Personal security and beyond
A study on how refugees in Athens who travelled via Turkey
make sense of what the next step in their migration trajectory should be
Thesis
Brussels, 10 June 2018
Leiden University
Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, The Hague Crisis and Security Management
Supervisor S. Wittendorp, MA
Second reader T.J.M. Dekkers, MSc
E.M. van Haren, MSc s1174436
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ... 3
Abstract ... 4
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Literature review ... 11
2.1. Definitions: refugee and migrant ... 11
2.2. Migration Studies ... 12
2.3. On the shoulders of giants: functionalist theories ... 13
2.4. On the shoulders of giants: historical-structural theories ... 16
2.5. Towards more human agency ... 18
2.5.1. Refugees and human agency: who are these humans? ... 19
2.5.2. Refugees and human agency: why do they flee? ... 20
2.5.3. Refugees and human agency: how to decide where (not) to go to? ... 21
2.6. Literature review summary: points of departure for this research ... 24
3. Theoretical framework ... 25
3.1. Conceptual model: an illustration of refugees’ mental sense-making process ... 25
Figure 1: Schematic representation of refugees’ sense-making process underlying personal migration decision-making and its influence on the actual migration trajectory ... 26
3.2. Translation of the model: field research in Athens ... 28
3.3. Discourse analysis: elucidating perceptions of (potential) (non-)belonging ... 29
4. Methodology ... 32
4.1. Research design ... 32
4.2. Validity and reliability ... 32
4.2.1. External validity ... 33 4.2.2. Internal validity ... 34 4.2.3. Construct validity ... 34 4.2.4. External reliability ... 34 4.2.5. Internal reliability ... 35 4.3. Data collection ... 36 4.4. Data analysis ... 37
5. Results ... 39
5.1. Part 1 of the journey: leaving the motherland ... 39
Conclusion 1/4: interviewees’ perception of their situation in their home country ... 41
5.2. Part 2 of the journey: temporarily residing in the region ... 42
5.2.1. Perception: not enough personal security in the region ... 43
5.2.2. Perception: not enough economic security in the region ... 46
5.2.3. Perception: not enough community security in the region ... 49
Conclusion 2/4: interviewees’ perception of their situation in countries in the region ... 52
5.3. Part 3 of the journey: “is this where the Olympics started?” and other disappointments ... 53
5.3.1. Greece: no single-entry to Europe, but a place where many souls stop living ... 53
5.3.2. Perception: the discrepancy between Europe as an envisioned place to settle and the experience of daily reality in Greece ... 55
5.3.3. Perception: the difficult or impossible quest for help in Greece ... 57
5.3.4. Perception: the endless Greek waiting room ... 58
5.3.5. Perception: not enough economic security in Greece ... 58
5.3.6. Perception: personal and political security predominantly implicitly present in Greece ... 60
5.3.7. Perception: both community security and insecurity in Greece ... 61
Conclusion 3/4: interviewees’ perception of their situation in Greece ... 63
5.4. The next part: does the journey continue, and where to? ... 64
Conclusion 4/4: interviewees’ perception of the continuation of their journey ... 68
6. Conclusion ... 69
6.1. Empirical findings ... 69
6.2. Theoretical implications ... 73
Figure 2: Revised schematic representation of refugees’ sense-making process underlying personal migration decision-making and its influence on the actual migration trajectory ... 75
6.3. Research limitations ... 77
6.4. Suggestions for future research ... 78
6.5. Policy implications ... 78 7. Final consideration ... 82 8. Bibliography ... 83 9. Appendix ... 90 9.1. Interview guide ... 90 9.2. Interviewees ... 92 9.3. Code tree ... 93
Acknowledgements
The author expresses her sincere gratitude to all interviewees,
helping her to travel to their bordered spaces of belonging and difference,
and Stef Wittendorp,
Abstract
This qualitative, empirical, exploratory, small-N research elucidates how refugees in Athens who travelled via Turkey make sense of what the next step in their migration trajectory should be, both during the period before they entered Greece and during their stay there. Little is known about refugees’ sense-making process underlying migration decision-making, while the numbers of forcibly displaced persons are historically high. A detailed close-reading of the transcripts of interviews with nineteen refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and Bangladesh shows that the perceptions the interviewees have of their then-current situation (in their home country, in a country ‘in the region’ and in Greece) are strong motivational forces to start and to continue the migration trajectory. These perceptions, which discursively lead to ‘bordered spaces of difference’, contrast to elements such as positive memories and ideas about how to continue their lives, which constitute ‘bordered spaces of belonging’. The nature of the ‘push’ changes in the interviewees’ narratives; en route, a shift is visible from predominantly personal and political security concerns, to concerns which are more related to economic and community security. The results of this study serve as paths for further research on refugees’ sense-making process underlying their migration trajectory, and give those who are often objectified in Western discourses a voice – in general, and in the debate about shelter in the region versus in Europe more specifically.
“The ear of the leader must ring with the voices of the people.”
Woodrow Wilson (1890)
1. Introduction
More people than ever are forcibly displaced. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), persecution, conflict, violence and/or human rights violations forced 65.6
million people to find a safer place elsewhere.1 This number of forcibly displaced people has
increased significantly. Compared to 1997, this number has almost doubled: from 33.9 million people in 1997 to 65.6 million people by the end of 2016 (UNHCR, 2017b:5). Also the global refugee population, people who flee persecution and/or conflict, has never reached the current number: 22.5 million people by the end of 2016 (UNHCR, 2017b:13). In June 2018, approximately
5.6 million people of the global refugee population are from Syrian origin.2 While many countries
host refugees, the number of refugees vary greatly per country. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan hosted together a population of more than 4.5 million refugees by the end of 2016 (UNCHR, 2017b:61-63). European countries all together, on the other hand, hosted half of this number (UNHCR, 2017b:14). The Netherlands provided shelter for 2.2% of the number of people hosted by Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan; by the end of 2016, 101.744 refugees lived in the Netherlands (UNHCR, 2017b:62).
‘Migration management’ at large and the European refugee crisis more specifically – denoting a specific part of the global refugee crisis, namely the period from 2015 onwards when the number of refugees and economic migrants entering Europe increased significantly – are high on the European and national political agendas. Also in the media and on social media a lot of attention is paid to these topics. Moreover, much discussion exists on the choice of ‘providing shelter in the region’ (with Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan as main hosts there) versus letting people
1 The numbers in this paragraph are (with one exception) statistics for 2016. The UNHCR will present statistics for
2017 in the Global Trends Report in the second half of June 2018.
2 UNHCR (2017c), ‘Syria Regional Refugee Response: Inter-agency Information Sharing Portal’,
migrate to and integrate in European countries.3 Instead of a more dialogue-oriented approach, media, politicians and policymakers seem to speak primarily about refugees, and not so much with them. Refugees, often referred to in written and spoken words, or in numbers and percentages as in the first paragraph, frequently seem to be objectified in the European discourse. The considerations to seek shelter in the region or to move to Europe, and the accompanying process of migration decision-making, is hardly ever elucidated by refugees themselves.
Not only the discourse on refugees (re)produced by European media, politicians and policymakers frequently seems to be one-sided; the same seems to be true for publications in the academic world. Moreover, when scholars are interested in a refugee perspective, the majority of them still favour statistical, large-N studies. As Hagen-Zanker and Mallett (2016) point out, those larger statistical studies give some insight in the process of migration decision-making, but are “unable to shed much light on the highly personalised and intimate process of human decision-making underlying migration flows” (2016:6). Consequently, these authors propose a more qualitative approach in order to study the complex process of migration decision-making – an approach which is also the foundation for this research.
Some important steps in order to learn more about migration decision-making on an individual level are taken by Hagen-Zanker and Mallett (2016) themselves in this respect. They add to the academic knowledge gap by their own qualitative study with 52 people who have been granted asylum, asylum seekers and economic migrants who currently live in Berlin, London, Madrid and Manchester. Based on analyses of in-depth interviews with these people, Hagen-Zanker and Mallet (2016) conclude that migration trajectories are mainly influenced by perceptions of ‘welcoming-ness’, labour market opportunities and access to education – and, other than many European countries think, less by specific migration policies (2016:39-40). Their study is interesting, but may be affected by a bias. The authors selected respondents who had already made it to European cities which are not ‘arrival cities’ such as Athens, by which their sample is
maybe not representative for the entire refugees and asylum seekers population4 recently arrived
in Europe – something which the authors, however, do imply. Consequently, their interviewees
3 For a simplified overview of what Dutch political parties think about this question, see Algemeen Dagblad (2017,
15 September), ‘Immigratie: Hoe wil de partij vluchtelingen opvangen?’, https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/immigratie-hoe-wil-de-partij-vluchtelingen-opvangen~a806edc2/ (visited on 2 October 2017).
4 In the rest of this research, asylum seekers who are likely to fall within the scope of the definition of ‘refugee’ as
mentioned in the revised 1951 Refugee Convention (see next chapter), are also included in the category of ‘refugees’ and in the ‘global refugee population’.
can have a different perception of Europe and living there than people who crossed the EU’s external border but who are still near that border. Therefore, in order to learn more about the perceptions identified as important by Hagen-Zanker and Mallet (2016) in particular and the process of migration decision-making at large, it is imperative to conduct extra qualitative research which embraces the larger variety of the refugee population. This complementary research should focus on those people who are in Europe as well, but who are still close to the EU’s external border, and who previously crossed one of the countries ‘in the region’ where they – at least theoretically – could have stayed as well.
A good example of such an European country is Greece, a country which has always played a special role in the European refugee crisis. For many refugees, Greece is “the gateway to the EU”; in 2015 only, more than 856.000 refugees and migrants entered this country (and therefore
the EU) by boat.5 The majority of this number moved to other European countries. However, using
Greece as relatively easy gateway to the EU belongs to the past now; in March 2016, the ‘Balkan route’ was closed. Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia – countries situated between Greece and other European countries many refugees aim to go to – closed their borders. Consequently, many refugees have been ‘locked up’ in Greece since then. Or, as the Washington Post framed the
situation: “Greece was once the fast lane to Europe for refugees. Now it’s a grim waiting room.”6
This poignant situation makes that refugees currently living in arrival cities such as Athens are interesting to study: they are in Europe now, a continent which they perceived in a certain way in the past, while they are in a specific part of Europe now where many did not aim to go to in order to actually settle there. This substantial part of the refugee population should not be overlooked when studying the refugee population currently living in Europe – certainly not in studies which explore the migration decision-making process. The primary aim of this research is to fill this void, while echoing the necessity to learn more about the complex process of migration decision making in a qualitative way.
5 UNHCR | United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2016), ‘UNHCR chief says Greece needs EU help to
manage its refugee crisis’, http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2016/8/57bdcb144/unhcr-chief-says-greece-needs-eu-help-manage-its-refugee-crisis.html?query=greece (visited on 17 October 2017).
6 Booth, William (2016, 7 July), ‘Greece was once the fast lane to Europe for refugees. Now it’s a grim waiting
room’, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/greece-was-once-the-fast-lane-to-europe-
Two rationales exist behind this stance. First, the group of refugees waiting and willing to move further to other European countries is large. In Greece, for example, 48.662 people were
stranded in November 2017.7 This number includes both refugees and migrants, but one can
assume that (at least) 40 percent of this group could be classified as a refugee.8 In the same month,
only 119 people were relocated from Greece to other EU member states.9 Not including the large
group of refugees waiting and willing to move further to other European countries in studies on refugees in Europe and their personal migration decision-making process, means certainly not having a good sample of the refugee population currently residing in Europe. Second, and even more importantly, many of exactly this group are still in the process of migration decision-making. Interviewing only people who have, maybe after waiting some time in Greece, settled in London for example, can only reflect retrospectively on their decision-making process, and the perceptions they had back then. Including the refugee population in European countries near the EU’s external border sheds more light on the actual process of migration decision-making and accompanying perceptions.
This research focuses on the following research question: how do refugees in Athens who
travelled via Turkey make sense of what the next step in their migration trajectory should be, both during the period before they entered Greece and during their stay there? The analysis is based
on interviews with nineteen refugees conducted in Athens in the summer of 2017 at Victoria Square, which is known as a central meeting point for migrants, and in Eleonas Refugee Camp. Since all of them travelled via Turkey, while a number of them also spent some time in other countries in the region, all the interviewees could, at least theoretically, have stayed ‘in the region’. The interviewees are from four different countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and Bangladesh. The majority of them, however, are of Syrian or Afghan origin; seven of the nineteen interviewees come from Syria, and another seven come from Afghanistan. The interview transcripts are analysed by discourse analysis, and more precisely by predicate analysis. This type of analysis highlights verbs, adverbs and adjectives which come along with nouns (Milliken, 1999:232); a
7 UNHCR | United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2017a), ‘FACT SHEET: Greece, 1-30 November
2017’, retrieved from: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/61158.pdf (visited on 15 April 2018).
8 In 2017, 41,4% of all applicants in Europe were granted refugee status, and 4,6% received subsidiary protection.
AIDA | Asylum Information Database (2018), ‘Statistics Greece’
http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/greece/statistics (visited on 15 April 2018).
9 UNHCR | United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2017a), ‘FACT SHEET: Greece, 1-30 November
closer examination of those ‘predications’ is beneficial in this study for explaining in more detail how certain perceptions and expectations are constructed.
Answering this research question has both academic and societal relevance. For both types of relevance, speaking with (instead of merely about) refugees plays a central role. Academically seen, this research will contribute to gaining more insight in the complex process of migration decision-making. Much is still to be discovered in this particular sub-field of Migration Studies – especially now, in times when more people than ever are forcibly displaced. Moreover, this research adds to the less audible but highly valuable voices of scholars in Migration Studies who try to counter the still relatively dominant points of view in this field that tend to be very rational and which are not helpful understanding the micro-, personal, human processes in the migration trajectory. Exactly those rational points of view and large-N studies contribute even more to the process of objectifying migrants; applying a subjective, small-N approach is in itself (and can lead to) a healthy and necessary counter-narrative within Migration Studies. Furthermore, this research has societal relevance as well. Moreover, when learning more about refugees’ perceptions, the EU and national governments may conclude that they should reconsider some of their strategies concerning dealing with migration. Additionally, the results of this research can be a productive response towards European media, politicians and policymakers who illuminate the debate on the European refugee crisis merely from an European and therefore non-refugee perspective (and not to mention the ‘ordinary citizen’ who may discuss the refugee crisis on social media where nuances frequently get lost as well). While hearing those who are silent and silenced should be a good enough reason on its own, this is especially needed when being heard may influence if and how you can find shelter. As Zimmermann aptly writes: refugees’ voices in debates are absent, “despite the relevance and impact that debates can have upon their lives, or upon their likelihood of receiving protection” (2011:46).
In order to answer the research question, a Literature review is provided first. This Literature review pays attention to the main theories in Migration Studies, and to the sub-field focusing on the role of human agency and perceptions in the migration decision-making process. At the end of the Literature review, points of departure are formulated for this research. Subsequently, the Theoretical framework shows how these points of departure are used in this research, and explains the theoretical claims underlying the field of Discourse Studies. Next, the Methodology chapter pays attention to the chosen research design, to the validity and the reliability
of this research, and to the collection and analysis of the data. This is followed by the Results chapter, which presents the results in relation to different stages in the migration trajectory: (1) leaving the motherland, (2) temporarily residing in countries in the region, (3) residing in Greece, and (4) possibly moving to other destinations. Moreover, four provisional conclusions are given in this chapter. These conclusions are the foundation for the Conclusion chapter. This chapter presents the main findings, and reflects on theoretical implications and on the limitations of this research. Furthermore, this chapter makes suggestions for future research and reflects on possible implications for policymakers.
2. Literature review
This Literature review first clarifies the definitions of ‘refugee’ and ‘migrant’. Subsequently, it pays attention to the field of Migration Studies. This field is characterized by two main approaches, in which different perspectives on the migratory process are applied: functionalist theories on the one hand, and historical-structural theories on the other. Both perspectives are explained, in order to illuminate where this research builds upon, and to shed light on the gap which exists in understanding the micro-level and the more personal dimension of international migration by refugees. Next, this chapter pays attention to the relatively small sub-field of Migration Studies which focuses on the role of human agency and perceptions in the migratory process. The chapter concludes with a short literature review summary, formulated the points of departure for this research.
2.1. Definitions: refugee and migrant
The United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted in 1951 (and is also known as the 1951 Geneva Convention or the 1951 Refugee Convention). It is still the main international instrument of refugee law; it defines who a refugee is, and what the countries who have ratified the Convention should do for this person. Initially, the Convention was only related to protecting refugees with primarily a European background after World War II. This changed one decade later with the 1967 Protocol. This Protocol changed the scope of the 1951 Refugee
Convention, by which it became related to worldwide displacement.10 In Article 1 of the
Convention, a definition of the term refugee is given, which reads as follows:
“A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion” (UNHCR, 2010:3).
Theoretically, little discussion exists regarding this definition of refugees; many scholars adopt the definition as listed above.
10 UNHCR | United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2017d), ‘What is a refugee?’,
However, many scholars differ from the UNHCR in their conception of ‘migrant’. According to the UNHCR, refugees and migrants are two distinct rather than overlapping categories: “Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives (…). Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face
no such impediment to return.”11 In the academic world, ‘migrant’ is frequently used as an
umbrella term; a refugee is a migrant, but a migrant not necessarily a refugee. This conception within academia of who a migrant is, resembles the definition given by the International Organization for Migration (IOM):
A migrant is “any person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of (1) the person’s legal status; (2) whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary; (3) what the causes for
the movement are; or (4) what the length of the stay is.”12
In accordance with most scholars, ‘migrant’ in this research refers to the broader conception as formulated by IOM, while ‘refugee’ refers to the UNHCR’s notion.
2.2. Migration Studies
Migrants – hence including refugees – are studied in the interdisciplinary field of Migration Studies, a field of study which spreads across many other areas of expertise such as sociology, history, geography, cultural studies and political science (Castles et al. 2014:27). Within the domain of Migration Studies, no integrated theory on the process of international migration exists; it is “rather a set of partial theories and models that have been developed from different disciplinary viewpoints” (Eurostat, 2000:3), each with different units of analysis.
An important concept in Migration Studies is the migratory process, the process referring to the multitude of factors and interactions resulting in migration and affecting the route taken by migrants (Castles et al. 2014:27). The migratory process can be studied from a variety of
11 UNHCR | United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2016), ‘UNHCR viewpoint: ‘Refugee’ or ‘migrant’ –
Which is right?’, http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2016/7/55df0e556/unhcr-viewpoint-refugee-migrant-right.html (visited on 6 April 2018).
12 IOM | International Organization for Migration (2018), ‘Who is a migrant?’,
viewpoints. The field of Migration Studies is characterized by two main approaches, in which different perspectives on the migratory process are applied: functionalist theories on the one hand, and historical-structural theories on the other. First, in order to better understand the field of Migration Studies and to know where this research builds upon, this chapter pays attention to functionalist and historical-structural theories. From a functionalist perspective on migration, one sees migration “as a positive phenomenon serving the interests of most people and contributing to greater equality within and between societies” (2014:27). Seen from a historical-structural perspective, this is not the case: a better equilibrium is not achieved by migration. Migration rather increases disequilibria according to the historical-structural perspective (Castles et al., 2014:28).
These two sets of theories are not complementary most of the time, but one could pick the ‘best of both worlds’: being aware of economic, environmental and demographic factors which may motivate people to migrate (functionalist theories), and simultaneously taking into account economic-political structures which may fuel migration (historical-structural theories). However, both types of theories, also if one combines these perspectives, do not grasp the multi-dimensional character of international migration. Both pay too little attention to human agency, which is “the
property or capacity of actors to make things happen”.13 Although the lives of individuals are
determined by economic, environmental and demographic factors, and already existing economic-political structures, people still have this property or capacity to decide on many things and to act accordingly. After describing the two dominant approaches formed by functionalist and historical-structural theories, this Literature review addresses relatively newer ideas which have arisen since the 1980s and which are still overshadowed nowadays: the acknowledgment of the importance of human agency and perception. More particularly, it pays attention to the notions of discursively produced ‘bordered spaces of belonging’ and ‘bordered spaces of difference’, which are highly useful in better understanding the migratory process on a micro-level.
2.3. On the shoulders of giants: functionalist theories
The earliest steps in Migration Studies are situated within the functionalist domain, and were taken by Ravenstein at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1885, Ravenstein describes the ‘laws of migration’: eleven laws (although ‘hypotheses’ would be more adequate), based on census data of
13 Encyclopædia Britannica (2017), ‘Agency’, www.britannica.com/topic/agency-political-theory (visited on 27
Great Britain. By these laws Ravenstein addresses the dynamics of the migratory process. His first law, for example, is that migrants tend to move only a relatively short distance. His second law describes that people tend to move to a rapidly growing town nearby, and that the places they lived before are ‘taken’ by people living further away; people move to or closer to big towns. This process continues as long as the growing town is attractive enough (1885:198). Ravenstein thus pointed to the idea of the relative ‘attractiveness’ of a place in relation to people’s movements.
Another influential scholar in early functionalist Migration Studies is Lee, who built upon Ravenstein’s efforts. Lee gives insight in that specific power of attractiveness, and discusses the other factors relevant in the migration decision-making progress. He states that all factors which influence this process can be summarised in four headings: (1) factors associated with the area of origin, (2) factors associated with the area of destination, (3) intervening obstacles, and (4) interpersonal factors (1966, 49-50). The factors mentioned under the first and second heading can be positive or negative. As Lee describes: “In every area there are countless factors which act to hold people within the area or attract people to it, and there are others which tend to repel them” (1966:50). This “set of +’s and –’s at both origin and destination is differently defined for every migrant or prospective migrant” (ibid.); while one person regards something as positive, it may be a disadvantage according to someone else. With this attention for individual perspectives and accompanying preferences, Lee thus analyses the pluses and minuses predominantly from a micro perspective. Other scholars emphasise, more than Lee does, that these pluses and minuses can be analysed from a meso or macro perspective as well (e.g. poverty, a minus, affects the
region/country).14 The process of migration is, however, not the sum of plusses and minuses,
regardless of the chosen unit of analysis. Lee stresses for example that some natural inertia must be overcome, that the decision to migrate is not a purely rational one, and that not every migrant has taken this decision him- or herself (1966:50). Moreover, intervening obstacles exist according to Lee, such as distance or a physical barrier – and it varies per person how ‘unbeatable’ these obstacles are. Furthermore, in addition to factors associated with the area of origin and those with the area of destination and intervening obstacles, Lee states that personal factors play a role in the migration decision-making process. As he explains: “Some of these are more or less constant throughout the life of the individual, while others are associated with stages in the life cycle and in particular with the sharp breaks that denote passage from one stage to another” (1966:51).
Although Lee (1966) did not mention his conception of the migration decision-making progress as such, he developed the first ‘push-pull model’ in Migration Studies. These push-pull models play an important role within functionalist migration theories (Castles et al., 2014). These models define economic, environmental and demographic factors which may motivate people to move from the place where they currently live, such as the lack of economic opportunities (push). Moreover, these models define factors which may motivate people to move to destination places, for example more economic opportunities (pull).
According to Castles et al. (2014), these push-pull models are insightful at first sight, as these push-pull models seem to encompass all main factors influencing the process of migration decision-making. However, the authors stress that these models can be overrated, and exemplify this by quoting Skeldon (1990): “it is never entirely clear how the various factors combine together to cause population movement” (in Castles et al., 2014: 28). Furthermore, the assumption underlying these models is too deterministic; push-pull models imply that demographic, environmental and economic factors necessarily lead to migration, while these factors not always lead to migration. Moreover, migration is frequently the ‘result’ of more factors than only economic, environmental and demographic ones. Also many other factors can influence someone’s living standard, such as political, institutional and social influences. Moreover, Castles et al. state that push-pull models are not suitable enough for explaining the process of re-migration (return migration) and the phenomenon of both emigration and immigration at the same time (2014:29). However, these models can be regarded as a productive foundation for further developments in the field of Migration Studies.
In addition to the theories which take into account the existence of push and pull factors, the functionalist perspective is formed by neoclassical and human capital theories. Neoclassical migration theory builds upon the assumptions that migrants move to places where they can perform at their best and where they earn the most, and that they therefore “move from low-wage, labour-surplus regions to high-wage, labour-scare regions” (Castles et al., 2014:29). In other words, neoclassical migration theory assumes that a linear relationship exists between differences in (expected) wages and migration flows (see for example Bauer and Zimmerman, 1999, and Borjas, 2008). Nevertheless, also those scholars who identify themselves with the neoclassical way of approaching migration, state that migration is not only caused by wage differentials. Among other factors which they consider as relevant in the migration process are “positive economic conditions
in the receiving countries relative to the sending regions as measured by variables such as unemployment, wages, working conditions, social security benefits, and the structure of the economy” (Bauer and Zimmerman, 1999:20). Nevertheless, also these other factors are strongly related to wage differentials, or at least to economic conditions – while not including other factors, such as social and political influences.
Human capital theories provide a complementary approach for these neoclassical theories. Seen from a human capital perspective, migration can be regarded as an investment increasing the productivity of human capital, for example knowledge and skills. However, the migration process itself needs resources as well. As put forward by Sjaastad, the human capital perspective “places migration in a resource allocation framework because it treats migration as a means in promoting efficient resource allocation and because migration is an activity which requires resources” (1962:80). These theories are useful in elucidating why migrants mainly come from certain parts of a population and, therefore, why some ‘selectivity’ exists (Castles et al., 2014:30); not everyone benefits equally from migrating (as not everyone can, for example, increase his/her knowledge) and not everyone has the resources to migrate. Consequently, human capital theories seem to provide the neoclassical theories on migration with more nuance. Nevertheless, both types of theories suffer from the same critique: these theories assume that migrants are rational actors with perfect knowledge, and that every market is accessible for those who want access to this market (Castles et al., 2014:30-31).
2.4. On the shoulders of giants: historical-structural theories
While a functionalist perspective relates migration predominantly to voluntariness, historical-structural theories do not. According to historical-historical-structural scholars, people cannot voluntarily decide whether they should migrate or not. People simply need to move “because traditional economic structures have been undermined as a result of their incorporation into the global political-economic system and concomitant processes” (Castles et al., 2014:32). Consequently, historical-structuralists regard international migration as “a natural consequence of capitalist market formation” (Massey et al., 1993: 447). Moreover, international migration is beneficial to only a small group, other than the functionalist perspective on migration assumes; seen from a historical-structural perspective, international migration leads to even more inequality in the world. The rich become even richer, and other, non-capitalist structures are affected; “the major
international labor flows originated in the less-developed countries and went to satisfy the labor needs of the industrializing countries” (Sassen, 1988:33, italics added). This way of thinking was strongly influenced by Marxist political-economical philosophy, and especially by the dependency theory (Castles et al., 2014:32). According to the dependency theory, popular between the 1960s and 1980s, the problems of developing countries are caused by their subservient economic and political relationships to Western countries. In other words, the advanced capitalist countries had the opportunity to become (more) affluent by taking advantage of the developing world (Walt, 1998:32). The influence of this Marxist theory is clearly visible in world systems theory, one of the most well-known theories within the historical-structural perspective. According to world systems theory, migration highlights and strengthens the effects of the unequal power distribution between the advanced capitalist countries on the one hand and the developing countries on the other (Wallerstein, 2011).
Another set of theories linked to the historical-structural perspective are globalization theories. These came into being in the 1990s, and were influenced by the above mentioned dependency theory and world systems theory. Theories concerning globalization are diverse, as the phenomenon of globalization itself “is a challenging issue not only because there is hardly any agreement about what it is but also because it raises so much moral and political dispute” (Ten Bos, 2011:306). One of the major points of critique in this dispute is related to the question whether globalization is only an economic process, or an economic-political process in which states have their own agendas. Many scholars rooted in globalization theory opt for the latter. Petras and Veltmeyer, for example, state that globalization should be seen as “a political project, a desired outcome that reflects the interplay of specific socio-economic interests”, instead of a pure economic process, or “a paradigm for describing and explaining worldwide trends” (2000:32-33). In other words, this group of scholars regards the phenomenon of globalization – and, consequently, intensified cross-border flows – as a new form of imperialism which serves the interests of those states who are prosperous already. Moreover, these critical scholars see the influence of this new form of imperialism in changes in production structures and labour markets, and in an increase in social disequilibria. Above all, according to this perspective, the control and exploitation of the work force, in which migrants play a crucial role, is of utmost importance for the (future) existence of the capitalist system (Castles et al., 2014:33-35). Critics of historical-structural approaches, however, stress that migrants should not be seen as “victims of global
capitalism” (Castles et al., 2014:36); more dimensions are at play than only nowadays’ political-economic structures.
2.5. Towards more human agency
More attention to human agency in Migration Studies has arisen since the 1980s; since then, more theories have focused on topics related to the micro- and meso-level, such as the motivation behind migration, how migrants give meaning to the ‘self’ – their own understanding of themselves – during the process of migration, and how migrants perceive the world (as this research aims to do as well). Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of human agency is still not widespread in the field of Migration Studies. Moreover, it is only since the turn of the century that scholars relate human agency to refugees (and not only to economic migrants) as well. As Zimmermann, one of the most important scholars in studying the perception of migrants (including refugees) explains in relation to the process of migration decision-making: “In the past, decisions were thought to belong to voluntary, economic migrants and not to reactive refugees” (2011:46).
The shift towards (at least) some more attention to the role of human agency in the process of international migration and the accompanying topics resonate with three main assumptions which emerged since the 1980s, and which build upon and/or are an answer to conceptions of the functionalist and historical-structural perspectives. The first assumption is that migration should be seen as intrinsically connected to broader processes of development, social transformation and globalization; these processes tend to advance the process of migration, since they provide new and/or extra options and motivations to move. Second, the process of migration is related to social networks and other structures which provide feedback (such as international networks and new transnational identities, providing money and ideas to places where people originally came from). Third, migrants (despite their agency) still face real restrictions they somehow have to deal with (Castles et al., 2014:37, 51). These three assumptions create a lens through which migration can be seen as “a function of capabilities and aspirations to move within a given set of structural constraints” (Castles et al., 2014:51).
All migrants face constraints. It varies greatly, however, how stringent these constraints are (e.g. ‘first I need some extra money, and then I can move’ versus ‘I cannot move, because the border is closed’). Moreover, it varies how much agency migrants have in order to react on situations which may them want to flee (De Haas, 2009:3). Someone can feel that he or she has to
move in order to be safe, while this person does not have the possibility to do so.15 The most underprivileged do not have the resources and network connections necessary to migrate and are internally displaced persons or stay in neighbouring countries (Nyberg Sørensen et al., 2003b:290). This is often the case for refugees. Most of them are not able to move relatively far away from severe push factors such as a war or natural disasters; many refugees “remain internally displaced or move across borders to first countries of asylum within their region” (Nyberg Sørensen et al., 2003a:5). This research focuses on those refugees who were able to move beyond the neighbouring countries and arrived in Europe.
2.5.1. Refugees and human agency: who are these humans?
When looking at the composition of ‘mass flights’ to locations which are relatively closer to people’s place of origin, one sees both men and women. These refugees are from all ages, although the old and young are overrepresented in wartime (Kunz, 1973:143). As Kellij (2018) explains, many of them have had little or no education, and/or have a lower or no income. They often fled when a war and/or other forms of hardship were already happening, and stay in camps in neighbouring regions or countries. One step earlier in time, when it has become clear that there is an urge to flee, the refugee flow looks different. This flow is no mass flight, but is formed by especially smaller groups and individual refugees. Among this flow are higher- and middle-income families, who tend to have a higher or average level of education. This flow also consists of individual men from predominantly active age groups (15-50 years old).
In case of the European refugee crisis, significantly more men than women reached Europe: the individual men, and the men from the fleeing families. During their flight, many family members stayed behind in countries such as Turkey, as the risks they had to take became increasingly severe. At the same time, the men went further to Europe, hoping to reunite later with them. The families who were able to flee altogether, are found in the temporally preceding refugee flow. This first flow emerges before dangers have materialised, so on the eve of war in most cases,
15 Instead of classifying migrants into dichotomous categories of ‘forced’ and ‘voluntary’ migration, De Haas
therefore proposes to regard the process of migration as a phenomenon placed on a continuum, running from low to high constraints under which migration occurs (2009:3).
and consists of highly educated, more prosperous families who have money to leave, and who have
the information that there is a need to do so.16
2.5.2. Refugees and human agency: why do they flee?
Refugees who fled from the horrors of war and/or human rights abuse are frequently from countries with economic difficulties. Consequently, it can be hard to categorise between ‘refugees’ and ‘economic migrants’. As Nyberg Sørensen et al. (2003b) explain, a poor economic situation is a main push factor underlying much migration. Moreover, poverty “also contribute[s] to the violent conflict and human rights abuse associated with poor governance (…); it is no coincidence that conflict-ridden countries are often those with severe economic difficulties (2003b:290). Furthermore, poverty could be the final push factor when people are considering whether they should leave a political environment in which they do not feel comfortable (Schmeidl, 2001, in: Nyberg Sørensen et al., 2003a:23). In other words, the actual reason why people flee, who may be categorised either as a ‘refugee’ or as an ‘economic migrant’ at first glance, is often heterogeneous. The urge to flee from for example war, can be strengthened by other elements causing feelings of insecurity. Interesting to mention in this respect is the Human Development Report
1994, presented by the UN. In this influential report, the UN proposes to broaden and adjust the
traditional, more state-centred notion of security to a more people-orientated notion of security, called ‘human security’. This concept “stresses that people should be able to take care of themselves: all people should have the opportunity to meet their most essential needs and to earn their own living” (1994:24). This shift from the state to (also) the individual as a referent, is echoed within the field of Security Studies as well.
As the UN states in her report, which is relevant for understanding why for example a war is not necessarily the only push factor for people to migrate: feelings of insecurity can frequently stem “more from worries about daily life than from the dread of a cataclysmic world event” (1994:22). These worries about daily life – threats to human security – can be related to seven main categories contributing to human security: (1) economic security, formed by an assured basic income or a social safety net, (2) food security, denoting a situation in which someone always has
16 Kellij, N. (2018), ‘The future of EU asylum and migration policy’, presentation by the head of the Asylum and
Migration Unit of the Dutch Permanent Representation to the EU during a meeting organized by local departments of Dutch political parties, Brussels, 20 March 2018.
physical and economic access to elementary food, (3) health security, which is a minimum safeguard against diseases and unhealthy lifestyles, (4) environmental security, meaning the possibility to live in a healthy physical environment, (5) personal security, denoting the protection from physical violence as exercised by states and/or other people, (6) community security, which is security derived from being in a group, as being member of a group offers a cultural identity and also practical support, and (7) political security, denoting a situation in which basic human rights are guaranteed (2004: 24-32). While reasons related to personal security and/or political security frequently are the main reasons for people to flee, other elements undermining human security can play a role as well in the decision about whether it is necessary to leave the home country.
For those people who feel forced to flee and who are able to move a shorter or longer distance, migrating is often “the ‘least worse’ option, which may involve a real decrease in well-being and capabilities from the pre-refugee situation (De Haas, 2009:4). The great majority of refugees never wanted to leave the country, and postponed their flight as long as possible. First, abilities and/or reasons to stay in their home country – such as incomes, properties, hope and health – become increasingly fragile, as Zimmermann (2011:64) explains. When these certain abilities and/or reasons are challenged or removed, people are suddenly highly encouraged to leave” (2011:64). In other words, people do not immediately react to dangers. Conflict and other dangers and decreases in well-being force many to flee, but underlying this decision to leave lie “processes of decision-making and reflection upon circumstances, rather than straightforward reactions to overt threats” (Zimmermann, 2011:63).
2.5.3. Refugees and human agency: how to decide where (not) to go to?
When people have decided to migrate in order to escape from severe push factors – conflict, and potentially poverty as well – most of them have routes which are “multi-step acts with interruptions of important special and temporal aspects” (Kunz, 1973:126). Their routes are often not continuous, direct lines from point A to point B. When people have decided that they need to leave their place of origin, the (first) destination is ‘simply’ a neighbouring country, while “there may not be a clear plan beyond this”, according to Hagen-Zancker and Mallett (2016:17). However, although refugees may not have a clear idea about where to go to, their personal migration decision-making process is frequently led by “a certain familiarity with the destination in question” (Van Naerssen and Van der Velde, 2015:5).
Familiarity with other destinations echoes a (potential) sense of belonging. Very helpful in shedding light on this concept is the work of Antonsich (2010). He explains (not in relation to migrants specifically, but in general) that a sense of belonging includes both ‘place-belongingness’ and ‘politics of belonging’ – two different but intersecting concepts. Place-belongingness refers to a personal, intimate connection with a space where an individual can feel ‘at home’ (2010:646). Based upon an extensive literature review, Antonsich (2010) deduces five types of factors which can contribute to this place-belongingness: autobiographical, relational, cultural, economic and legal factors. First, autobiographical factors refer to memories, experiences and other ‘mental ties’ which someone can have in relation to a place. Second, relational factors deal with all interpersonal connections, varying from contact with family members to strangers in the public space; relational factors refer to a feeling of connectedness to others. Third, cultural factors refer to forms of cultural expression – among which language is the most important one here – but also to traditions and practices, including material practices such as what people eat. Fourth, economic factors refer to the possibility to create a safe and economically secure situation for yourself (and possibly for your family as well). Fifth, legal factors, referring to citizenship, residence permits and accompanying rights, highly contribute to feeling safe (2010:647-649). In addition to these five factors, Antonsich states that the length of residence contributes to place-belongingness as well (2010:648-649).
The politics of belonging refer to a discursive process in which socio-spatial inclusion and exclusion are (re)produced. Antonsich suitably quotes Probyn (1996) here, by stating that “belonging cannot be an isolated and individual affair” (2010:649). The feeling of belonging is strongly influenced by whether you are or can be part of the group, of the ‘we’ or ‘us’, instead of performatively being the ‘other’, the ‘they’ or ‘them’ (Antonisch, 2010:649-650). In addition to disentangling all elements contributing to a (potential) sense of belonging, Antonsich (2010) is helpful because he implies that some of these elements are material, and others are non-material. The economic and the legal factors can be considered material, while the politics of belonging, together with the autobiographical, the relational and (to great extent) the cultural factors, are non-material.
Since refugees’ personal migration decision-making processes are influenced by feelings of familiarity and, therefore, a potential sense of belonging which is fuelled by (the prospect of) both material and non-material elements, ideas about where to go next cannot be expressed “in
terms of physical space only” as Van der Velde and Van Naerssen (2015) write; distance is also a
mental construct (2015:269). Moreover, the spatial is integral to the social, as these authors explain
in relation to the process of migration. They helpfully elucidate the migratory process and the role of people’s perceptions in this process by referring to the notions of difference, indifference and belonging: “people move easily in and to spaces that are familiar to them and are not as interested or are simply indifferent to other types of places: ‘That what is beyond the self-defined differentiating border of comfort (difference) is socially legitimised to be neglected (indifference)’” (Van Naerssen and Van der Velde, 2015:3, quoting Van Houtum and Van Naerssen, 2002:129). Consequently, the authors stress that borders people have to cross are “both real and imagined” (2015:269). In other words, people ascribe meanings to places, influencing if they should or should not cross a (mental) border to go to these places. People thus create ‘bordered spaces of belonging’: narratives produced and reproduced by people themselves, about where they could belong. In spaces of belonging, people perceive a certain ‘nearness’ to others; “the ‘we’ in the ‘here’ and a space of comfort in which one easily moves into” (Van Houtum and Van der Velde, 2004, in: Van Naerssen and Van der Velde, 2015:4). Simultaneously, people create spaces of difference, where they do not perceive this ability to become more or less included ‘in’ that space (Van Naerssen and Van der Velde, 2015:4).
Refugees had to flee their own (and/or their parents’), ‘original’ place of belonging. New bordered spaces of belonging are influenced by ideas about where they can have “a decent chance” of realising at least some of the objectives like safety and security, income, education and healthcare (Hagen-Zancker and Mallett, 2016:17). Constructing new places of belonging in which these goals are potentially achieved is an ongoing process. As Szytniewski explains: “Feelings of (un)familiarity are (…) complex and dynamic processes, continuously changing and depending on various factors such as personal attitudes, previous experiences, available and assessed information, and physical and also mental proximity” (2015:18-19). Bordered places of belonging and difference are therefore constantly in the making, also during the migration trajectory. What happens at places where people stay (in retrospective: temporarily), for example, can be crucial for the next step of the migration trajectory; “this is when migrants meet new people, gather more information and have new experiences that may shape their future onward travel” (Hagen-Zancker and Mallett (2016:19). Moreover, not only those temporary moments of immobility, but also the entire process of being en route influences refugees’ aspirations regarding where to go next
(Schapendonk, 2015:245). In sum, as aptly put by Leung: “The route is always in the making” (2015:63), while the social (re)produces the spatial, and vice-versa.
2.6. Literature review summary: points of departure for this research
In order to understand migratory processes on a macro-level, functionalist and historical-structural theories can be very beneficial. However, both types of theories do not, even if one combines these perspectives, grasp the multi-dimensional character of international migration – especially not when one is interested in the micro-level, such as in the individual decision-making process underlying the migration trajectory. Although the lives of individuals are certainly influenced by economic, environmental and demographic factors serving as push and pull elements, and by already existing economic-political structures to which people are subjected, people still have agency, the capacity to decide and to act accordingly. Following this line of thought, migration can be seen as “a function of capabilities and aspirations to move within a given set of structural constraints” (Castles et al., 2014:51). Furthermore, while personal security and/or political security concerns frequently are the main reasons for refugees why they fled their home country, other elements undermining their human security can play a role as well in their urge to flee.
Although refugees may not have a clear idea about where to go to, both upfront and en
route, they are frequently led by “a certain familiarity with the destination in question” (Van
Naerssen and Van der Velde, 2015:5). Before and during the migration process, people ascribe meanings to places, in which the degree of perceived familiarity plays a role. In doing so, people discursively create ‘bordered spaces of belonging’ and ‘bordered spaces of difference’: narratives produced and continuously reproduced by people themselves, on potential (non-)belonging. This (potential) sense of belonging includes both ‘place-belongingness’, which is constituted by both material and non-material elements, and the non-material ‘politics of belonging’. Combining insights formulated by Antonsich (2010), Van Naerssen and Van der Velde (2015), Szytniewski (2015), and Hagen-Zancker and Mallett (2016), the following can be expected: discursively
produced, personal narratives about potential (non-)belonging, and therefore people’s perceptions regarding certain spaces (continents, countries, regions) and correspondingly the perceived material and non-material aspects related to these spaces, can influence refugees’ actual migration trajectories.
3. Theoretical framework
As elucidated in the Literature review, refugees discursively (re)produce personal narratives about (potential) belonging, which influence the migration trajectory. These narratives are shaped by people’s perceptions regarding certain spaces, and therefore include someone’s perceived material and non-material aspects he or she ascribes to these spaces. Consequently, in order to disentangle – at least to some extent – the complex sense-making process by refugees of where to go, it is necessary to take into account these personal narratives about (potential) belonging, perceptions of spaces, and the elements constituting those perceptions.
3.1. Conceptual model: an illustration of refugees’ mental sense-making process
Figure 1 (next page), included for illustrative purposes only, schematically represents the sense-making process underlying refugees’ personal migration decision-sense-making, in which (potential) belonging plays a crucial role. Furthermore, this process is placed in relation to the actual migration process. Subsequently, the figure will be discussed in more detail.
Relevant to note here is that the figure does not imply that perceptions a refugee has of certain spaces and his or her bordered spaces of belonging and difference automatically lead to the actual migration trajectory. When someone has for example, due to positively coloured perceptions, a strong preference for a certain country, this does not mean that he or she will thus end up there. Put differently, the development of the migration trajectory and the final destination can be, but are not automatically, a pure result or translation of perceptions and bordered spaces of belonging and difference; perceived and actual constraints, which can manifest in a wide variety of forms such as a closed border or no money to continue, can affect to greater or lesser extent the hope, intention and/or actual movement to go somewhere.
Figure 1: Schematic representation of refugees’ sense-making process underlying personal migration decision-making and its influence on the actual migration trajectory
(1.a) Perceived material elements
Economic and legal factors
(1.b) Perceived non-material elements
Autobiographical, relational and cultural factors, and politics of belonging
(2) Refugees’ perceptions of certain spaces (continent, country, region)
(3.a) Bordered spaces of belonging
&
(3.b) Bordered spaces of difference
Personal narratives about (potential)
(not) BELONGING
(4) Ideas about where (not) to go next
(6) Actual migration trajectory
(5) Perceived and actual constraints
The central assumption in the above presented figure is that the sense-making process, in which ideas about (potential) (non-)belonging play a crucial role, influences the actual migration trajectory. Refugees’ perceptions of certain spaces (2), which can be continents, regions, countries and/or cities, are composed of a combination of both perceived material elements (1.a) and perceived non-material elements (1.b). Material elements include the possibilities to make a living and to obtain rights such as legally staying somewhere, while non-material elements refer to memories and experiences, interpersonal connections, forms of cultural expression such as language, and the politics of social in- and exclusion. Highly relevant to underline here is that refugees perceive these elements in a certain way; the actual existence of those material and non-material elements is of secondary importance for the mental sense-making process influencing migration decision-making.
Refugees’ perceptions of certain spaces are the foundation for discursively produced, personal narratives about (potential) belonging, in which the perception of spaces becomes related to the self (and maybe someone’s family): bordered spaces of belonging (3.a) and bordered spaces of difference (3.b). Both types of spaces are not stable, but can vary over time. Moreover, both types can co-constitute each other: having reasons for (potential) belonging somewhere, simultaneously implies that feelings of non-belonging may exist in relation to a space with perceived opposite elements, and vice-versa.
Subsequently, bordered spaces of belonging and difference (3) influence the ideas about where (not) to go next (4). Most likely, people will favour the bordered spaces of belonging as ideas on where to continue living – at least theoretically. In practice, refugees can face many (and even unsurmountable) constraints to reach the actual space of that narrative, and/or other events may happen which lead someone in literally another direction (5). Exactly those constraints and events are the reason why ideas about where (not) to go next (4) can influence, but not automatically determine, the actual migration trajectory (6). The development of the migration trajectory and the final destination can be, but are not automatically, a pure result or translation of perceptions and bordered spaces of belonging and difference, due to these perceived and actual constraints (5). Moreover, although the majority of refugees somehow experience constraints during their migratory process, a number of people has no or little influence themselves on where they migrate to. Refugees and their routes can be partially or even entirely restricted by a variety of factors (e.g. a family member pays a smuggler and sends the refugee somewhere else than the
refugee him- or herself would go to, a limited amount of money decreases the number of options to flee, or a chosen route appears to be blocked). Consequently, certainly in those specific cases, the role of refugees’ perceptions of spaces and their bordered spaces of belonging and difference do not, or do not significantly, influence the actual migration process.
The actual migration trajectory (6), being en route, influences in turn the process of perceiving spaces (1 and 2) and the discursive production of bordered spaces of belonging (3). Being somewhere and experiencing new things, making memories, meeting new people, learning about other possibilities, experiencing a previously only imagined space, coping with unexpected circumstances, becoming aware of economic (im)possibilities and feeling more attached somewhere simply because of time spent there, are only some of the factors which can change someone’s perspective on certain spaces (2), on elements related to these spaces (1), and/or on how someone’s perceives these spaces related to the self (and maybe the family) in discursively produced narratives (3).
However, more feedback loops exist in the figure, all pointing to the following idea: the sense-making process underlying personal migration decision-making and its influence on the actual migration trajectory is by no means a simple, linear development, but, contrarily, an iterative course. Perceptions of certain spaces (2) not only influence bordered spaces of belonging and difference (3), but also the earlier constituted perceived material and non-material elements related to spaces (1). If someone has, for example, a very positive perception of a place (2), this positive stance may also influence how he or she continues to see specific elements of that place (1). The same is true for the influence of bordered spaces (3) on the process of perceiving spaces (1 and 2), and for the influence of ideas on where (not) to go next (4) on bordered spaces (3); certain perceptions and ideas can discursively reinforce and reproduce perceptions and ideas developed previously. Furthermore, perceived and actual constraints (5) are influenced by ideas about where (not) to go next (4) and the migration trajectory itself (6), but these constraints also affect the ideas about where (not) to go next (4) and the actual migration trajectory (6).
3.2. Translation of the model: field research in Athens
The aim of the above presented model is to illustrate the starting points of this research. Although the intention of this research is not to test this model, as this exploratory research has been designed to disentangle the refugees’ sense-making process which influences the migration trajectory of
which little is known yet, the model will be revised for future research on the basis of findings of this research. A revised version of the conceptual model will be presented in the Conclusion chapter.
For this research, refugees in Athens are interviewed. In these interviews, special attention is paid to how the interviewees perceive Europe in terms of (potential) belonging before arriving there and how they are perceiving Europe at times of the interviews. Additionally, the interviews explore how the interviewees perceived countries in the region in terms of (potential) belonging before entering Europe, and how they perceive these countries now. Furthermore, the interviewees are asked what they need in order to perceive a space as a bordered space of belonging.
3.3. Discourse analysis: elucidating perceptions of (potential) (non-)belonging
In order to disentangle perceptions and discursively (re)produced personal narratives about where someone could continue his/her life, discourse analysis is used in this research. More precisely, the method of predicate analysis is chosen here. This type of analysis highlights verbs, adverbs and adjectives which come along with nouns. Those predications “construct the thing(s) named as a particular sort of thing, with particular features and capacities” (Milliken, 1999:232, italics added). By applying predicate analysis, it becomes possible to analyse how refugees ascribe adverbs and adjectives to – and therefore construct and perceive – specific spaces related to the question of where they should (not) go to next.
Due to the prominent role given to discourse analysis in this research, the rest of this chapter will focus on this method in more detail, by elucidating the three types of theoretical claims underlying the field of Discourse Studies. The choice for this method is, however, not the only reason to reflect on discourse analysis here. Shedding light on these claims is helpful in understanding the discursively (re)produced narratives about where (not) to go next. Moreover, a clearer understanding of how discourses work points once more to both the academic and societal relevance of this research: this research can be seen as a reaction against one of the Western (both academic and societal) ‘regimes of truth’ in which refugees are frequently objectified.
As Milliken (1999) eloquently describes in his influential article The Study of Discourse in
International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods, the field of Discourse Studies is
primarily built upon three types of theoretical claims. These three claims also create a foundation for this research. First of all, discourses can be considered as “structures of signification which
