this particular policy field emerges from the preoccupations and policy agendas of Western countries. At the moment, much of the research on sport and immigration is being produced in the Global North, where migration continues to be a particularly polarizing topic. However, considering that the majority of world refugees originate and are displaced within the Global South, it is urgent that research challenge its Eurocentric bias and embrace decolonization as an epistemological project.

408  Research handbook on the sociology of migration

REFERENCES Adler Zwahlen, J., Nagel, S., & Schlesinger, T. (2018). Analyzing social integration of young immigrants in sports clubs. European Journal for Sport and Society, 15(1), 22–42. Amara, M., Aquilina, D., & Henry, I. (2004). Sport and multiculturalism. European Commission DG Education and Culture. Retrieved from http://​www​.isca​-web​.org/​files/​Sport​%20and​ %20Multiculturalism​%20EU​%202004​.pdf. Balibar, E. (1991). The nation form: History and ideology. In E. Balibar & I. Wallerstein (Eds.) Race, nation, class: Ambiguous identities (pp. 86–106). London: Verso Books. Barnes, B. R. (2018). Decolonising research methodologies: Opportunity and caution. South African Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 379–387. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1978). Sport and social class. Social Science Information, 17(6), 819–840. Bradbury, S. (2011). Racism, resistance and new youth inclusions. In D. Bursdey (Ed.) Race, ethnicity and football: Persisting debates and emergent issues (pp. 67–83). London: Routledge. Braun, S., & Nobis, T. (2016). Migration and integration in Germany. In J. Nauright & D. K. Wiggins (Eds.) Routledge handbook of sport, race and ethnicity (pp. 186–198). London: Routledge. Burrmann, U., Brandmann, K., Mutz, M., & Zender, U. (2017). Ethnic identities, sense of belonging and the significance of sport: Stories from immigrant youths in Germany. European Journal for Sport and Society, 14(3), 186–204. Caron, J. (2013). Understanding and interpreting France’s national identity: The meanings of being French. National Identities, 15(3), 223–237. Cheung-Gaffney, E. (2018). Sports and humanitarian development: A look at sports programming in the refugee crisis through case study of Kickstart Joy Soccer Project at the Zaatari refugee camp. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 28(1), 208–221. Coakley, J. (2015). Assessing the sociology of sport: On cultural sensibilities and the great sport myth. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(4–5), 402–406. Doherty, A., & Taylor, T. (2007). Sport and physical recreation in the settlement of immigrant youth. Leisure/Loisir, 31(1), 27–55. Elling, A., & Claringbould, I. (2005). Mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion in the Dutch sports landscape: Who can and wants to belong? Sociology of Sport Journal, 22(4), 498–515. Elling, A., De Knopp, P., & Knoppers, A. (2001). The social integrative meaning of sport: A critical and comparative analysis of policy and practice in the Netherlands. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18, 414–434. European Commission (2007). White paper on sport. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. European Union (2007). Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. Official Journal C 306, 13 December, pp. 1–271. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2010). Racism, ethnic discrimination and exclusion of migrants and minorities in sport. Vienna: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Fleming, S. (2016). Youth sport, race and ethnicity. In K. Green & A. Smith (Eds.) Routledge handbook of youth sport (pp. 287–296). London: Routledge. Gasparini, W. (2010). Intercultural dialogue or integration through sport? European models under scrutiny. In W. Gasparini & A. Cometti (Eds.) Sport facing the test of cultural diversity (pp. 9–20). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Giardina, M., & Donnelly, K. M. (Eds.) (2008). Youth culture and sport. New York: Routledge. Hassan, D., & McCue, K. (2013). The ‘silent’ Irish: Football, migrants and the pursuit of integration. In D. Hassan (Ed.) Ethnicity and race in association football: Case study analyses in Europe, Africa and the USA (pp. 126–138). London: Routledge. Holmes, K. (2009). Volunteering, citizenship and social capital: A review of UK government policy. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(3), 265–269. Hylton, K., & Totten, M. (2013). Developing ‘Sport for All’: Addressing inequality in sport. In K. Hylton (Ed.) Sport development. Policy, process and practice, 3rd edition (pp. 37–79). London: Routledge. International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2020). World Migration Report 2020. Geneva: IOM.

Sport and migration  409 Jeanes, R., O’Connor, J., & Alfrey, L. G. (2014). Sport and the resettlement of young people from refugee backgrounds in Australia. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 39(6), 480–500. Kelly, K. (2008). Diasporan moves: African Canadian youth and identity formation. In N. Dolby & F. Rizvi (Eds.) Youth moves: Identities and education in global perspective (pp. 85–100). New York: Routledge. Kelly, L. (2011). Social inclusion through sports-based interventions. Critical Social Policy, 31(1), 126–150. Krouwel, A., Boonstra, N., Duyvendak, J. W., & Veldboer, L. (2006). A good sport? Research into the capacity of recreational sport to integrate Dutch minorities. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 41, 165–180. Lundkvist, E., Wagnsson, F., Davis, L., & Ivarsson, A. (2020). Integration of immigrant youth in Sweden: Does sport participation really have an impact? International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 891–906. Maharmeh, Y. (2013). Street football at the Jordan refugee camp. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 16, 59–83. Mata-Codesal, D., Peperkamp, E., & Tiesler, N. (2015). Migration, migrants and leisure: Meaningful leisure? Leisure Studies, 34(1), 1–4. Mauro, M. (2016). Transcultural football: Trajectories of belonging among immigrant youth. Soccer and Society, 17(6), 90–105. Mauro, M. (2019). Youth sport, migration and culture: Two football teams and the changing face of Ireland. London: Routledge. Maxwell, H., Foley, C., Taylor, T., & Burton, C. (2013). Social inclusion in community sport: A case study of Muslim women in Australia. Journal of Sport Management, 27, 467–481. Müller, F., van Zoonen, L., & de Roode, L. (2008). The integrative power of sport: Imagined and real effects of sport events on multicultural integration. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25, 387–401. Pizzolati, M., & Sterchele, D. (2016). Mixed-sex in sport for development: A pragmatic and symbolic device. The case of touch rugby for forced migrants in Rome. Sport in Society, 19(8–9), 1267–1288. Poli, R., Berthoud, J., Busset, T., & Kaya, B. (2012). Football et integration. Bern: Peter Lang. Reliefweb (2020). Zaatari Refugee Camp – Factsheet, July. Retrieved from https://​reliefweb​.int/​report/​ jordan/​zaatari​-refugee​-camp​-factsheet​-july​-2020. Rommel, C. (2011). Playing with difference: Football as a performative space for division among Suryoye migrants in Sweden. Soccer & Society, 12(6), 850–864. Russo, G. (2019). Integration by sport activities: Resource or only a paradox? Journal of Mediterranean Knowledge, 4(1), 17–29. Smith, R., Spaji, R., & McDonald, B. (2019). Migrant integration and cultural capital in the context of sport and physical activity: A systematic review. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 20, 851–868. Spaaij, R. (2015). Refugee youth, belonging and community sport. Leisure Studies, 34(3), 303–318. Spaaij, R., Broerse, J., Oxford, S., Luguetti, C., McLachlan, F., McDonald, B., Klepac, B., Lymbery, L., Bishara, J., & Pankowiak, A. (2019). Sport, refugees, and forced migration: A critical review of the literature. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 1(47). Sport Inclusion Network (SPIN) (n.d.). SPIN Network – a brief history. Retrieved from https://​ sportinclusion​.net/​history/​. Spracklen, K., Long, J., & Hylton, K. (2015). Leisure opportunities and new migrant communities: Challenging the contribution of sport. Leisure Studies, 34(1), 114–129. Stack, J., & Iwasaki, Y. (2009). The role of leisure pursuits in adaptation processes among Afghan refugees who have immigrated to Winnipeg, Canada. Leisure Studies, 28(3), 239–259. Stone, C. (2018). Utopian community football? Sport, hope and belongingness in the lives of refugees and asylum seekers. Leisure Studies, 37, 171–183. UEFA Foundation (2020). Football in Zaatari refugee camp. Retrieved from https://​uefafoundation​.org/​ action/​football​-in​-zaatari​-refugee​-camp/​. United Nations (2017). Resolution 71/160 adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 2016. Retrieved from https://​undocs​.org/​en/​A/​RES/​71/​160. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2020). Figures at a glance. Retrieved from https://​www​.unhcr​.org/​en​-us/​figures​-at​-a​-glance​.htm.

410  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Walseth, K. (2006). Sport and belonging. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 41(3), 447–464. Walseth, K. (2016). Sport within Muslim organizations in Norway: Ethnic segregated activities as arena for integration. Leisure Studies, 35(1), 78–99.

34. Migration, museums, (and archives) Aleksandra Kubica

INTRODUCTION In the international museum landscape, the topic of migration is gaining increasing prominence. This shift is the result of several factors, among them the impact of the premises of new museology (Vergo, 1989), concerning how museums define their role in society and the increasing emphasis being placed on cultural diversity in public policy and in narratives about national or local identities (Gouriévidis, 2014). The topic of migration and forced displacement has also received increased media attention in the early twenty-first century, especially in Europe (Chouliaraki, Georgiou, Zaborowski, & Oomen, 2017). Not only do some existing museums include the topics of emigration and immigration in their exhibitions and programs, but also new museums concentrating explicitly on human mobility are being established all around the world (Cimoli & Vlachou, 2021; Gouriévidis, 2014). Similarly in the international landscape of archives, documents, company records, and individual stories related to human mobility are attracting much attention, being used in research, as well as educational and cultural products. This chapter provides an overview of the role of migration as a topic for museums and the archives related to these museums, linking it with developments in museology. It examines how and why museums in particular in recent decades seek to engage with migrant voices and discourses about migrants and refugees.

‘NEW MUSEOLOGY’: INCLUDING MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES? A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment. (International Council of Museums, n.d.)

This definition, adopted by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) in 2007, captures some of the elements of the roles and activities attributed to museums. As of 2021, consultations with ICOM members on all continents are occurring, in order to arrive at a new definition that would better capture cultural diversity and a range of local, national, and regional approaches to museology (Brulon Soares, 2020). The understanding of what a museum is and what roles it should fulfill have never been set in stone, but the recent controversies around the ICOM definition highlight the variety of ‘ideals, values, and principles that make achieving some consensus about what a museum means extremely tricky’ (Cai, 2020). Acknowledging the roles and responsibilities of museums in fostering diversity and inclusion among a wide range of communities, including minorities and migrants, is an issue that causes debate within the international museum community (Cai, 2020; Mairesse, 2020). In this section, I provide a brief mapping of the evolution of the roles of museums over the past decades, with particular 411

412  Research handbook on the sociology of migration focus on ‘new museology’ (Vergo, 1989). ‘New museology’ is a scholarly and professional movement that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century, which claimed that museums should change their focus from collections to visitors (Ross, 2004). ‘New museology’ until now could be said to define many of the aspirations of and approaches to museums in the Western world and beyond. Until the twentieth century, the position of museum ‘vis-à-vis the public was one of superiority’ (Weil, 2007, p. 32), yet since then, the relationship between the public and the museum has been in constant evolution. The formation and early development of the public museum, including its societal roles, has been famously described by Tony Bennett (1995). Before moving on to examining the role of museums in contemporary society and connecting to the tenets of new museology, I briefly explain how museums have traditionally been among the key institutions contributing to nation-building. This function of museums—seeking to shape and influence national identities or other group identities—has remained at the forefront of the museum’s mission, albeit articulated in many different ways. The museum was established as an institution engaged in collecting, as well as assembling, preserving, and displaying collections (Macdonald, 2011, p. 207). Initially, it was envisioned as superior to the public, ‘it was established to “raise” the level of public understanding, to “elevate” the spirits of its visitors, and to “refine” and “uplift” the common taste’ (Weil, 2007, p. 32). It had only become accessible to a wider audience, those outside aristocracy, in the nineteenth century, with the rise of the national museum (Woodward, 2012, p. 15) and modern nationalism more broadly.1 As Benedict Anderson (1991) shows, museums, together with censuses and maps, emerged as key modes for the nation-state to promote nationalist ideologies and discourses and practices of national belonging and identity. Much has been written on museums in relation to nation-building and the construction of national identity (for overviews, see, for instance, Aronsson & Elgenius, 2014; McLean, 1998). This body of work includes research on how museums contribute to nationhood, which has been conducted in cases of institutions from around the world, for example, in Korea (Jang, 2020), China (Vickers, 2007), Canada (Gordon-Walker, 2016), Namibia (Schildkrout, 1995), and various European countries (Aronsson, Knell, Bugge Amundsen, & Axelsson, 2012; Ostow, 2008). The question of how museums can move beyond the nation-state and contribute to cosmopolitan narratives or narratives of multiculturalism has been examined recently by researchers and museum practitioners. For instance, volumes such as the one edited by Edward P. Alexander, Mary Alexander, and Juilee Decker (2017), or the one by Wendy Earle (2013), provide useful overviews of the role of museums in the twenty-first century, offering insights on how museums contribute to building communities at multiple levels, not only the level of the nation-state. Some scholars are critical about whether museums can contribute to narratives other than those concerning nation-building. For example, Ien Ang (2017, p. 1) argues that museums are too rooted in the nation-state to be able to ‘present cosmopolitan narratives that go beyond the biased particularities of the nation’; rather, they should see the relationship between the two as ‘one of enduring friction’. As research from around the world has shown, an increasing number of museums, following the premises of the new museology, have begun to stress and value inclusiveness, openness, and participation in their approach (Arnold-de Simine, 2013; Macdonald, 2011; Simon, 2010). Museums have become increasingly confident in assuming a role as agents of social change (Sandell, 2002, 2007), in particular by declaring their capacity to foster respect for differences, highlight the values of diversity, or tackle intolerance and prejudice (Sandell & Nightingale,

Migration, museums, (and archives)  413 2013). Migration, then, emerges as one of the topics addressed in the framework of this assumed role as an agent of social change. In relation to migration, the issue of the role that museums play and could play in the twenty-first century in creating more diverse societies has been addressed by Peggy Levitt (2017), David Fleming (2017), and Bonita Bennett (2017), in the volume Museums in a time of migration: Rethinking museums’ roles, representations, collections, and collaborations, edited by Christina Johansson and Pieter Bevelander. Levitt (2017, p. 33) begins with the premise that museums have ‘helped to create national citizens’ and explores how they can, in turn, play a part in ‘creating global citizens’. Fleming (2017, p. 73) discusses how museums in the UK city of Liverpool have approached the topic of migration and diversity and offers a number of observations on why the Museum of Liverpool is so successful as an agent of social change. Bennett (2017, p. 77) reviews the work of the District Six Museum in Cape Town, South Africa, arguing that this museum’s practices reveal that complexity ‘when embraced … as a given condition within a difficult situation, can give rise to creative solutions and help people find new pathways to overcome challenges’. Christopher Whitehead and colleagues (Whitehead, Lloyd, Eckersley, & Mason, 2015, pp. 1–2) propose that museums can be fundamental spaces ‘for public discourse and formation in the context of social contests over places and social divisions within them that are inextricably related to issues of belonging, migration and difference’. In one of the chapters in their edited volume, the authors provide a list of points for consideration and further deliberation on how this can be achieved in practice (Whitehead, Mason, Eckersley, & Lloyd, 2015, p. 55). These examples reflect some of the ways in which academics and museum practitioners describe the roles of museums related to migration and diversity in the early twenty-first century. In the volume, Museums and migration: History, memory and politics, edited by Laurence Gouriévidis (2014, p. 10), several chapters discuss the methods used by particular institutions ‘to promote ideals of participation, inclusion and engagement’, from the perspective of museum practitioners and activists. The examples analyzed include museum projects in the United Kingdom (Lynch, 2014; Nightingale, 2014) and engagements with immigration by Italian museums (Cimoli, 2014). In a special issue of the Journal of Museum Education, edited by Patricia Lannes and Lauren Monsein Rhodes (2019, p. 9), authors from around the world discuss best practices for addressing the needs of local migrant communities, starting from the following premise: ‘[I]f museums truly want to work to be part of a community’s fabric, then they must mobilize and take action to address the needs of the various groups and individuals that make up their community’. Such an approach fits in with the broader assumption that understanding the needs and values of the target publics should be crucial in shaping the offer of contemporary museums (Falk & Dierking, 2016). Accordingly, successful museums are those that ‘figure out how to develop long-lasting, meaningful relationships with their audiences; that means thinking of those they serve as assemblages of individuals and not some undefined mass “public”’ (Falk & Dierking, 2016, p. 298). Yet, building such relationships in practice is a challenging endeavor for museums. Bernadette Lynch, in a chapter on inclusive museum projects, concludes that regardless of how good the intentions are, ‘the imposition of the institutions’ coercive authority places people (including refugees and other diaspora communities) in the position of being co-opted into supporting (often resentfully) the museum’s goals, while silencing any potential resistance or opposition’ (2014, p. 76). Research on power imbalances between museums and

414  Research handbook on the sociology of migration communities is conducted, however, using case studies from around the world (Golding, 2016; Heisinger, 2013; King, 2014; Lynch & Alberti, 2010). A range of suggestions and models have been proposed on how to build community engagement projects successfully, for instance, developing a ‘community-driven’ approach (Perkin, 2010) or implementing strategies for creating equitable relationships with staff and visitors despite social differences (Ng, Ware, & Greenberg, 2017). Apart from seeking inclusivity (of migrant and refugee communities, among others) in their work, as discussed above, an increasing number of museums choose to focus on human mobility in their narratives and programs. Much has been published on how museums represent migration in settler countries (Canada, Australia, the United States, and New Zealand) and on how the museums’ approaches have been influenced by cultural diversity, discourses on colonialism, and policies on social inclusion (Ang, 2009; Hutchison & Witcomb, 2014; Nettelbeck, 2012; Williams, 2006; Witcomb, 2018). In Europe, in contrast, ‘in the broader nationalization of migration history, emigration has been far less problematic and conflicting than immigration’ (Gouriévidis, 2014, p. 5). Many European museums concentrate on emphasizing the contribution of emigrants to their new communities without revising the colonial aspects (Gouriévidis, 2014, pp. 5–6). Yet, what is important in Europe, through the emergence of several new migration museums, such as the Red Star Line Museum in Antwerp, Belgium, the Musée national de l’histoire de l’immigration in Paris, France, the German Emigration Center in Bremerhaven, the Emigration Museum in Gdynia, Poland, or the Migration Museum in London, can be seen as a development in line with the changing role of museums and the premises of new museology. Namely, these museums seek to offer a different approach to nation-building, as many of them provide more complex, inclusive, diverse approaches to local and national identity. Yet, such an alternative way of approaching the nation and nation-building is made possible also because these museums often combine funding and interests from (local) governments, private donors, and corporations (Pelsmaekers & Van Hout, 2020, p. 609). The following section offers a more in-depth analysis of the emergence of migration museums in Europe and beyond.

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION MUSEUMS: AN ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE? Over the past decades, numerous new immigration, migration, or emigration museums have been established worldwide as a distinct type of institution. Currently, there are at least 40 such museums—a list is available on a blog run by Anna Chiara Cimoli and Maria Vlachou (2021). The establishment of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum in New York City in 1990 is often mentioned as an event influencing the emergence of several museums in Europe focusing on the migration of millions of people from European ports to the ‘new world’ (Pelsmaekers & Van Hout, 2020, p. 609). Many of these museums, although not all of them, seek to establish themselves as institutions that offer more inclusive understandings of national or local identities, while deconstructing negative perceptions of migration and connecting the history of migration to positive social change (Pelsmaekers & Van Hout, 2020, p. 610). Claire Sutherland (2014, p. 118) argues that migration museums ‘help reconfigure nation-building discourse away from an archetype of national longue durée dominated by a single ethnic group’. In some museums, however, migration is depicted as a traumatic experience, employing a narrative of

Migration, museums, (and archives)  415 victimhood, and granting migrants little agency and capability. In this section, I will demonstrate that a common thread in many of these analyses includes the depiction of these museums as institutions presenting alternative ways to understand local, regional, and national identities. Museums that focus on migration range from small, local institutions to large museums that claim to present histories of mobility related to a given country. In Italy, for example, over the past 15 years, 30 emigration museums have been created all around the country, ranging from small local or grassroots museums to those with a national scope (Armanni, 2019, pp. 11–12). In some of them, the stories about experiences of Italian emigrants are linked to immigration into Italy in the 2010s, but emigration is most often the central topic. In a number of these Italian museums, the exhibitions are curated to depict the experience of emigration as largely traumatic, granting little or no agency to the emigrants and depicting them as victims (Armanni, 2019). Yet, a different example of a museum that focuses on recent immigration was established in 2009 to foster encounters with migrant Africans who arrive at the shore of Lampedusa to seek refuge (De Angelis, 2012, p. 36). Alessandra de Angelis (2012, p. 35) examines how the relatively small Lampedusa Museum of Migrations represents a case of an ‘in-between’ space ‘of contact and contamination between cultures, stories and life conditions’. To offer a different example, in Poland, the topic of human mobility is the focus of one large museum with a national scope2—the Emigration Museum in the seaside city of Gdynia. The museum was opened in 2015 in a historic building of the Marine Station, which routed emigration traffic in the early twentieth century (Grabowicz-Matyjas, 2019, p. 80). It seeks to present the story of emigration from the Polish territory, focusing in particular on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Emigration, however, is depicted as one element of a larger phenomenon of human mobility, as various authors write in the preface of the museum’s catalogue (Stefanek & Grabowicz-Matyjas, 2016). Choosing a site which had a historical function related to migration, like the Marine Station, represents a common trend among migration museums worldwide. In the case of the UK Migration Museum (MM), established in London in 2013, however, a deliberate choice was made to bring attention to migration more generally. Its website reads: ‘[T]he Migration Museum explores how the movement of people to and from Britain across the ages has shaped who we are—as individuals, as communities, and as a nation’ (Migration Museum, 2021). Yet, the MM is not situated in a specific location that would, as is the case for the Emigration Museum in Poland, determine the focus of the institution. Rather, it has taken up residency in different locations throughout London, including a warehouse or a shopping center, while looking for a permanent home (Reading, 2021). For both of these museums, nonetheless, a common feature is that they seek to present a broader, more inclusive understanding of the history of the countries in which they are based, attempting to showcase how society has been and is shaped by human mobilities. In the Americas, the Immigrant Memorial Museum, run by the Government of the State of São Paolo, Brazil, and the Ellis Island Immigration Museum in New York, can be seen as examples of how the history of immigration can be presented and linked with the social and economic developments of the local area, as well as of the country. The Immigrant Memorial Museum’s work was established with the aim of promoting local immigration history: the extensive collection of documents, records, and testimonials have been gathered in relation to the 1.8 million immigrants who stayed in the building that hosts the museum in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Vieira, 2007). Local immigrant communities were involved in setting

416  Research handbook on the sociology of migration up a memorial in the 1990s, and they actively participate in implementing the museum’s activities. In the early 2000s, the museum broadened its strategy and activities to include the topic of contemporary migration into the area and more broadly in their exhibitions, research, and outreach, thus connecting themselves to international museum networks (Vieira, 2007; Immigration Museum, n.d.). In New York, the Ellis Island Immigration Museum opened in 1990 as a commemorative museum and ‘a symbol of “America’s Immigrant Heritage”’ (Desforges & Maddern, 2004, p. 442). Between 1892 and 1924, around 12 million migrants entered the United States through the immigration station located on the island (Desforges & Maddern, 2004, p. 440). The exhibition and the program of the museum has been the subject of much academic attention (see Desforges & Maddern, 2004; Maddern, 2004; Kelly & Morton, 2004; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998). Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1998), for instance, criticizes how the narrative of the museum in the 1990s reinforced a particular understanding of immigration as an ‘American’ experience, depicting immigrants as ‘pilgrims of freedom’ seeking a new life in the United States, while ignoring other types of migration, including slavery. Yet, in 2015, the museum opened two new galleries—one on pre-Ellis Island immigration history, covering mostly the histories of those who arrived in the United States as slaves—and another on immigration after the closure of the station in 1954 (Dunlap, 2015). With its expanded exhibition, the museum attempts to show ‘immigration into the United States through Ellis Island as part of a worldwide population movement and the long-term process of peopling the North American continent’ (Pardue, 2004, p. 27), also linking it to contemporary events. The museum further serves as a point of reference for many other museums focusing on migration (Pelsmaekers & Van Hout, 2020), and it is a part of numerous networks and collaborations (Pardue, 2004).

PRESENTING MIGRATION STORIES To return to the broader theme of migration museums, a feature that characterizes many of them is the use of new interactive technologies and technological devices in their exhibitions, in order to encourage empathy and reflection from the side of the visitors (Lanz, 2017). Employing new technologies to help visitors actively engage with the content offered by the museum is a wider trend in museology (Vom Lehn & Heath, 2005; Marques & Costello, 2018). Often, stories are conveyed using transmedia storytelling, in which the narrative is extended across numerous platforms. The story that each individual visitor constructs in the museum depends on the media with which they engage (Jenkins, 2011). The active role of the visitor is implied—visitors are expected to create their own stories by interacting with multiple media and narratives. Francesca Lanz (2017, p. 188) argues that the design of museums dealing with migration ‘should be developed in a strict synergy with the construction of the museum narratives and definition of its main messages since the way in which these are displayed ultimately affects their perception’. Apart from the design, what many migration museums share is the employment of personal stories and oral testimonies.3 Relying on storytelling, especially autobiographical storytelling, is a wider trend in museums: visitors are often offered perspectives on past events ‘through the eyes of individuals and their personal memories’ (Arnold-de Simine, 2013, pp. 10, 13) with the hope that it can encourage empathy.4 In the volume edited by Laurence Gouriévidis, several authors discuss the importance of personal stories ‘as a strategy for inclusion, whilst

Migration, museums, (and archives)  417 also analysing the challenges they present’ (Gouriévidis, 2014, p. 10). For instance, Eithne Nightingale (2014) analyzes a project run by the V&A Museum of Childhood in London, in which the interviews and testimonies of refugees and migrants who settled in East London were gathered and used in the exhibition ‘The World in the East End’. Christina Johansson (2014, p. 123) investigates a museum in Malmö, Sweden, where, as of 2012, 40 percent of the population had a migratory background. Malmö Museum ‘has dealt with the challenge of handling and representing the multicultural society in which it is located’ by including migrant accounts in exhibitions and other events (Johansson, 2014, p. 124). In another volume, Alistair Thomson (2017, p. 114) makes a case for using ‘recorded memories, letters and diaries, family photographs—to animate migration history and enliven the migration museum’. Similarly, Ilaria Magnani (2011, p. 92) argues that, in the case of immigration museums, using individual stories is an approach that visitors are attracted to and appreciate; to demonstrate this, she analyzes the exhibition and approach of the National Immigration Museum in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The connections among archives, oral history, and migration museums will be further explored below. Creet (2011, p. 280) asks: ‘In the end, does memory belong to the one who lived it or to the places in which it is preserved?’ Archives play an important role in museums, but for migration museums, they can be crucial. Not only do many migration museums originate from organizational archives (the Ellis Island Immigration Museum in New York, the Red Star Line Museum in Antwerp, and the Emigration Museum in Gdynia, among others), but also, since personal stories play a central role in the narratives constructed by migration museums in their exhibitions and programs, by extension so do the archives in which these stories have been preserved.5 Archivists and curators certainly possess a great deal of agency in shaping the narratives museums convey and how they do so; at the same time, their decisions are also made in a wider political and social context. An article written by Susan Kelly and Stephen Morton (2004, p. 633) offers a compelling example from the United States on how the relationship between archives and museums (and, as an extension, archivists and curators) can lead to obliterating ‘hierarchies of race and class that have historically underpinned the democratic rhetoric of immigration’. They examine the life story of Annie Moore, the first emigrant to enter the United States through the Ellis Island processing station in 1892, and how her story is depicted on Ellis Island: she is portrayed as representative of European immigration and as a model new citizen for the United States. They argue that the archival materials have been selected and used to highlight the narrative of European immigration and to depict it as the immigration story in the United States, repressing and concealing other experiences of immigration (Kelly & Morton, 2004, p. 643). This perspective connects to the discussion of the evolution of the Ellis Island Museum’s narrative and focus presented in the previous section. In the 1990s, the Museum focused chiefly on European immigration to the United States and the story of Annie Moore usefully serves as an example illustrating this narrative. Another example analyzing the role of archives in presenting migration stories and identity-building is provided by Ted Svensson (2021). He examines the Partition Museum in Amritsar, India and the online 1947 Partition Archive, which memorializes the creation of the postcolonial states of India and Pakistan as a violent partition. Svensson (2021, p. 216) shows that, in the case of both these initiatives, they indeed manage to bring to light less familiar accounts of migration, among others, but ‘they fail to bring about a critical re-appraisal of the [partition] event, its lasting consequences and nation building as such’ (2021, p. 216). In

418  Research handbook on the sociology of migration his article, Svensson (2021, p. 220) points to the limits of oral histories related to the kind of testimonies collected and ‘the extent to which they give access to actual lived experiences’, demonstrating also that the 1947 Partition Archive does not acknowledge these limitations of oral history. This lacuna consequently reinforces the ‘hegemonic imaginings of nationality and statehood’ and reduces the history depicted to ‘individual and localised accounts of suffering’ (Svensson, 2021, p. 228). What Svensson describes is a risk that confronts many archives and migration museums using individual stories. Yet, what certainly can be said about migration museums is that they, most often, at least attempt to provide alternative narratives to hegemonic nation-building discourses, as shown with the examples analyzed in this chapter. This is a complex endeavor, however, not least because museums of migration are seen as socially and politically important and may be ‘considered as a tool by the governments to implement their integration and social cohesion policies’ (Antoine, 2019, p. 49).

CONCLUSION This chapter has offered an overview of the roles and approaches to the issue of migration in museology. It has demonstrated how museums, traditionally nation-building institutions, have recently sought to include a range of voices and perspectives in their exhibitions and programs, trying to incorporate the stories of migrants and refugees. The development of migration museums worldwide has been elaborated, revealing how such museums, regardless of whether they primarily focus on immigration or emigration, often attempt to abstract from specific migratory phenomena and point to the larger, global phenomenon of human mobility. In the final section, some of the common features in how stories of migrants and refugees are shown in museums around the world have been reviewed, paying particular attention to the role of archives and oral history, and highlighting how these two are central in bridging the connection between individual accounts and broader narratives of migration.

NOTES 1. Tony Bennett describes how museums and high culture in general became assigned by the government for ‘the purpose of civilizing the population as a whole’ (1995, p. 19). 2. Yet, the museum is funded, for most part, by the regional government and funding coming from the European Union. 3. Museums, by gathering, collecting, and displaying the life stories of migrants are gradually transforming them into ‘the intangible heritage of migration and diasporas’ (Naguib, 2013, p. 77). 4. Yet, according to Jennifer Bonnell and Roger Simon (2007), museums that seek to mobilize affective experiences, such as empathy, might hold unrealistic assumptions about the profundity of involvement among visitors. What is needed is ‘a more in-depth discussion of what such exhibitions might claim of visitors’ attentiveness and capabilities and how, when and why such demands might be pedagogically productive’ (Bonnell & Simon, 2007, p. 68). Additionally, the complexity of empathy as an experience in museums runs the risk of becoming oversimplified: ‘[T]he visitor is encouraged to think about “me”, not them, now, not then. This may trivialize what happened, reducing the understanding of the conflict to a bad “reality museum” experience’ (Jenkins, 2007, p. 450). Generally, it has been argued that a more comprehensive investigation of empathy and its boundaries in the museum context is necessary (Andermann & Arnold-de Simine, 2012; Arnold-de Simine, 2013).

Migration, museums, (and archives)  419 5. Furthermore, archives, like museums, can be understood as memory institutions. To provide an example, Malin Thor Tureby and Jesper Johansson analyze the archive of the Nordic Museum in Stockholm to demonstrate how archives, understood as memory institutions, ‘contribute to create and dissolve boundaries of national communities by including and excluding immigrants and ethnic minorities in the creation of processes for narrating cultural heritage’ (Tureby & Johansson, 2017, p. 169).

REFERENCES Alexander, E. P., Alexander, M., & Decker, J. (2017). Museums in motion: An introduction to the history and functions of museums. American Association for State and Local History. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Andermann, J., & Arnold-de Simine, S. (2012). Introduction: Memory, community and the new museum. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(1), 3–13. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, revised edition. London: Verso. Ang, I. (2009). Provocation – Beyond multiculturalism: A journey to nowhere? Humanities Research, 15(2), 17–23. Ang, I. (2017). What are museums for? The enduring friction between nationalism and cosmopolitanism. Identities, 24(1), 1–5. Antoine, C. (2019). Migraciones y museos coyuntura, representaciones y políticas culturales en Chile. Mapocho: Revista de Humanidades, 85, 48–65. Armanni, B. (2019). In the same boat? Memory and collective identity in Italian migration museums. Third Conference of the Symposium Diaspore Italiane – Italy in Movement, Genova. Arnold-de Simine, S. (2013). Mediating memory in the museum: Trauma, empathy, nostalgia. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Aronsson, P., & Elgenius, G. (Eds.) (2014). National museums and nation-building in Europe 1750–2010: Mobilization and legitimacy, continuity and change. London: Routledge. Aronsson, P., Knell, S., Bugge Amundsen, A., & Axelsson, B. (2012). National museums making history in a diverse Europe. Linköping University Interdisciplinary Studies. Linköping. Retrieved from https://​www​.diva​-portal​.org/​smash/​record​.jsf​?pid​=​diva2​%3A573632​&​dswid​=​6357. Bennett, B. (2017). Memory is our weapon. In C. Johansson & P. Bevelander (Eds.) Museums in a time of migration: Rethinking museums’ roles, representations, collections, and collaborations (pp. 77–90). Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics. London: Routledge. Bonnell, J., & Simon, R. I. (2007). ‘Difficult’ exhibitions and intimate encounters. Museum and Society, 5(2), 65–85. Brulon Soares, B. (2020). Foreword. ICOFOM’s commitment to a new museum definition. ICOFOM Study Series 48-2 (pp. 8–9). Cai, Y. (2020). What is in a museum definition? Reflections on the ICOM’s new museum definition. Museological Review, 24, 7. Chouliaraki, L., Georgiou, M., Zaborowski, R., & Oomen, W. (2017). The European ‘migration crisis’ and the media: A cross-European press content analysis. Project Report, London School of Economics and Political Science. Cimoli, A. C. (2014). Politics, rhetoric and participatory practices in Italian museums. In L. Gouriévidis (Ed.) Museum and migration: History, memory and politics (pp. 83–102). London: Routledge. Cimoli, A. C., & Vlachou, M. (2021). About. Museums and Migration (blog). Retrieved from https://​ museumsandmigration​.wordpress​.com/​info/​. Creet, J. (2011). The archive as temporary abode. In J. Creet & A. Kitzmann (Eds.) Memory and migration (pp. 280–298). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. De Angelis, A. (2012). A museum on the margins of the Mediterranean: Between caring memories and the future. In B. Ferrara (Ed.) Cultural memory, migrating modernities and museum practices (pp. 35–44). Milan: Politecnico di Milano.

420  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Desforges, L., & Maddern, J. (2004). Front doors to freedom, portal to the past: History at the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, New York. Social & Cultural Geography, 5(3), 437–457. Dunlap, D. W. (2015). Ellis Island museum to update the story of immigration in America. The New York Times, April 26. Retrieved from https://​www​.nytimes​.com/​2015/​04/​27/​nyregion/​ellis​-island​-museum​ -to​-update​-the​-story​-of​-immigration​-in​-america​.html. Earle, W. (2013). Cultural education: Redefining the role of museums in the 21st century. Sociology Compass, 7(7), 533–546. Falk, J. E., & Dierking, L. D. (2016). The museum experience revisited. Abingdon: Routledge. Fleming, D. (2017). Migration and Liverpool. In C. Johansson & P. Bevelander (Eds.) Museums in a time of migration: Rethinking museums’ roles, representations, collections, and collaborations (pp. 59–75). Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Golding, V. (2016). Learning at the museum frontiers: Identity, race and power. London: Routledge. Gordon-Walker, C. (2016). Exhibiting nation: Multicultural nationalism (and its limits) in Canada’s museums. Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press. Gouriévidis, L. (2014). Representing migration in museums: History, diversity and the politics of memory. In L. Gouriévidis (Ed.) Museums and migration: History, memory and politics (pp. 1–23). London: Routledge. Grabowicz-Matyjas, K. (2019). Emigration museum in Gdynia. Polish American Studies, 76(2), 80–84. Heisinger, M. (2013). Weaving a new shared authority. The Akwesasne museum and community collaboration: Preserving cultural heritage, 1970–2012. PhD thesis, Arizona State University. Hutchison, M., & Witcomb, A. (2014). Migration exhibitions and the question of identity: Reflections on the history of the representation of migration in Australian museums, 1986–2011. In L. Gouriévidis (Ed.) Museums and migration: History, memory and politics (pp. 228–243). London: Routledge. Immigration Museum (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://​museudaimigracao​.org​.br/​en/​about​-im/​the​ -museum. International Council of Museums (ICOM) (n.d.). Museum definition. Retrieved from https://​icom​ .museum/​en/​resources/​standards​-guidelines/​museum​-definition/​. Jang, S.-H. (2020). A representation of nationhood in the museum: The National Museum of Korea. London: Routledge. Jenkins, H. (2011). Transmedia 202: Further reflections. Confessions of an Aca-Fan. The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins (blog). Retrieved from http://​henryjenkins​.org/​2011/​08/​defining​_transmedia​ _further​_re​.html. Jenkins, T. (2007). Victims remembered. In S. E. R. Watson (Ed.) Museums and their communities (pp. 448–451). London and New York: Routledge. Johansson, C. (2014). The museum in a multicultural setting: The case of Malmö museums. In L. Gouriévidis (Ed.) Museums and migration: History, memory and politics (pp. 122–137). London: Routledge. Kelly, S., & Morton, S. (2004). Annie Moore and the archives of displacement: Towards an immigrant history of the present. Social & Cultural Geography, 5(4), 633–650. King, L. (2014). Competition, complicity, and (potential) alliance: Native Hawaiian and Asian immigrant narratives at the Bishop Museum. College Literature, 41(1), 43–65. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Ellis Island. In B. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (Ed.) Destination culture: Tourism, museums and heritage, Vol. 10 (pp. 177–185). Berkeley: University of California Press. Lannes, P., & Rhodes, L. M. (2019). Museums as allies: Mobilizing to address migration. Journal of Museum Education, 44(1), 4–12. Lanz, F. (2017). Staging migration (in) museums: A reflection on exhibition design practices for the representation of migration in European contemporary museums. Museum & Society, 14(1), Special Issue: Sociology and Museums. Levitt, P. (2017). Creating national and global citizens: What role can museums play? In C. Johansson & P. Bevelander (Eds.) Museums in a time of migration: Rethinking museums’ roles, representations, collections, and collaborations (pp. 31–57). Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Lynch, B. (2014). ‘Whose cake is it anyway?’ Museums, civil society and the changing reality of public engagement. In L. Gouriévidis (Ed.) Museums and migration: History, memory and politics (pp. 67–80). London: Routledge.

Migration, museums, (and archives)  421 Lynch, B., & Alberti, S. J. (2010). Legacies of prejudice: Racism, co-production and radical trust in the museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(1), 13–35. Macdonald, S. (2011). A companion to museum studies. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Maddern, J. (2004). Huddled masses yearning to buy postcards: The politics of producing heritage at the Statue of Liberty–Ellis Island National Monument. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(4–5), 303–314. Magnani, I. (2011). Proyectos identitarios en la construcción del Museo Nacional de la Inmigración de Buenos Aires. Altre Modernità, 5, 85–98. Mairesse, F. (2020). Museum diversity through the lens of the Kyoto definition. Muzealnictwo, 61, 75–79. Marques, D., & Costello, R. (2018). Concerns and challenges developing mobile augmented reality experiences for museum exhibitions. Curator: The Museum Journal, 61(4), 541–558. McLean, F. (1998). Museums and the construction of national identity: A review. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 3(4), 244–252. Migration Museum (2021). About the Migration Museum. Migration Museum (blog). Retrieved from https://​www​.migrationmuseum​.org/​about​-our​-project/​. Naguib, S. A. (2013). Collecting moments of life: Museums and the intangible heritage of migration. Museum International, 65(1–4), 77–86. Nettelbeck, A. (2012). Remembering indigenous dispossession in the national museum: The National Museum of Australia and the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Time & Society, 21(1), 39–54. Ng, W., Ware, S. M., & Greenberg, A. (2017). Activating diversity and inclusion: A blueprint for museum educators as allies and change makers. Journal of Museum Education, 42(2), 142–154. Nightingale, E. (2014). World in the East End at the V&A Museum of Childhood. In L. Gouriévidis (Ed.) Museums and migration: History, memory and politics (pp. 103–121). London: Routledge. Ostow, R. (2008). (Re)visualizing national history: Museums and national identities in Europe in the new millennium. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pardue, D. (2004). Ellis Island Immigration Museum. Museum International, 56(3), 22–28. Pelsmaekers, K., & Van Hout, T. (2020). People on the move: How museums de-marginalize migration. Social Semiotics, 30(4), 607–624. Perkin, C. (2010). Beyond the rhetoric: Negotiating the politics and realising the potential of community‐ driven heritage engagement. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1–2), 107–122. Reading, A. (2021). Moving hearts: How mnemonic labour (trans)forms mnemonic capital. Memory Studies, 14(1), 95–111. Ross, M. (2004). Interpreting the new museology. Museum and Society, 2(2), 84–103. Sandell, R. (Ed.) (2002). Museums, society, inequality. London: Routledge. Sandell, R. (2007). Museums, prejudice and the reframing of difference. London: Routledge. Sandell, R., & Nightingale, E. (Eds.) (2013). Museums, equality and social justice. London: Routledge. Schildkrout, E. (1995). Museums and nationalism in Namibia. Museum Anthropology, 19(2), 65–77. Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0. Stefanek, T., & Grabowicz-Matyjas, K. (Eds.) (2016). Catalogue of the Emigration Museum in Gdynia: Permanent exhibition. Gdynia: Emigration Museum in Gdynia. Sutherland, C. (2014). Leaving and longing: Migration museums as nation-building sites. Museum and Society, 12(2), 118–131. Svensson, T. (2021). Curating the Partition: Dissonant heritage and Indian nation building. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 27(2), 216–232. Thomson, A. (2017). Moving stories: Using life stories to animate migration history. In C. Johansson & P. Bevelander (Eds.) Museums in a time of migration: Rethinking museums’ roles, representations, collections, and collaborations (pp. 113–128). Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Tureby, M. T., & Johansson, J. (2017). The making of cultural heritage and ethnicity in the archive: The example of the Nordic Museum. In C. Johansson & P. Bevelander (Eds.) Museums in a time of migration: Rethinking museums’ roles, representations, collections, and collaborations (pp. 169–195). Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Vergo, P. (1989). Introduction. In P. Vergo, C. Sorensen, & N. Palmer (Eds.) New Museology. London: Reaktion Books. Vickers, E. (2007). Museums and nationalism in contemporary China. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 37(3), 365–382.

422  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Vieira, A. M. D. C. L. (2007). The São Paulo immigrants’ memorial: Fields of research and challenges in the twenty‐first century. Museum International, 59(1–2), 117–126. Vom Lehn, D., & Heath, C. (2005). Accounting for new technology in museum exhibitions. International Journal of Arts Management, 7(3), 11–21. Weil, S. (2007). The museum and the public. In S. Watson (Ed.) Museums and their communities (pp. 32–46). London and New York: Routledge. Whitehead, C., Lloyd, K., Eckersley, S., & Mason, R. (2015). Introduction: Museums, migration and identity in Europe. In C. Whitehead, K. Lloyd, S. Eckersley, & R. Mason (Eds.) Museums, migration and identity in Europe: Peoples, places and identities (pp. 1–6). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Whitehead, C., Mason, R., Eckersley, S., & Lloyd, K. (2015). Place, identity and migration in European museums. In C. Whitehead, K. Lloyd, S. Eckersley, & R. Mason (Eds.) Museums, migration and identity in Europe: Peoples, places and identities (pp. 7–59). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Williams, P. (2006). Reforming nationhood: The free market and biculturalism at Te Papa. In C. Healy & A. Witcomb (Eds.) South Pacific museums: Experiments in culture (pp. 2.1–2.16). Melbourne: Monash University e-Press. Witcomb, A. (2018). Curating relations between ‘us’ and ‘them’. In P. Schorch & C. McCarthy (Eds.) Curatopia: Museums and the future of curatorship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Woodward, S. (2012). Funding museum agendas: Challenges and opportunities. Managing Leisure, 17(1), 14–28.

Index

9/11 attacks 104, 128 Abascal, M. 150–1 Abbott, Andrew 1–2 Ábrego, L. 264–5 absentee approach 231 absorption capacity 379–80, 383 accommodation 139 acculturation 135–6, 197, 262 accumulation regime concept 116 adaptation hypothesis 261–2, 356 Addams, Jane 3 Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi, Americanah 46–8 admission policies 99 affective coding 267 affective experiences 418 affective labor 330 affinity hypothesis 64 African migrants 6 agent-based models 275 Alba, Richard 133, 137–8, 200 Alexander, Edward P. 412 Alexander, Jeffrey 133, 140–1 Alexander, Mary 412 alters, network analysis 275, 277, 278–9 Amore, J. J. 292 analytic memo-ing 267 Andersen, D. J. 310 Anderson, Benedict 29, 38, 412 Anderson, Elijah 216, 217 Andersson, K. B. 247 Andreu, N. 294 Ang, Ien 412 Anghel, Remus Gabriel, Romanians in Western Europe 222 Anglo-Saxon welfare model 379–81 Annan, Kofi 401 anomie 376 antagonistic co-production 114, 116 ‘anti-immigration’ movements 101–3, 105 Anzaldúa, Gloria, Borderlands/La Frontera 52 Appadurai, Arjun 16, 183 Appiah, Kwame Anthony 141 Aranda, E. M. 261, 262, 264 archives 411–22 Ardévol, E. 244 assimilation 4, 123, 133–8 blurring 138 civil sphere 140

definitions 134–5 ethnic origin groups 194 ethnicity 48 receiving contexts 124–5, 127 religious migrants 395–6 super-diversity 150 transnationalism 184 types of 135–7 use of term 201 see also integration assimilation theory 123–4, 129, 194, 368 association, definition 364 see also migrant associations asylum rights 98, 343 asylum-seeking migrants 41, 47, 162 gender issues 50 housing rights 343 policy restrictions 81 ‘rule of first entry’ 110 Atak, I. 41 atomistic approaches 358 ‘audiencing’ 286, 295 audio-visual representations 287 ‘auto-ethnographies’ 217 autocratic regimes 5–6, 171 autonomy of migration 28–9, 117 Backman, M. 391 Bada, X. 370 Bail, C. A. 30, 252 Baldassarri, D. 150–1, 260, 263 Ball, S. 286 Banksy 289, 295 Barth, Fredick 27–8 Bartlett, L. 331 Bartram, D. 356 Basch, Linda, Nations Unbound 184 Basili, Francesco 156 Beauchemin, C. 236–7 Beck, A. 198 Beenstock, M. 129 Bell, P. 287 Belloni, Milena, The Big Gamble 222 belonging 8, 26, 186, 406–7 Benhabib, S. 377 benign neglect policy 100 Bennett, Bonita 413 Bennett, Tony 412 Berger, A. A. 288

423

424  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Bevelander, Pieter 139, 413 Bhabha, Homi 182 Biehl, Kristen 145, 148 big data 213, 243, 247–9, 250, 252–3 Bigo, D. 309 Bilsborrow, R. E. 228, 236 biodiversity 143 biographic surveys 235–6 Bismarckian welfare model 379 Blanc, Cristina Szanton, Nations Unbound 184 Blixen, Karen 156 blurring process 138 Boase, J. 245 Boccagni, P. 171 Boda, Z. 274 Bommes, Michael 89, 159–61 bonding social capital 65, 276, 355 bonds–boundaries interaction 377 Bonifazi, S. 206, 212 border control policies 100, 101–2, 115, 125, 309, 312 border crossing 183, 300 border regimes 109–21 borderlands concept 52 borders 23–33, 115 externalization 25, 100–2 internalization 25 sociological lenses 307–14 Borkert, M. 243 Böröcz, J. 123 Boswell, C. 36, 89 Boucher, A. 38 boundaries 7–8, 23–33 assimilation 137–8 bonds interaction 377 boundary blurring 138 boundary crossing 138 boundary making 27–9 boundary shifting 138 boundary specification problem 273 bounded universalism 377 Bourdieu, Pierre 28, 30, 311, 404 Bourne, Randolph 183 Bradatan, C. 126 Breton, R. 365 Brettell, C. B. 301 bridging social capital 65, 276–7, 355 Broeders, D. 160 Bruneau, Michel 187 Bulmer, Martin 3 Burgess, Ernest W. 15–16, 134–5 Byrne, E. 290 Caces, F. 61, 66 Cadge, Wendy 394

Calavita, K. 159 Candidatu, L. 244, 248 Cangià, F. 261, 264 Carling, J. 238 Carol, Sarah 139 Carrillo, Héctor, Pathways of Desire 54 Castañeda, H. 331, 333 Castellanos, Bianet 262 Castles, Stephen 100–1, 133, 312, 382 Catani, Maurizio 184 categories of diversity 147–9 migration definitions 28 politics of 34 see also migration categories Catron, P. 136 CDA see Critical Discourse Analysis CEAS see Common European Asylum System CEE countries see Central and Eastern European countries census data 229 Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries 379 CGT see constructivist grounded theory Chafetz, Janet Saltzman 393, 394 chain migration see migration chains Charmaz, K. 267 Chávez, A. E. 334–5 Cheng, Y. 125–6 Chicago School 2–3, 6, 8, 48, 221, 363, 365 children of immigrants 192–204 classifications 195–6 definitions 194–5 family burdens/responsibilities 333 incorporation 136 nanny–child relationship 334 transnational parenting 330–1 UN data 210 visual images 293–4 China, Hukou registration system 30, 82, 115 ‘chosen families’ 334–5 Choy, Catherine Ceniza, Empire of Care 53 Christian migrants 388–90, 393 Cimoli, Anna Chiara 414 circulation 14–15, 78 cities 15–16, 79 citizenship 158, 161–2, 333, 377, 407 civic community approach 366 civil sphere 140–1 claims-making multiculturalism 139 Clapham, D. 343 Cleave, Chris, The Other Hand 46–8 climate change 90–1 ‘co-development’ policy 100 Coakley, J. 403

Index  425 coding approaches 267 Cohen, Jeffrey 176 Cohen, Robin 187–8 collective memory 187 Collins, J. L. 291 Collins, P. H. 265 Collyer, M. 43 colonialism 46–7, 51, 81, 182 Common European Asylum System (CEAS) 110 communal religious activities 393–4 communicative travel 14 communist states 66 communities organization of 363–77 sending countries 300–6 community center model 394 community engagement projects 414 community-level survey data 239 comparative integration context theory 194 comparative perspectives 125–9 compositional analysis 287, 291 computational methods, migration studies 247, 252 computer-mediated communities 245 conflict theory 64, 146 congregational model 394 ‘connected migrants’ 244 connective approaches 244 Connor, P. 126 connotative signified 296 consonant assimilation 135–6 Constable, Nicole, Maid to Order in Hong Kong 223 Constant, A. 129 constructivist grounded theory (CGT) 259, 267 contact theory 146 content analysis 287–8, 291–2 contexts of reception 122–32, 136, 393 ‘contextual’ feedback 90 contextual survey data 239 convoy model of sociability 351–2 Cordero, A. L. H. 330 ‘core and periphery’ 321 corporeal travel 14 country of origin data analysis 208 migration sequences 79 remittances 168 second-generation immigrants 197–8 survey data 228–30 country of settlement home recreation 346 migrant associations 371 religious migrants 392–4 COVID-19 pandemic

migrant categories 34, 38, 43 mobility disruptions 12–13, 90 network analysis 282 remittances 167–8, 172–3 return migration 60 transnationalism 188–9 Cranford, Cynthia 50 Creet, J. 417 crises temporal impacts 128 use of term 116 see also economic crisis; migration crisis; refugee crises ‘crisis of Schengen’ 110–11, 118 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 289 critical migration studies 41–2, 118 critical visual methodology 286, 295 Croll, Paul 133 cross-border formations, diaspora 183–5 cross-border survey data 231 cross-national comparisons, receiving contexts 125–7 Crul, M. 194 cultural boundaries 26–9 cultural capital 345, 356, 404 cultural diasporas 182, 187 cultural diversity 357 cultural linkages 92 cultural processes, household model 302–3 cultural sociology 27–9, 252–3 ‘cultural turn’ 82 culture of bonds 243 Culver, J. 171 cumulative causation theory 62, 75, 89–90, 239 Cvajner, M. 67–8 cyberculture 244–5 Czaika, M. 311, 313 Dahinden, Janine 55, 246 D’Amato, G. 89 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species 143 data collection, justification for 253 data integration 212–13 databases, migration policies 240 datafication 248 Davis, Kingsley 96 de Angelis, Alessandra 415 de Haas, H. 43, 311, 313 de Hoon, S. 395 Decimo, F. 171 decision-making households 300, 303 interactive process 7 survey data 237 Decker, Juilee 412

426  Research handbook on the sociology of migration decolonial perspectives 51 decolonization 4–5, 98 deconstruction 145, 288, 414 deep-level diversity 146 Deleuze, G. 16–17 Demir, Nilüfer, Alan Kurdi 292–3 demographic change 5, 328–30, 388–90 demographic perspectives, diversity 145–6, 147–8 demographic transition 77 denizens 158 denotative signified 296 dependency perspective 301–2 deportation, masculinization of 332 deportation centers 111 deservingness 39, 42, 50 destination choice sequences 79–80 destination patterns 92, 129 development 77, 81, 172–4, 301–2, 369–70 diachronic perspective 343–4 diaspora 16, 181–91 diversity of experiences 143 migration sequences 79–80 religion 394–6 remittances 168 sports participation 404 diaspora politics 370 diasporic memory 187 difference otherness distinction 140 social organization of 149 differentiation 27–8, 147, 160 digital migration studies (DMS) 243–57 DiMaggio, P. 69 Diminescu, D. 243 Dimitrova, D. V. 292 direct observation 224 disciplinary subfields 2–4, 6–7 discourse analysis 287, 288, 289, 292–3, 295 discrimination, forms of 324 ‘dispersion effect’ 66 dispositif concept 117 dissonant assimilation 135 distinctiveness 145 diversity 124, 134, 143–55 diversity management 324–5 division of labor 152, 329–30 DMS see digital migration studies documentary photography 289–90, 291, 293 domestic work 333–4 Donato, Katharine 48, 53, 54–5 Douglas, Mary 140 downward assimilation 124, 126, 135–6 Du Bois, W. E. B. 15 Dublin Regulation 110, 119

Duneier, M. 217 Durkheim, Émile 152, 259, 376, 384 Düvell, Frank 113 East–West European migration 66–9 Eastern European migration 66–9 Ebaugh, Helen Rose 393, 394 Echeverría, G. 89 economic crisis, 2008 90, 104, 172–3 economic development 390 economic systems 89, 127 economic theories 61, 65, 319–20, 322 Edelmann, A. 253 educational achievement, second-generation 197–9, 201 egocentric network approach 275–9, 280 elderly migrants in research 356–7 Eliot, T. S. 344 Ellermann, A. 311 Ellis, Carolyn 267 Ellis Island Immigration Museum 414, 415–16, 417 embassies 307–14 embodied experiences 263–4 emigrants at origin 229–30 emigration human capital approach 320–1 immigration distinction 24 emigration museums 414–16 Emmers, R. 105 emotional culture 261–2 emotional embeddedness 262–3 emotions empirical analysis 258–71 leveraging in research 266–7 as methodological technique 258–71 research on 258 research with 258, 263, 265–6 as resources 262 empathy 416, 418 employee compensation 170 ‘encouraging’ hypothesis 64 Engles, Friedrich 2, 15 Enriquez, Laura 55 equal access dimension 377 ERGMs see exponential random graph models Escobar, Arturo 244–5 Esping-Andersen, Gøsta 375, 378–9, 381, 384 ‘essential workers’ category 34, 38, 43 estheticism 291 ethical considerations, images 289–90, 293–4, 296 ethnic categories 27–8 ‘ethnic clubs’ 407 ethnic communities 123, 403

Index  427 ethnic hyphenation 140 ‘ethnic lobbies’ 370 ethnic niches 354 ethnic origin groups 194 ethnic paradox 363, 365–7 ethnic pluralist approach 368 ethnic segregation 273–5, 342, 357 ethnicity 48–9, 277 ethnographic border regime analysis 109, 113–17 ethnography 16, 117–18, 215–26, 244 emotions research 266 family/household research 328–9 methodological choices 218–21 variety of approaches 216–18 EU see European Union European migration crisis 248–9 European migration regime 109, 112–13 European Union (EU) border control policies 100, 115 border regime analysis 118 hotspot centers 109–12 immigration policies 36 migration data 211 national-origin quota systems 105 regime theory 116 skilled migration category 37 sports participation 402–3 visa policy 308–9 EUROSTAT migration data 207–8, 211 Evans, J. A. 252–3 exclusion 8, 23, 29, 156–66, 382 exilic memory 187 exponential random graph models (ERGMs) 280 facilitating hypothesis 64 facilitation feedback mechanisms 69 family 48–9, 54, 328–39 family economies 52, 321 family-level surveys 232 family reunification 62–3, 102, 353 family structure 194, 333–5 Favell, A. 18 Fawcett, J. T. 91 FDA see Foucauldian Discourse Analysis feedback mechanisms 64, 68, 87, 89–90 feminist objectivity 265 feminist studies diversity 149 gender roles 49 households 52 intersectional approach 51 vulnerability debate 41 ‘feminization’ of migration 41, 53, 329 Fennema, M. 366 Fernández-Kelly, P. 128

Ferra, I. 248–9 fertility rates 328–9 ‘fictive kinship’ 333 fieldwork 221–2 Finotelli, C. 311 first-generation immigrants 194–5, 277, 278 Fisher, K. E. 243 FitzGerald, D. 15 Flache, A. 275 flat ontologies 248, 253 Fleming, David 413 flows 17, 76, 88, 208–10 Fomina, J. 175 Foner, Nancy 133, 137, 200 forced migration 39–40, 43, 49–50, 98, 405 foreign-born population 209–10, 228 foreign population 210, 212 ‘foreignness’ 29 ‘Fortress Europe’ 115 Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) 289, 295 Foucault, Michel 116–17 framing mobility 18–19 Freeman, Gary 376–8, 382 Freides, Thelma 1 Frello, B. 18 Friend, M. 293 friendship 274, 278, 351–62 frontiers 77, 101 functional differentiation 152, 160–1 functional systems 161–2 Gabaccia, Donna 48, 49 Gender and International Migration 53 Women, Gender, and Transnational Lives 53 Gamella, J. F. 329 Gans, Herbert 4, 135 Garip, F. 69 gate closing concept 68 ‘gatekeepers’ 313–14 Geddes, A. 161 Geertz, C. 250, 252 gender 41–2, 46–59, 277, 328–30, 370 Geneva Convention, 1949 39 Germany 113, 292 Gershon, W. S. 289 Gibson, M. 124 Giddings, Franklin 3 Gillespie, M. 250 Gilligan, C. 286 Gilroy, Paul, The Black Atlantic 182 globalization 16, 53, 188, 321 Gnangnon, S. K. 172 Goffman, E. 313, 314 Golash-Boza, T. 128 Gómez-Cruz, E. 244

428  Research handbook on the sociology of migration Goss, J. 63 Gouriévidis, Laurence 413, 416 governance 24, 375, 378 government intervention 97–100, 105 Great Sport Myth (GSM) 403–4 grounded ethnographic interviews 223 group dynamics, observation 218 group-level diversity 145–6 group rights–individualism conflict 141 GSM see Great Sport Myth Guattari, F. 16–17 ‘guestworker’ countries 158 Guild, E. 309 Gurak, D. T. 61, 66

feminist studies 52 link-tracing method 280 remittances 168 housing 340–50 housing cost overburden 342 housing pathways 343 housing segregation 342–3 Hukou registration system 30, 82, 115 human capital 194, 320–1 human rights 24 humanitarian migration rights 102 humanitarianism 42 Humphreys, L. 245 ‘hybrids’, visual methods 285–6

Hainmueller, J. 146–7 Halbwachs, Maurice 187 Handlin, Oscar 4, 48 Hannerz, U. 16 Haraway, D 265 Harris, J. R. 319 Hart-Cellar Act, 1965 5 Hartwell, R. M. 103 Heath, A. F. 197 Heckscher-Ohlin model 320 Heilbron, J. 250 Heisler, Barbara and Martin 183 Hernández-León, R. 312 Herrera, Gioconda 50 Herz, A. 278 Hess, S. 116 heteronormative approaches 54 high-skilled migration 37–8 Hirsch, Jennifer 223, 328 Hodalska, M. 293 Holdaway, Jennifer 136 Hollifield, J. F. 301 Hombrados-Mendieta, M. I. 262 home house differences 340–1 identity markers 186 home ownership, obstacles to 341–2 ‘homeland’ institutions 363 homing 341 homonationalist discourses 52, 54 homophily 357 Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette 49–50, 52, 55 Hopkins, D. J. 146–7 Hordge-Freeman, E. 267 hotspot centers, EU 109–12 house–home differences 340–1 household economy 49, 61–2 household model 300–6 household surveys 229–30, 240 households 300–6, 328–39

ICTs see information and communication technologies identification techniques 161, 308–9 identity attachment, diaspora 186 ‘identity loan’ 333 identity symbolism 181 illegal migration 35–6 images 285–98 collaborative 289–90, 293–4 imaginative travel 14 IMISCOE see International Migration Network immigrant, definitions 228–9 immigrant enclaves 354 immigrant incorporation 127–8, 136, 317 immigrant integration 122, 124–5, 128, 322–4 immigrants at destination 228–9 immigration-emigration distinction 24 immigration governance 378 immigration museums 414–16 immigration policies 24, 36, 322 restrictive approaches 101–3 immobility 12–22 imperial diasporas 187 inclusion 56–66 boundary separations 23 plural nature of 8 structural/cultural forces 29 subtypes 139 welfare state mechanisms 375, 382 inclusivity 414 incorporation emotions as outcomes 262 migrant associations 365–7, 369–72 modes of 122–5, 133–42, 194 subjectivity 261 incremental process, ethnography as 220, 221 Indicators of Immigrant Integration report 210–11 individual-level diversity 145–6 individual-level survey data 238

Index  429 individualism–group rights conflict 141 Indra, Doreen 49 inequality boundary making 28 COVID-19 pandemic 13 emotions and 262–3 mobility connection 18 network analysis 279 informal remittances 169–70, 173 informal settlements 343 information and communication technologies (ICTs) 143–4 information hypothesis 64 institutional analysis 376 institutional traction 378 institutions 63, 88, 365 instrumental strategies 220 integrated border management 115 integration children of immigrants 192 diversity 144 process/condition/order 376 in research 134 social order relationship 384 sports participation 402–3 use of term 201 welfare state policies 383 see also assimilation integration models, typologies 368 inter-ethnic relationships 357–8 interculturalism 134, 368 intermediaries 65–6, 68 internal migration regulation 30 sequences/transitions 75, 79 international migrants definitions 208, 228, 229 survey identification 227 international migration definitions 227, 230 sequences/transitions 75, 79 international migration governance 24 International Migration Network (IMISCOE) 1, 9 international migration statistics 207 internet use 184, 243, 244, 246–7 ‘internetization’ of migration 243 interpersonal networks 351 intersectionalism 50–1, 55, 329, 367 intertextuality 289 irregular migration 35–7, 43, 253 contemporary policies 100 estimation attempts 101 mobile technology use 246–7 regime theory 114 remittances 169

social systems theory 162 visa issuance 311 Irving, J. 169–70 ‘island ethnographies’ 217 issue mapping 247 Jackson, S. E. 149 Jewish diaspora 182, 389, 391 Jiménez, Tomás 138 Johansson, Christina 413 Johnson, Lyndon 98 Jones, J. 128 ‘juridical capital’ 311 Kallen, Horace 133 Kalmijn, M. 200, 357 Kang, S. D. 118 Karakayalι, S. 117 Kardashian, Kim 181 Kasinitz, Philip 136, 194 Kaufmann, K. 245 Kelly, Susan 417 Kelsky, Karen 51 Kemeny, J. 343 key worker category 38 kin relationships 333–4, 351–62 see also family King, Russell 4, 74 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara 416 Kivisto, Peter 133, 139, 261 knowledge economy 127 Kolloju, N. 126 Koopmans, Ruud 139, 378 Korteweg, Anna 55 Kosse, A. 171 Kozlowski, A. C. 252–3 Kpodar, K. 173 Krasner, Stephen 112 Kwon, J. H. 330 Kιlιnç, N. 74 Kymlicka, W. 377 La Vecchia-Mikkola, V. 261 labeling 34–45 labor division 152, 329–30 labor exploitation 182, 267, 342 labor market 319–27 absorption capacity 379 immigrant integration 322–4 migration networks 67, 354–5 official data 210 return migration 80 segments 320 skilled migration 37–8 social capital 276–7

430  Research handbook on the sociology of migration spatial mobility 15 typification process 122–3 labor migration 15, 37–8, 80 economic factors 61, 65, 319–20 gender 48–9, 53 receiving countries 384 regime theory 114 systems theory 88 laissez-faire politics 97–8, 368 Lamba-Nieves, D. 169 Lampert, B. 370 Lange, Dorothea, Migrant Mother 291, 292 language learning 198 Lannes, Patricia 413 Latour, B. 14 Lee, Everett 48 Lee, Rose Hum 3 Leech, N. L. 249–50 legal boundaries 23 legal rights 407 Leibfried, S. 375 Leonard, Thomas 3 Leurs, K. 243–4, 246, 248, 250, 253 Levitt, Peggy 169, 175, 252, 391, 413 LGBTQ+ family structures 334–5 LGBTQ+ rights discourse 51–2 liberal democracies 102, 383 liberal welfare model 379–81 liberalism 26, 141 Liebow, E. 217 life-course analysis 223, 235–6 life-history interviews 261–2 Light, I. 66 Lin, L. 125 Lindquist, B. 63 linear transnationalism 184, 188 link-tracing method 280–1 linkages, migration networks 91–2 ‘linked lives’ 76 liquid migration 67 lived experience of home 344–6 subjectivity of 261 lived-space 186 lived-time 187 Llewellyn, Cheryl 55 loneliness 356–7 long-term migrants, definition 208, 209 longitudinal data 213, 234–6 longitudinal research 223, 245 longitudinal whole network analysis 274 low-skilled migration 34, 37–8 Lubbers, M. J. 278 Luhmann, Niklas 152, 160 Luibhéid, Eithne 54, 331

Lutz, C. A. 291 Lynch, Bernadette 413 Mabogunji, Akin 88 MacDonald, J. S. and L. D. 62 macro-level analysis 76, 78, 87, 91, 351 Magnani, Ilaria 417 Mahler, Sarah 50 Majka, L. 366 Manalansan IV, Martin 51 marginalism 319–20 marginalization 48, 334, 370, 376, 382 Marino, S. 245 market-based welfare solutions 381 marriage migration 86, 391 marriage relations 328–30 Marrow, H. B. 126 Marshall, T. H. 376–7, 383 Marx, Karl 15, 259 Marxism 2 masculinization of deportation 332 Massey, D. S. 61, 89, 126, 129, 280 material culture, home 345 Mathews, G. 217 Matute, I. D. 300 Mau, S. 313 Mayblin, Lucy 51, 53 Mazzucato, V. 250, 251–2 MDP see Migration Data Portal Melander, C. 331 membership status strategies 161–2 memory 187, 346 memory institutions 417, 419 Merkel, Angela 105 meso-level analysis 61–2, 87, 351 meso-level data 238–9 methodological nationalism 6, 42, 158, 184 methodology-methods distinction 248 Mezzadra, S. 115 micro-scale analysis 76, 78, 87, 89 migrant associations 363–77 migrant communities 143–5, 262, 363–77 migrant incorporation 28, 122, 124–5 migrant organizations 187, 364, 368, 369–72 migrant social networks 64 ‘migrant transfers’ 170 migrants classifications 26 recategorizations 34 refugee distinction 39–40 survey definitions 228–30 migration definitions 7–8, 28, 208 as interactive process 7 mobility distinctions 7, 76

Index  431 structural factors 15, 20 survey definitions 228–30 migration and border regimes 109, 115 migration categories 34–45, 114, 379 migration chains 60–73, 76 migration control contemporary policies 99–100 as dissuasion 101 gender/sexuality 54 regime theory 113 visa requirements 308, 312 migration corridors 91–2 migration crisis, 2015–2016 34, 39, 101–3, 248–9 migration data 206–14, 230–4 critical analyses 208–11 destination patterns 92 multi-sited surveys 230–4 Migration Data Portal (MDP) 247 migration–development nexus 369–70, 372 migration drivers labor market 319 networks as 352–4 voluntariness 40 migration flows 208–10 ‘migration industry’ 312 migration–integration nexus 99 migration museums 414–17 migration networks 60–73, 91–2, 354–5 migration policies 96–108, 112–13 migration regimes 8, 24, 47, 109–21 migration stock data 208–10 migration systems 2, 7, 86–95 migration systems theory (MST) 92 migration theory 92 migration transitions 74–85 migration–welfare nexus 380 Miller, Herbert A. 3, 312 missionaries 390, 391 Mitchell, W. J. T. 293 mixed method research (MMR) 230, 249–52 mixed-migration 40 mixed-motivation migration 40 mixed-parentage children 199–200 mixed-status families 333 Mjelva, M. B. 238 MMR see mixed method research mobile methods, migration studies 244, 245–7 mobility 12–22 analytical value 17–20 control relationship 117 emotions as outcomes 262 feedback mechanisms 90 framing 18–19 migration distinctions 7, 76 social boundary-crossing 8

subjectivity of 261 use of term 12–13 model cases’ 2 Model, S. 125 modern society concept 160 modernity/modernization 15–17, 51, 77 modes of incorporation 122–5, 133–42, 194 Mollenkopf, John 136 monetary remittances 167, 168–9, 171, 175 monopolization of boundaries 25 Moore, N. 290 Mor Barak, M. E. 324 Morokvasic, Mirjana 52 Morton, Stephen 417 Moskal, M. 293–4 Moulier-Boutang, Yann 117 Mouw, T. 280 movement mobility relationship 14, 17 in modernity 15 in space 17 movers and non-movers community 303–4 decision-making 300, 303 dependency perspective 301 MSE see multi-sited ethnography MST see migration systems theory Muehlebach, A. K. 334 Mullan, B. 366 multi-sited ethnography (MSE) 224, 245 multi-sited surveys 227, 230–4, 237 multicultural societies 145 multiculturalism 134, 138–41, 371 museums 411–22 Muslim migrants 389–91, 393, 395 mutual-aid networks 366 mutual trust principle 110, 113 name-generator questions 275, 278–9 name-interpreter questions 275, 277–8 nanny–child relationship 334 ‘narrative circularity’ 265 nation-building 80, 308, 412, 414 nation states 7–8, 24, 51–2, 412 container view 159–60 inclusion/exclusion 157–9, 162 network analysis 273 visas 308 welfare mechanisms 378, 383 national-level survey data 239 national-origin quota systems 98, 105 nationalism 103–4, 182–3, 412 ‘naturalistic’ ethnography 220, 222 naturalization 23 Nee, V. 138

432  Research handbook on the sociology of migration ‘negative cumulative migration’ 69 Neilson, B. 115 NELM see new economics of labor migration theory neoclassical economics 61, 352 nested contexts of reception 128–9 net migration calculation, UN data 210 network analysis 272–84, 351 network externalities 69 Network Sampling with Memory (NSM) 281 network saturation approach 66 network structures 354–8 network theory 65, 353, 358 networks 28, 63, 352–4 see also migration networks; social networks Neumayer, E. 313 neutrality of photography 291 new economic sociology 323 new economics of labor migration theory (NELM) 61, 64, 321 new mobilities paradigm 14, 16–18, 19–20 new museology 411–14 Nguyen, D. 248–9 Nightingale, Eithne 417 Nippert-Eng, C. 221 Nolin, C. L. 300 non-participant observation 218 non-probabilistic methods 233 non-vulnerable migrant category 40–2 normative acceptance, diversity 150–1 ‘normative consensus’ 378 normative pressure, migration networks 69 NSM see Network Sampling with Memory objectivity 259, 265, 291 observation methods 215, 217–18, 220–1, 224 OECD migration data 210–11 OECD visa policy 309–10 Oishi, Nana, Women in Motion 53 Oliveira, G. 331 online methodologies 244–52 Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 249–50 opportunities, definition 357 oral history 418 organizational practices diversity 145, 149 inclusion dynamics 163 religious migrants 393–4 organizational theory 368 otherness–difference distinction 140 out-migration survey data 230–1 panel surveys 234–5, 240 parental deportation 332 Park, Robert Ezra 3–4, 15–16, 134–5

Parreñas, R. S. 263 Parreñas, Salazar 330 Parsons, Talcott 88, 151, 384 participant observation 215, 217–18, 220–1 participant–researcher relationship 264–5 participatory photography 290, 293 passports 308 personal network method 275–9, 281 personal relationships 351–62 personal remittances 169–70 Pesando, L. 243 Pessar, Patricia 50 photo-documentary 289–90, 293 photo-elicitation 289–90, 293 photography 285, 286, 288–90, 291–4 physical activity 400–10 physical mobility 14 Picozza, F. 119 Pierson, P. 375 ‘piggybacking’ technique 223, 224 Piore, Michael 323 Poeschel, F. 38 Přívara, J. 175 policy analysis 98 policy intervention 81–2 see also government intervention political borders/boundaries 23–5 political choices–migration data relationship 211 political claims 139 political function, states 161 political opportunity structures 368–9 political participation, communities 366 politicization of migration 96–108 of religion 391, 395 polysemy 288, 291 Ponzanesi, S. 244 Poole, D. A. 295 pooled resources 303 ‘population of foreign origin’ 212 populist politics 103–4, 149 Portes, Alejandro 122–5, 128, 135–6, 321 postcolonial studies 51 postcolonial migration 46–8 power relations, migrant categories 43 Prabhakar, M. 243–4, 246, 248, 250, 253 practice approach 310–11, 312 prejudice 146 prevalence rate measurement 353–4 Prieto-Blanco, P. 294 primary sampling units (PSUs) 233–4 prospective survey design 234 Prosser, B. 258, 263, 268 PSUs see primary sampling units psychological approaches 146–7

Index  433 public museums 412 Push-Pull survey 229, 231–2 push-pull theory 48, 168 Putnam, R. D. 151, 355, 366 qualitative approaches 244–6, 250, 252–3, 292 quantitative approaches 250, 252–3, 272, 292, 313 quantitative surveys 227–42 queer studies 51–2, 54 questionnaires 228, 237–9 racial difference concept 295 racialization 41, 46–7, 51 racism 126, 342 Ramakrishnan, S. K. 199 random sampling 232–3 ‘Rashomonic team approach’ 223, 224 Rass, Christoph 112 Ratha, Dilip 169, 173 Ravenstein, Ernst Georg 4, 80, 319 Ravenstein’s laws 80 Recchi, E. 310, 313 receiving contexts 122–32, 136 diversity 143–4 inclusion/exclusion 157–8 labor migration 384 religion 393 redistribution of resources 377 reflexivity 42, 263–4, 265 refugee camps 109–12, 343, 405 Refugee Convention, 1951 39, 50, 56 refugee crises 109, 249, 405–6 refugees gender 49 housing rights 343 migrant distinction 39–40 policy restrictions 81 regime definitions 112 use of term 109 regime theory 113–14, 116, 117 regular–irregular migration distinction 35 regulatory linkages 91–2 Reinke, J. 170 relational approaches 146–7, 150, 246, 351 relational assimilation 138 relational linkages 91–2 relational structures 352–4 relationships, definition 148 relative deprivation theory 62 relative social closure 383 religion 126, 188, 357–8, 387–99 religious institutions 387, 394 remittance houses 346

remittances 167–80 child citizens 333 dependency perspective 301–3 diaspora 183 digital 243 relative deprivation theory 62 survey data collection 239 renationalized social citizenship 383 rental accommodation 342 research ethics 289–90, 293–4 research questions 219 research site 219 research subjects 219 researcher–participant relationship 264–5 residence criterion, surveys 229 resource-dependent transnationalism 184–5, 188 retrospective accounts 219 retrospective data collection 235–7 return migration 60, 74–5, 78–80, 230–1 reverse remittances 168, 174, 176 Rhodes, Lauren Monsein 413 Ribeiro, J. 38 ‘Right to Rent’ measure 342 risks identification 309, 310, 311 Rockefeller, John D. 3 Rodriguez, L. 292 Rose, G. 286–7, 291, 295 Ross, Edward A. 3 Rostow, W. W. 83 Rouse, R. 300 Ruhs, M. 38 Rumbaut, Rubén 125, 135–6, 198 rural–urban migration 77, 90–1, 319 Russia 5 Ryan, L. 246, 261–2, 263–4, 277, 355 Sage, L. 275 Saldaña, J. 267 sampling methods 227, 232–4, 235, 273, 280 Santagati, M. 198 SAOMs see stochastic actor-oriented models Sassen, S. 321 Saudi Abrabia 5–6 Scandinavian welfare model 379–80, 382–3 Schengen area 99, 110–11, 115, 118, 308–9, 311 Schiller, Nina Glick, Nations Unbound 184 Schneider, J. 194 Schoumaker, B. 236 Sciortino, Giuseppe 68, 89, 139, 151, 311 ‘Between Phantoms and Necessary Evils’ 114 ‘continuous repair work’ 116 seasonal migrants 228 second-generation immigrants 192–204, 212, 229, 277, 395

434  Research handbook on the sociology of migration secrecy 313–14 securitization 104 segmented assimilation 124–5, 135–7, 194 segmented labor market 320, 323 Sekula, A. 291 selection bias 233 selective assimilation 124, 135–6 self-categorization theories 146 semantic content analysis 249 ‘semi-sovereign’ welfare state 375 semiology 287, 288, 292 ‘sentient resources’ 262 sequences of migration 74–85 sexuality 51, 53–4 Sheller, Mimi 15 Shmulyar Gréen, O. 330 Shore, Lynn 324 signified concept 288, 293, 296 signifier concept 288, 293, 296 similarity attraction paradigm 146 Simmel, G. 15, 285 Sîrbu, A. 247 Sirkeci, I. 175 skilled migration 37–8, 43, 322, 382 skills partnerships 37 skills requirement, labor market 37 Skocpol, Theda 96 Skrbiš, Z. 260 Slaven, M. 36 smartphones 19, 245–6 Smith, Robert 223, 404 Smith, S. 274 SNA see social network analysis Snel, E. 68 sociability 221, 351–62 social boundaries 7–8, 26–7, 28–9 social capital 62–4, 65, 276–7, 355, 404 social circle 238–9 social cohesion 375, 377–8, 382–3, 401 social diversity 148, 149 ‘social dumping’ 376 social exclusion 159–63, 403–4 social identity perspective 146 social inclusion/exclusion 159–63, 403–4 social inequalities 262–3, 279 social institutions 187–8 social investment 382–3 social justice 377 social learning feedback mechanisms 69 social media analysis 293 social membership 377 social mobility 8, 13 social network analysis (SNA) 244, 246, 249–51 social networks 63, 90, 238–9, 251–2, 272, 321 social obligation criterion, surveys 229

social order–integration relationship 384 social remittances 167, 168–9, 171, 175, 370 social rights 377, 378 social spheres 300–6 social support studies 278–9 social surveys 227–42 social systems 88–9, 160–2, 216 social systems theory 160, 162–3 social ties 62, 63, 65, 68 socialization 383 society concept 157 ‘socio-tropic’ attitudes 147 sociocentric networks 273–5, 276, 280 ‘sociological inquiry’ 324 sociology of the senses 285 subfields 2–4, 6–7 soft skills 38 Soja, Edward 182 Spaaij, R. 405–6 space diaspora identities 186–7 diversity 144 embassies/visas 307 house as foundation of 340, 344 migration evolving through 74–5, 79–82 movement in 17 spatial dimensions 14–15 spatial segregation 342 ‘spatial turn’ 75, 82 spatiality of migration 75 Spencer, Herbert 87, 152 Spivak, Gayatri 259 sport 400–10 squats 343 Stark, Oded 167 state-centric inclusion/exclusion 157–9, 160–2 ‘state-ness’ 308 statistical analyses 206–14 Steiglitz, Alfred, The Steerage 291, 296 Stephen, L. 300 Stepick, A. and C. D. 128 stochastic actor-oriented models (SAOMs) 274 ‘stocks’, official data 208–10 storytelling 416–17 strategy element, systems 88 strong ties 65, 276, 278 Strozza, S. 206, 212 structural perspectives 15, 20 boundary making 28 diversity 147–8 exclusion/inclusion 29 labor market 321 migration studies 61 structuration thesis 66

Index  435 structure-agency dichotomy 61 student migrant status 81 subjectivity 261, 265, 267 super-diversity 143–55, 188 surface-level diversity 145–6 surveillance 18–19, 245, 248 surveys 227–42, 276, 357 Sutherland, Claire 414 Svensson, Ted 417–18 symbolic attachment 181, 183 symbolic boundaries 26–7, 28–9 system dynamics 87, 89 system elements 87–8 systems boundary conditions 87 definitions 88–9 use of term 87 systems theory 87–9, 91 see also social systems theory Tabar, Paul 183, 189 Taddy, M. 252–3 tangible linkages 92 Taras, Raymond 139 target population, emotions approach 264 technology, mobilities frame 18–19 temporal changes 128, 355–7 temporalities housing 344–6 welfare states 378 see also time periods temporary migration 102 tenure status 341–2 territory, borders delineating 25 ‘thick big data’ 250 third-generation immigrants 196 third party relationships 357 Thomas, W. I. 3–4 The Polish Peasant 3, 133, 221–2, 224, 260 Thomson, Alistair 417 ‘three-D’ jobs 323 Tillie, J. 366 Tilly, Charles 28, 149 Timans, R. 250 time, migration evolving through 74, 79–82 time periods comparative research across 127 survey data 234–7 see also temporalities Todaro, M. P. 319 Todd, J. 30 Tölölyan, Khachig 185 Torpey, J. 308 Tovey, J. 237 Toynbee, Arnold 182

trade diasporas 182, 188 trade theory 320 trajectory ethnography 245–7 transaction costs 168, 169, 320 transitivity 278 transnational experiences diaspora 186 diversity of 143 families 260 transnational migrant organizations 369–72 transnational migration research 251 transnational mobility 16–17 transnational networks 280–1, 356 ‘transnational paradox’ 363, 371 transnational parenting 330–2 transnational partner separation 329–30 transnational sports organizations 401 transnationalism 50, 52, 134, 181–91, 321 travel, modes of 14 Trump administration 101–3 trust 63, 90, 264 Tsianos, V. 116–17 Tuccio, M. 168 Turner, Joe 51, 53 typification of immigrants 122–3 UK see United Kingdom Ukrainian migrants 5, 12–13 UN see United Nations unauthorized migration 36–7, 101, 253 see also irregular migration undocumented migration 35–7, 47, 128, 311 unemployment rates 320 Ungemah, L. 331 United Kingdom (UK), comparative research 125–6 United Nations (UN) migration data 209–10 United States (US), comparative research 125–6 upward mobility 194 urbanization 4, 82, 388–9 Urry, J. 14, 285–6 US see United States ‘usual residence’ 228 Valdez, Z. 128 van Liempt, I. 246–7 van Tubergen, F. 395 Verdi, Giuseppe 156 Vermeulen, H. 126, 171 Vertovec, S. 144, 149–50 victim diasporas 182, 186 virtual communities 245 virtual ethnography 244 virtual travel 14 Viruell-Fuentes, E. A. 262

436  Research handbook on the sociology of migration visa overstaying 311 visas 307–14 implementing 311–12 issuance rates 313 rejection rates 313 resisting 311–12 visibility of migration 243 visual economy 286, 295 visual methods 285–98 Vlachou, Maria 414 Vogt, W. A. 334 voluntariness 39–40 voluntary migration 39–40, 43 vulnerability 40–1, 49, 314 vulnerable migrants 40–2, 43, 67, 290 wage gap 323–4 Wahba, J. 168 Waldinger, Roger 136, 185 Wallerstein, I. M. 321 Walseth, K. 406 Walters, William 118 Walzer, Michael 377 Ward, C. 346 Warner, Lloyd 4 Warner, R. Stephen 394 Waters, Mary 136 weak ties 65, 276, 278 Weber, Max 2, 15, 152, 259 Wekker, Gloria 51

welfare capitalism 378–82 welfare states 24, 366, 375–86 ‘white innocence’ 51 Whitehead, Christopher 413 whole network method 273–5 Whyte, William Foote 215–16, 218 Wimmer, Andreas 28 Wirth, Louis 3 Wissink, M. 251–2 Wolff, Frank 112 women 48–50 see also gender Woon, Long Litt 137–8 work-fare policies 384 work-line approach 382 workplaces 319–27 Wouters, P. 250 xenophobia 300, 304 Yafi, E. 243 Zelinsky, W. 77–8, 81, 83 Zhou, Min 124, 135 Zijlstra, J. 246–7 Zlotnik, H. 91 Znaniecki, Florian, The Polish Peasant 3, 133, 221–2, 224, 260 Zolberg, Aristide 25, 96, 137–8, 308