BEYOND THE CATEGORY OF “UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN”: NARRATIVES OF YOUNG AFGHANS IN TURKEY BETWEEN CHILDHOOD, VULNERABILITY,
AND AGENCY
Master Thesis in the Master Program
International Migration and Intercultural Relations (IMIB): Erasmus Mundus Master in International Migration and Social
Cohesion (MISOCO) at the University of Osnabrück
By Pelin Çakır
Supervisors:
PD Dr. Christoph Rass (University of Osnabrück) Prof. Dr. Martha Montero-Sieburth (University of Amsterdam)
Ph.D. Sonia Pereira (University of Deusto)
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...1
2. Theoretical Background and Conceptual Debates ...6
2.1. Policy-Relevancy, Categorization, Labelling ...6
2.2. Deconstructing A Category ...11
2.2.1. A Critical Approach to the Categorization of Independent Young People on the Move13 2.2.2. Construction of Policy Category: “Unaccompanied Children” ...14
2.2.3. The construct of “Childhood”...16
2.2.4. Reconstruction of “Unaccompanied Children” with Trauma, Victimhood and Vulnerability ...18
2.3. Towards a New Paradigm for Research on Young People on the Move...23
3. Methodology ...29
3.1. Life History Approach ...31
3.2. Sample and Data Collection ...32
3.3. Analysis ...36
3.4. Limitations and Self-Reflection ...37
4. A Glance at the Broader Context: the Movement of Afghan Youth ...41
4.1. Afghan Youth on the Move ...41
4.2. Afghans Movement towards Turkey ...43
5. Analysis of Narratives...49
5.1. The Narratives’ Coming into Existence ...50
5.2. The Narrators ...53
5.3. Categorization vs. Life Experience and Self-Perception ...61
5.3.1. Adversities as a Major Focus ...61
5.3.2. Finding and Loosing ‘Childhood’ ...65
5.3.3. Negotiating Agency as A Coping Strategy ...74
6. Conclusion ...80
1 1. INTRODUCTION
In February 2012 I came across to the ‘phenomenon’ that young people who move across national borders without their parents receive particular care and services for being a member of a ‘vulnerable group’, called ‘unaccompanied minors’. At the time, I was conducting volunteer work in a minors’ reception center in Rome, in which young people of different ages and various social, economic and ethnic backgrounds, could remain until reaching age eighteen. I was very curious to hear all their stories, all about their worlds, but, because of my position, I could not hear more than anecdotes. When a couple of Afghan boys implied that they would not tell about their pasts because I could get affected, I remember contemplating what kinds of stories that these young people must have, that they want to protect me, an adult, from its content. Discovering how some of these young people had an episode of their stories in Turkey, I decided to investigate the ‘phenomenon’ by delving into life stories. Eventually I started the inquiry by focusing at the category, however the predominance of focus on these young people’s vulnerability, passivity and victimhood did not sit comfortably in my mind and my memories of the minors’ shelter. They came together in my memory: when I was saying goodbye to the kids in the shelter, I could not help but cry. Seeing this, one of them approached me confidentially, told me that it was not worth wasting my tears, there was nothing too bad, that he had seen many horrible things, such as his best friend’s death in his arms, but now there is nothing worth at; I just gulped and thought how frivolous and weak I am.
Challenging the long prevailing tradition of researching migration through the experiences of (male) adults, scholars recently retrieve children’s own accounts and experiences that had been silenced, concerning how they are also active social agents, who take part in adult-like activities (Chavez & Menjívar, 2010). Indeed, subsequent to introduction of the category “unaccompanied
2
children” by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989, research primarily (and prevalently) tended to focus on the social and psychological need for the care and protection of young people who are involved in trans-border movement without parental accompaniment; embracing the (categorical) assumptions regarding their vulnerability, victimhood and dependency. However, since the process of categorization, in itself, homogenizes and oversimplifies the complex and dynamic social processes and hybrid identities into invariant structures (Collyer & De Haas, 2012); the category of “unaccompanied minor migrant”, as such, imposes an authoritative definition of a “child” (Bhabha, 2008) rooted in Western psychological and developmental frameworks (Jeffrey, 2010); disregarding possible incompatibilities with different culturally specific constructs of childhood, as well as with multifaceted experiences and identities of migrants. Nowadays, scholars who are critical of the taken-for-granted assumptions and homogenizing categorizations promote a more sensitive approach, taking into consideration the diversities, voice, and agency, and resiliency in addition to the presumed vulnerability (or victimhood) of young people; as well as the broader social, inter-relational and structural forces having role in their lives. Using this approach, as opposed to mainstream studies that assume migrant children to be passive, and often traumatized, victims of exploitation, devoid of agency, and lacking an active role in decision-making and the migration processes (Ensor, 2010), the young people are approached as “diverse social agents playing out and, shaping their own lives within the structures that surround them” (Adams, 2009). This study aims to contribute to this latter perspective by critically approaching the essentialist, homogenizing, and west-centric assumptions embedded in the category of “unaccompanied minor migrants”, through incorporating the voices of young people into the research, and thus attempting to explore their own experiences and constructs as opposed to policy-makers’ frameworks.
3
The main purpose of this research is to provide new insight into diverse, relative, shifting and authentic experiences and perspectives of young people moving across borders, by illustrating the gap between the “unaccompanied minor migrant” construct, and young migrants’ own experiences and conceptualizations. To reach this intellectual goal, I focus on the life histories of young people who have been administered within the category of “unaccompanied minor migrant”, and then analyze their experiences and perspectives in order to understand how they conceptualize (their) childhood, how and when they present themselves as vulnerable, and how they make use of their agency. The research questions are as follows:
To what extent can the assumptions embedded in the categorization of “unaccompanied minor migrant” be traced in the life histories of young people who have been placed in that category?
How do they conceptualize childhood, their experience of being a child, and the way they were/are conceptualized as “unaccompanied child”? In what ways do they construct themselves as in need of protection, or as vulnerable?
What role has their agency played in their current situation, throughout their migratory trajectory, and in negotiation with the category they were placed in?
The research is designed as a case study based on the life histories of six young Afghans who were administered as “unaccompanied minor migrants” in Turkey. For the purposes of this study, a biographical approach was chosen for its particular appeal in promoting the voice and agency of the research subjects, and for challenging group-based categorizations by highlighting the multiple position/ing of individuals (Cederberg, 2014). Moreover, the specific focus on Afghan youth in the context of Turkey enables for an opportunity to better understand their multifaceted identities, and their culturally and socially constructed, yet diverse, pespectives and
4
experiences regarding their interrelation with the social and structural forces surrounding them. Furthermore, Turkey is an under-researched case, that needs further attention, especially since it has become “a nexus of emigration, immigration and transit migration due to its geo-political significance” (İçduygu, Göker, Tokuzlu, & Paçacı Elitok, 2013). Hence, while contributing to the growing body of critical work on categorizations and policy-relevant research, as well as to narrative approaches promoting the agencies and voices, this study also aims to fill a gap regarding the scarcity of qualitative studies addressing to migrant communities in Turkey, addressed by Danış and her colleagues (2009).
In the next chapter, I will introduce the theoretical approaches questioning how the knowledge production should respond to categorizations, I will bring that debate to the categorization of “unaccompanied minor migrants”, and explore the category through a deconstructive manner. Afterwards, I will discuss different scholarly approaches to the category, including a new paradigm, which promotes a multifaceted and holistic understanding of the experiences of migrant children and youth, which also illuminates the theoretical perspective of this study. In the third chapter I present the methodology chosen for this study and introduce the research design. Next, I give a brief overview of the broader context that applies to the particular case of this study, in order to demonstrate the historical and social background of the movement of Afghan youth across borders, as well as the structural conditions that they encounter on their arrival to Turkey. In the analysis chapter, I will initially illustrate the circumstances under which the narrative interviews are conducted; then I will introduce the narratives themselves, first focusing on the life stories one-by-one, and then highlighting the main themes articulated in common. Moreover, I will contrast the perspectives and experiences elicited from the narratives with the construct of the “unaccompanied minor migrant” category, in particular, to explore the
5
incompatibilities regarding the themes of childhood, vulnerability and agency. In the last chapter I will review the aims, findings and conclusions of this study.
6 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL DEBATES
2.1. Policy-relevancy, Categorization, Labelling
Research in migration is associated with various bodies of policy-making not only through the analyses of their practices, but also regarding the way they frame certain phenomena with categories and concepts. Being concerned with providing an answer to an immediate bureaucratic problem (Castles, 2003), or appealing to the (perspective of) policy-makers with findings that could be relevant to serve and to improve distressing circumstances; academic researchers often tend to take the categories, concepts and priorities of policy makers and practitioners as their initial frame of reference for identifying their areas of study and formulating research questions (Bakewell, 2008). Some scholars criticize policy-driven research for limiting its scope only to the categories and priorities of policy that in a way overlook the population groups, causal relationships, and questions that were left out (Bakewell, 2008). According to Castles, policy-driven research can lead to both poor sociology and bad policy, since it purports a circular logic by accepting the problem definitions built into its terms of reference and leaves aside more fundamental causes, or more challenging solutions; consequently it narrows down the possible recommendations only to a range of options acceptable to the commissioning body (2003). Nevertheless, in order to influence policy-makers or to develop practical solutions to the problems identified in the field, it is not a must to seek for a policy-relevancy in research. While emphasizing the need to influence policy makers and practitioners particularly in the situations of extreme human suffering, Turton proposes to reflect critically on the taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in the categories and concepts, rather than simply confirming or legitimizing them: to make them visible and open to inspection (as cited in Bakewell, 2008).
7
Moreover, challenging the assumptions made by powerful actors serves not only to improve the problems captured through the research, but also to provide new insights and understandings to the growing body of human knowledge with a deeper and wider perspective (Bakewell, 2008).
In the policy sphere, categories are both symptoms of and instruments for operationalizing the taken-for-granted assumptions that control and regulate certain groups of people. As Bakewell (2008) explains, policy categories are utilized to identify groups of people based on assumptions of shared particular qualities, which make it reasonable to subject them to the same outcomes of policy; so that the policy can lay out how the body engaged in the subject will provide rights, resources, or services, to which people. In essence, those categories should be clear and fixed so that policies can work efficiently without interruption or confusion. If the meaning and scope of a policy category changes over time, or within the space that it has been applied and interpreted, then it is likely that the policy will collapse or will not function properly; for instance, in providing services to those who are supposed to be eligible (Bakewell, 2008). Hence, such categories are often criticized as being invariant, dichotic and oversimplifying; that is, inadequate to reflect the “fluid and multifaceted character of human mobility” (Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010a, p.2).
Traditional understandings of migration and migrants predicate on predominantly dichotomous categorisations based on time/space, location/direction, and causes; as a symptom of being politically constructed (Collyer & De Haas, 2012). Accordingly, the division of migrants into dichotic categories based on their legal status, for instance, oversimplifies empirical reality, by neglecting how the boundaries between regular and irregular populations are permeable and in constant flux (Thomsen, 2012). Thus, parallel to the growing post-modernist interest on liminality, hybridity and multiple identities in migration studies, attention is currently directed at
8
“the blurred edges of social categories, where they overlap, fade into each other or shift in different contexts” (Collyer & De Haas, 2012, p.468). For instance, the concept of “asylum-migration nexus” stands for such a hybridity, illustrating how the reasons for mobility are multiple, and interlinked for migrants and asylum seekers, in a way that the distinction between forced migration and economic migration blurs. Indeed, the conditions in the origin country that push someone to flee often involve a complex mixture of economic, political, environmental, and human rights reasons, contrary to the expectations of immigration officials or bureaucratic labelers, who seek to fragment motivations for migration, and impose clear cut labels and categories on migrants (Castles, 2003; Zetter, 2007). Consequently, as Collyer and De Haas outline “categorisation is rarely participatory and often symbolises discredited top-down techniques, which fix dynamic social processes into rigid structures” (2012, p.468).
Moreover, political powers are embodied in categorizations, and they easily maintain their influence across the borders, through current technologies (such as the EU’s EURODAC database of asylum applicants) or throughout one’s life, affecting serious issues such as resource distribution, residential location, labour rights, and refugee status determination; even when merely determined by inattentively carried out assessments (Collyer & De Haas, 2012). As administratively convenient as they may be, the categorical distinctions fail to reflect true substantive differences and they lead to the creation and reinforcement of arbitrarily conceived labels; even more, if replicated through scholarly work (DeWind, as cited in Hathaway, 2007). Thus, once being assessed, categorization also leads to stereotyping and stigmatization of migrants through the creation of the ‘other’ as opposed to national (Thomsens 2012).
Since the policy development process needs to address the target group with assumed stereotypical needs, the category contributes to the production of a bureaucratic label, in a way to
9
ascribe an identity of the ‘other’ ( Bakewell, 2008; Zetter, 2007). Zetter (1991) distinguishes the process of ‘labelling’ as a way of defining people in “convenient images” to conceive within the agendas of policy. He illustrates labelling as a process of ‘stereotyping’, which involves disaggregation, standardization, and formulation of clear cut categories; and also of ‘designation’, made of judgments and distinctions having the claim of ‘substantive objectivity’ -whereas being completely non-participatory- (Zetter, 1991). Furthermore, these processes maintain in a dynamic manner, labels trigger not only further development and institutional activity, but also, in time, demands by the labelled group. Consequently, labelling “forms, transforms and politicizes the identity”; each label attributes to certain policies, programmes and bureaucratic requirements that all together work to categorize and to differentiate between facets of an identity, which in turn, imply and impose certain forms of behavior that are defined by the bureaucratic action, policies and programmes (Zetter, 1991).
Having enumerated various inadequacies and pitfalls within the conceptualization and function of categories culminates in the question: how the academic knowledge production should relate to categories, that is, how and whether to use them in research. Principally, contrary to administrative processes of categorization and labelling, research could promote a participatory conceptualization of analytical categories; focus on complexities, liminalities and shifts instead of taken-for-granted assumptions, and aim to disclose the forces that can form and transform identities within the framework of labels, categories and policies. The scholarly response to this question varies from providing a critical reflection on the already existing categories (Turton, as cited in Bakewell, 2008) to constructing new ones based on a participatory (Bakewell, 2008), or a dynamic (Collyer & De Haas, 2012), way of understanding migration. As Collyer and De Haas (2012) focus on the fragmented realities embedded in migration processes that often have limited
10
or no relevance in the broad (policy) categories to which they are supposed to belong, they propose an essentially dynamic approach, using the term ‘fragmented migration’, aiming to highlight the shifts individuals frequently experience in many aspects; such as projects, community attitudes, and state categorisations. Moreover, Bakewell critiques excessive attention to categories of people who are somehow perceived to be in particular situations, arguing that looking at them as they are (or should be) the objects of policy concern, or they are subject to interventions from external legal, social or economic actors, could lead to treating them as passive objects rather than active agents (Bakewell, 2008). For instance, staring too hard at ‘refugees’ or ‘forced migrants’ obscures their “normality”, while one should think of forced migrants as ‘‘ordinary people’’, or ‘‘purposive actors’’, embedded in particular social, political and historical situations (Turton, 2003; as cited in Bakewell, 2008). Therefore, Bakewell (2008) emphasizes the need to rely on ‘analytical categories’ rather than ‘policy categories’ in research, which may include new, self-created definitions of migrants, in a way to reinforce a perspective, building on the notion of ‘active agency’. In this respect, one should ensure two principles while using analytical categories; first, that the use of any categories should be explained to the people involved in the study, and second, that the categorization should be held lightly and used for illustration, challenging or endorsing labelling, rather than to provide information for bureaucrats (Bakewell, 2008).
Taking all these debates into account, this study will open the policy perspective imposed on the category of “unaccompanied minor migrant” into inspection; not through analyzing policy material but by contrasting conceptual debates with the experiences and self-perceptions of people who fall under this category, with an aim to provide new insight into the phenomenon by reinforcing their agency.
11 2.2. Deconstructing A Category
Given that policy categories are inevitably burdened with fixed constructs and imposed assumptions, and that abiding to those categories in academic work would merely legitimize the approach of powerful actors instead of improving the policy conditions, or human knowledge in that matter, it appears that not only policy-driven research but also research on subjects with policy-relevancy, should assure vigilance towards these risks. Hence, it is appropriate to first acknowledge that the very category of “unaccompanied minor migrants”, was what initially provoked my interest in this research, while considering the experiences of people who are administratively placed under this category. Nevertheless, being cognizant of the aforementioned pitfalls of policy-defined categories, this study aims to approach to the category in a way that discloses the complex, liminal and shifting realities behind the rigid, top-down categorization; most appropriately, through deconstructing it. Hence, after analytically examining the assumptions imposed in the construct of this category, I aim to develop a multifaceted understanding of the experience of human mobility beyond the essentialist constructions.
The category I mention here was introduced to identify young people involved in trans-border movement and, more particularly, those who lack a parental accompaniment during that period. This assumed group is broadly conceptualized as “unaccompanied minors” or “unaccompanied children” by international legislative bodies like the European Union (EU) and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), while the term “unaccompanied minor aliens” is also encountered frequently in association with the United States’ migration policy categories. Contrary to long-established policy categories such as ‘refugee’, it may be argued that this category has not yet developed into an invariant bureaucratic label, because there are a variety of conceptualizations around it, especially in academic works. The phenomenon is addressed
12
through a selective combination of the terms that refer the three main characteristics of the category: being without parental company, specified with the words, “unaccompanied”, “separated” or “independent”; not having reached to the age of majority, referred to by “child”, “minor”, “youth” or “young people”; and having a migration-related status, such as “refugee”, “asylum-seeker” or “migrant”.1
In order to keep a critical distance from existing categories, and with an attempt to use a broader conceptualization that could more or less cover every fragment of this group to whom policy-makers and scholars intend to include, I prefer to refer this group as “independent young people on the move”, or shortly “young people on the move” in this study2. However, by no means does
this conceptualization have an aim of imposing a new (or supposedly better) categorization or label to a group of people beyond their will, self-perception or participation. Henceforth, I will first introduce policy construction of the category and locate the various approaches towards the phenomenon, taking diverse conceptualizations into account, and exploring the assumptions embedded within them.
1 Some examples of conceptualizations of scholars cited in this study: “unaccompanied asylum-seeking children”
(Hopkins & Hill, 2008; Kohli, 2006; Wernesjö, 2011), “unaccompanied refugee children” (Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008; Eide & Hjern, 2013), “unaccompanied young people” (Chase, 2010; Maegusuku-Hewett et al., 2007), “independent child migrants” (Bhabha, 2008), “seperated minor refugees” (Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly, 2010).
2 I rather the term “independent” coined by. Bhabha (2008) since it doesn’t impose a parental accompany as a norm,
and I use “on the move” to not distinguish between different statuses. I address to “young people” as it can refer to children and youth collectively (Jeffrey, 2010), not necessarily distinguishing a certain construct.
13 2.2.1. A Critical Approach to the Categorization of Independent Young People on the
Move
Both research and policy have historically focused on male and adult figures as the main actors in human mobility, disregarding the role women and children may have in migration as active and independent social agents (Bhabha, 2009; Chavez & Menjívar, 2010). Until very recently, claims arising out of the special circumstances of children have been neglected in immigration law (Bhabha, 2009), and children’s accounts and experience had been “silenced” in research (Chavez & Menjivar, 2010). Along with growing attention to different types of migration experiences, especially for those in presumably dangerous, abusive, or exploitative situations, migrant children was involved into research, policy and advocacy efforts. Taking part in migratory movement at young ages and without parents, “unaccompanied children” are conceived as ‘out of bounds’ in political debates and policy making, or as a particularly vulnerable group in the research (Wernesjö, 2011). Thus, “unaccompanied children” are prevalently considered to be powerless and dependent, passive victims of exploitation, in need of care or protection; and connected with central themes like loss, trauma and separation (Bhabha, 2008; Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010; Maegusuku-Hewett, Dunkerley, Scourfield, & Smalley, 2007; Chavez & Menjivar, 2010; Wernesjö, 2011). In the following chapters I will first introduce the construct of the category within legal and scholarly frameworks, and then I will deconstruct it, referring to critiques introduced by a new line of inquiry in the field.
14 2.2.2. Construction of Policy Category: “Unaccompanied Children”
The increasing acknowledgement of child migration as a significant phenomenon in need of an effective and protective action led to development of a legislative body, and the introduction of subsequent guidelines and ‘soft law’ measures by various policy-makers (Bhabha, 2008). The establishment of the CRC is considered to be a milestone in setting international standards for the protection of children, and acknowledging children as subjects of law and independent actors, vis-à-vis state institutions and policies. The CRC introduced an “authoritative international definition of a child” (Bhabha, 2008), equal to the legal interpretation of “minor”, which is, “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (UN General Assembly, 1989). The UNHCR built on the CRC’s definition of child in the guidelines it issued for “refugee children” (1994) and for “unaccompanied children seeking asylum” (1997), as well as for its definition of “unaccompanied child”, which is recognized by various national and international policy-makers today:
An unaccompanied child is a person who is under the age of eighteen, unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is, attained earlier and who is separated from both parents and is not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so. (UNHCR, 1997)
Besides resolving the ambiguities in conceptions and obligations of different state parties, the CRC also introduced two fundamental principles concerning the human rights of children: ‘the best interest of the child’ and the principle of child agency and voice. The principle of best interest guides efforts to establish protective measures and policies to ensure children’s safety and welfare (Ensor, 2010) by proposing that all actions concerning children should be primarily
15
concerned with the best interest of child. On the other hand, the principle of child agency (or participation) emphasizes the necessity of hearing the voice of children by obliging state parties to “assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child” (UN General Assembly, 1989).
These two principles played an essential role in provoking a trend towards research on children - many scholars have embraced the principles in their approach to related phenomena and/or examined how they are implemented in different cases. Some scholars have also brought criticisms regarding the incompatibility of the two principles or the deficiencies when put into practice. The incompatibility is found when considering that adults’ or authorities’ concern about the best interest of a child may overshadow the duty of hearing that child’s voice. It is likely in some cases that children may choose to engage in activities that would appear to be contrary to what is externally assumed to be of their best interest (such as armed conflict or irregular labor migration) (Ensor, 2010). In such cases, children’s voices are effectively silenced by practitioners, who are indeed obliged to secure children’s right to speak out in matters that concern them and to express their wishes and feelings according to their age and maturity (James, 2007). Pérez evaluates this situation to be closely related with adults’ construct of childhood, because what is categorically meant to be ‘in a child’s best interest’ is, in fact, “what adults deem to be best for maintaining social cohesion through the constructed boundaries of childhood as a particular stage of innocence and dependency” (2012; p.4). Therefore the best interest of “the child” implicitly confirms a singular category position that masquerades for all children, who are “held to speak with one undifferentiated voice”; rather than given greater audibility and visibility as social actors inhabiting a variety of different social worlds (James, 2007; p.262).
16
These critiques offer key implications for the construct of childhood, which needs further investigation in order to conceive of the underlying assumptions that are hauled to the construction of “unaccompanied children”. Therefore, first, it is necessary to deconstruct the notion of childhood to uncover how it is historically and geographically vested with certain assumptions that plague the predominant perceptions and interventions that now affect migrant children. Afterwards, I will introduce the approaches of human rights, psychological and social care, which builds on these assumptions.
2.2.3. The Construct of “Childhood”
Dating back to 19th century scientific and political ideals, the traditional perception of childhood in the West has been that is a biologically and psychologically distinct stage before adulthood, with significant characteristics like dependency, innocence, purity, asexuality, and vulnerability (Ensor, 2010; Gilligan, 2009; Jeffrey, 2010; Adams, 2009). This Western model of childhood has been exported to the rest of the world, first through the means of migration, colonialism, missionary activity (Ensor, 2010) and then, with the use of western psychological frameworks focused on trauma and vulnerability (Gilligan, 2009). Finally, international laws have universalized the “child” for the sake of ensuring equal treatment for all children, regardless of their cross-cultural differences (Chavez & Menjívar, 2010). Moreover, this “global model of childhood” has spread efficiently to Africa, Asia, and Latin America since the mid-twentieth century, owing to the paternalistic efforts of international and nongovernmental organizations in those areas (Ensor, 2010). This pattern leaves no doubt that the Western model of childhood adopted in research, policy and advocacy, unremarkably washed out culturally specific conceptualizations of childhood and the changing roles attributed to children across various
17
social, political, and economic settings in the rest of the World. In some places, children take on adult roles, such as working and caring for family members, at much younger ages than their counterparts in the West (Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010a); and for children in rural, indigenous and/or marginalised households, childhood as a time of dependency evaporates earlier, bringing adult responsibility to their reality (Pérez, 2012). For example, the study of Tannon and Sow (2013) point out the fact that in Mauritania, the age threshold of 18 years does not exist to define the legal status of individuals; whereas the notion of “age of majority” is linked more to social competences, rather than calendar years per se.
Therefore, as opposed to the conventional West-centric understandings of childhood which construct children as powerless, passive and fully dependent, scholars who take the agency and voice of children into account, and especially those who focus on cross-cultural contexts and social constructs, emphasize that they are indeed “socially situated actors” or “active social agents” (such as, Chavez & Menjívar, 2010; Ensor, 2010; Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010a; Gilligan, 2009; James, 2007; Jeffrey, 2010; Wernesjö, 2011).
The scholarly response to the conceptualization of childhood lays in a continuum defined by two edges, of either adopting “the universality of childhood”, or recognizing childhood and youth as constructed notions according to each social, political, and economic context. This pattern applies to the research on independent young people on the move as well. At one end, there is a remarkable amount of research which complies with the conventional assumptions of childhood, and focuses on the notions of trauma, victimhood, vulnerability; at the other end, there is a growing scholarship which emphasizes young migrants’ multifaceted experiences, reflecting their voice, agency and resilience. In the following sections I will introduce different approaches in this continuum, including humanitarian and psychosocial studies on the category of
18
unaccompanied minors, critiques of these studies, and the growing body of research that aims to develop an adequate understanding for the experiences of young people on the move.
2.2.4. Reconstruction of “Unaccompanied Children” with Trauma, Victimhood and Vulnerability
As Ensor and Gozdziak (2010b) explain initial accounts addressing young people on the move were humanitarian narratives which focus mainly on the protection of child migrants from harm and the provision of needed resources, and are informed by the universal definition of childhood enshrined in international humanitarian and human rights law. According to Bhabha (2008), the body of work within the protective human rights-related strain has followed the best interest principle of CRC, yet has not covered the principle of agency and voice prominently; putting the emphasis instead on “child migrants’ distinctive vulnerability, their triple burden of alienage, minority and family separation, and on the need for protective policies to ensure their safety and welfare”. Migrant advocacy groups and social welfare studies often replicate this approach with the motive of justifying their requests for better services and policies for migrant children. This is evident when social workers who are critical of government immigration policy and children’s charity organizations in the United Kingdom employ the construct of refugee children as passive victims in their campaigning (Maegusuku-Hewett et al., 2007). Moreover, the tendency of advocacy groups to portray migrant children as dependent and vulnerable in this way contributes to literature about the allegedly always traumatic experiences of migrant and refugee children, as Ensor and Gozdziak assess (2010a). Consequently, the notions of trauma and vulnerability are fixed at the focal point of studies regarding young people on the move.
19
Wernesjö’s (2011) comprehensive survey of the existing research in the field of “unaccompanied asylum-seeking children” thereby concludes that overall the focus is primarily on investigating children’s emotional well-being, putting forward how they are particularly vulnerable and at risk of developing emotional problems due to their experiences of trauma, uprooting, loss and separation, from their parents, their everyday lives, and homes. An example of such an approach is Derluyn and Broekaert’s (2008) work, which primarily characterizes “unaccompanied refugee minors” as a vulnerable group; thus, favors a psychological perspective over a legal perspective by claiming that the former can more adequately approach to their specific reception and care needs. Similarly concerned with mental health and the social care of young people on the move, other research tends to provide a description of the group by identifying various forms of “extreme adversity” (Carlson, Cacciatore, & Klimek, 2012; p.261) they are exposed to. The list of risks and adversities include (but are not restricted to) various traumatic experiences they have before flight from their home country, such as mass murder, rape, extreme deprivation, torture, death or persecution of family members, forced recruitment, war, and violence (Carlson et al., 2012; Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008; Hopkins & Hill, 2008); as well as other traumatizing experiences and upheaval they are subjected to during flight or after they arrive in host countries (Chase, 2010; Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008); and also uprooting and multiple losses, including separation from parents and friends, loss of home, family and community (Carlson et al., 2012; Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008; Goodman, 2004). As a result, young people on the move are prevalently characterized by having a higher risk of mental health problems. Most frequently identified mental health problems are post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Carlson et al., 2012; Chase, 2010; Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008; Eide & Hjern, 2013) and depression (Carlson et al., 2012; Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008; Eide & Hjern, 2013; Goodman, 2004). Yet this list could be
20
extended with other emotional, developmental and behavioral problems such as; sleeping problems, concentration disorders, nightmares, withdrawal, anxiety, somatic symptoms, severe grief reactions and sadness, aggression, diminished interest, hyper-arousal, low self-esteem, severe guilt feelings, fatalistic view of the future, substance abuse, violent behavior, suicidal acts, psychosis, delinquent behavior (Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008) depressed IQ scores, identity confusion, feeling of alienation and isolation (Carlson et al., 2012). Comparing the emotional well-being of unaccompanied refugee children with accompanied refugee children, studies emphasize that the former shows more emotional distress and poorer adjustment in their host societies (Goodman, 2004), higher levels of depressive symptoms (47 vs 27%, with girls being particularly vulnerable) (Eide & Hjern, 2013), and fivefold more (severe or very severe) symptoms of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress (Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008), than the latter.
On the other hand, other scholars criticize the extensive focus on the increased risk of emotional problems intimately linked to unaccompanied child (Wernesjö, 2011), thus subsequent overemphasis on pathology (Maegusuku-Hewett et al., 2007) and the tendency to describe the entire population as traumatized (Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010a). One critique is that these studies focus on identifying and locating problems solely at individual level, and disregard social relationships and political, economic, and cultural factors (Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010a; Wernesjö, 2011). Moreover, the Western psychological framework used in this perspective, especially the diagnostic categories such as PTSD, has been questioned. Ensor argues against the methods used by psychologists that take place in clinical settings removed from children’s social contexts (2010). Gilligan (2009) further identifies a number of weaknesses in the measurement of PTSD in a way that discredits the assumption that children exposed to political violence are highly
21
vulnerable to trauma. Overall, scholars on this side of the spectrum call for attention to situations where unaccompanied children do not develop emotional problems as well, research can explore protective factors among children who show resilience (Wernesjö, 2011) or focus on cases where elements of vulnerability appear along with those of resilience.
Besides the trauma and mental health risks, other common (and highly criticized) assumptions underlying perspectives promoting vulnerability discourse, include: separation from parents, victimhood, and passivity. Children migrating alone are portrayed as more vulnerable to exploitation and extortion. Because they lack the protection of a caretaker, the physical strength to defend themselves, and the cognitive and psychological development to understand their rights; it is suggested that unaccompanied children are more likely to be abused by smugglers, human traffickers, gangs, or even by local police of destination country (Chavez & Menjívar, 2010). Moreover, scholarly narratives highlight how they are driven to perilous journeys of migration beyond their own will, awareness and agency. Their stories of “finding themselves” in another country are presented through passive voice, stressing how “the circumstances render them alone and vulnerable, often naive about what they will encounter when they arrive” (Carlson et al., 2012; p.260). Others drawing upon the narratives of migrant children contend that decision-making for migration was made through the participation of a range of actors and agents (e.g., relatives or close family friends), while young people usually remain passive (Chase, 2010; Hopkins & Hill, 2008). Hopkins and Hill (2008) underline how half of the children with whom they spoke were not aware where they were travelling to, knew very little about the country, and were very confused and disorientated when they arrived. In addition, Derluyn and Broekaert (2008) argue that children are so rarely ‘voluntary’ migrants; therefore, they should be referred as refugees regardless if they claim asylum or not, “since they mostly do
22
not make an independent decision to migrate, and seldom have the economic and social resources to initiate a migratory voyage on their own” (2008; p. 320).
Much significance is attributed to the factor of separation as children are considered lacking security, stability, safety and roots, and also social and economic resources in the host country; without the existence of significant adults for them (Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008; p.323). However, Wernesjö (2011) criticizes this essentialist approach on the impact of separation for drawing on psychological theories about the significance of parents and separation for children, as well as cultural understandings of family and networks. She states that the claims on more aggravating consequences of separation for migrant children presumed with belonging to collectivistic cultures, are biased in the way they assume intimate family and kin relations for children before their flight; thus, construct them both as a “homogenous category of ethnic others” and naturally as part of a (biological) family (Wernesjö, 2011; p.502).
Overall, the aforementioned approaches are criticized for disregarding agency and resiliency of migrant children, and the diversity of particular children’s cases (Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010a). As mentioned earlier, an approach which overemphasizes trauma and victimhood in the experiences of children and young immigrants tends to pathologize them altogether as a homogenous mass, drawing upon western models and normative values surrounding childhood and development (Maegusuku-Hewett et al., 2007). Furthermore, the portrayal of unaccompanied children as a pathological category, which is also distinguished by family-oriented perspectives in the literature, may lead to “othering” these children and young persons as a deviant category (Wernesjö, 2011; p.504).
23 2.3. Towards a New Paradigm for Research on Young People on the Move
As opposed to common assumptions on passivity, incompetence, victimhood and vulnerability of migrant children, there is a growing line of inquiry claiming for a need to also focus on the themes of agency, resilience and voice (e.g., Adams, 2009; Bhabha, 2008; Chase, 2010; Chavez & Menjívar, 2010; Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010; Goodman, 2004; James, 2007; Maegusuku-Hewett et al., 2007; Wernesjö, 2011). Some of these scholars have conducted interdisciplinary or holistic empirical studies which focus on variety of (individual, cultural, structural, political, social) factors contributing to the vulnerability as well as the resilience of young people on the move, by incorporating emic perspectives that promote the agency and voice of these youth. James refers to the emergence of a new paradigm for childhood research within social sciences, and more particularly within anthropology, “at its core is a conception of children as articulate social actors who have much to say about the world, as people who can be encouraged to speak out through the adoption of ethnographic and participatory methods of research” (2007; p.261). We may propose that this new paradigm has already extended to the studies on independent young people on the move, leading to a trend that does not only focus on young people’s agency, but also redresses the existing overemphasis on vulnerability and pathology in the field. Hereby I will introduce research from this new paradigm, which has inspired this study in developing a deeper and wider understanding of young people’s experiences.
From this perspective, a relevant approach to young people as active agents in trans-border mobility, should firstly avoid oversimplifying and homogenizing constructs by recognizing how their agencies and experiences vary. For instance, they also, like adults, travel independently for reasons which may overlap; including being victims of exploitation yet searching for better
24
opportunities of employment, or fleeing from persecution but seeking family reunion at the same time, as Bhabha illustrates (2008; p.2). Recognizing the agency of children and youth requires challenging the existing universalized constructs of childhood, dependency and passivity attributed to them in this sense. As mentioned earlier, from the perspective highlighting the variety of roles children adopt, and recognizing the “multiplicity of constructions of childhood defined not only by age, but also by cultural understandings of gender, ethnicity, history, and local and global contexts”, Ensor and Gozdziak value migration narratives which portray children as active players and participants in society (2010b; p.275). Moreover, to promote the agency of children and young people better, scholars argue for incorporating their voices and participation into the research process, criticizing the existing literature for relying solely on the views of adult professionals and migrants (Maegusuku-Hewett et.al 2007). Alternatively, involving children in all of the steps of research projects may lead towards “attenuating the power imbalances between adult researchers and participant children” as well as to enhancing far more relevant findings and policy recommendations to emerge eventually (Ensor 2010, 24). Finally, such an approach is essential not only for research community but also for welfare policy and practice, since acknowledging the importance of children’s agency, as well as the wider ecological contexts and social relationships in which they are engaged, could be used to bolster their sources of their strength (Maegusuku-Hewett et.al 2007). At this point, one should not miss the potential of involving children’s voices and their own stories into research and policy-making for challenging the existing top-down processes of categorization and labelling; thus, contributing to an organic, flexible and accountable framing of the empirical phenomenon, bringing emic perspectives rather than etic constructs to the fore.
25
Overall, research within this new paradigm tends to ‘give voice’ to each migrant child, since “the young are no longer approached as a homogeneous collection of ‘passive, adults-in waiting’ but as diverse social agents ‘playing out and shaping their own lives within the structures that surround them’” (Adams, 2009; p.170). Still, James (2007) argues that new approaches “giving voice to children” might not be in and of itself sufficient to ensure that children’s voices and views are heard, warning about potential conceptual and epistemological pitfalls related to questions of representation, issues of authenticity, the diversity of children’s experiences, and children’s participation in research. Her inquiry into the theoretical and conceptual implications of children’s voice incorporates many debates about the social scientist’s task of critical reflection and review in this sense, yet for the purposes of this study it is relevant to state her arguments about “cultural politics of childhood” briefly. According to her, having acknowledged the socially constructed character of childhood, one should also acknowledge that children’s voices that appear in texts do not necessarily speak about “children” in general or “the child” in abstraction, but they are also particularly crafted in a cultural context (James, 2007). This also requires recognizing the “cultural politics of childhood” framing “the relationship between “childhood” as a social space, “children” as a generational category, and “the child” as an “individual representative of that category and inhabitant of that space” as this relationship defines altogether “who they are, how we as adult researchers understand them, and how they understand their own experiences” (James, 2007; p.270).
Ensor further describes an adequate approach to children’s agency and choice-making capabilities, “[s]ound, ethically responsible research with children in migratory circumstances should also be sensitive to the many challenges as well as opportunities they encounter in their efforts to adapt to life in their host countries” (2010; p.30). By incorporating a resilience
26
perspective, Maegusuku-Hewett and her colleagues (2007) aim to redress the imbalance in existing literature that overemphasizes pathology and constructs children as passive victims, in order to focus on a more complex picture of children’s adaptation and coping in the context of forced migration. In this respect, Ensor and Gozdziak (2010) underline the necessity of balancing the focus on vulnerability and resilience in the acknowledging possible adversities and limitations migrant children face, in a way that neither exclusively promotes their weaknesses (and undermine their efforts to overcome challenges); nor put an excessive emphasis on resilience and coping (which may obscure individual vulnerabilities or result in blaming others who appear more vulnerable for their failure to cope). Thus, it is important to notice that the concepts ‘vulnerability’ and ‘resilience’ are not mutually exclusive, since the term ‘resilient’ is not synonymous of ‘invulnerable’ (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Maegusuku-Hewett et al., 2007). Indeed, the term resilience was primarily introduced instead of the previously used term ‘invulnerable’ in order to more accurately describe the relative, as opposed to the fixed nature of the (previous) concept (Luthar et al., 2000).
In response to the construct of “invulnerable children” in the field of child psychiatry (which was popular in 1970s), Rutter alternatively proposed to use the concept of ‘resilience’ to distinguish that, “the resistance to stress is relative, not absolute; the bases of the resistance are both environmental and constitutional; and the degree of resistance is not a fixed quality -rather, it varies over time and according to circumstance” (1985; p.599). Based on these characteristics, today the concept ‘resilience’ is defined as “a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity”3 (Luthar et al., 2000). Subsequent to the early
3 To clarify the terminology: “The term “resilience” should always be used when referring to the process or
27
scholarship concerned with identifying protective factors drawing on the individual characteristics of “resilient children”, research on resilience has moved to recognize the interplay between individuals and their environments, and focused attention on the influences of family and social environment as well as individual factors in developing resilience (Luthar et al., 2000; Maegusuku-Hewett et al., 2007; Mafile’o & Kaise Api, 2009). These relative, dynamic and holistic implications of the concept ‘resilience’ are evidently more suitable to the new paradigm’s concern with deconstructing the essentialist assumptions of (migrant) children’s vulnerability. Often this concept is incorporated into interdisciplinary studies focused not only on psychological well-being of young people, but also on social, familial, structural and environmental forces that affect their welfare, adaptation, and coping with distress, for example, in the conditions of forced migration (e.g., Carlson et al., 2012; Goodman, 2004; Maegusuku-Hewett et al., 2007; Mafile’o & Kaise Api, 2009).
Besides the increasing attention to the mediating effects of the social, political and ecological contexts in understanding young people’s well-being, Wernesjö (2011) underlines the additional necessity to focus on the structural conditions and processes of power, racism and social exclusion in the host country. She argues that while background experiences and separations are seen as the most aggravating factors in unaccompanied children’s and young persons’ lives, although they may be relevant, such an approach locates young persons both inside and yet also outside of society, by not taking their life situations in the host countries into account (Wernesjö, 2011; p.505). On the whole, the role of social, political, economic and cultural contexts appears essential not only for psychological well-being (vulnerability and/or resilience) of young people,
personality trait. In describing processes that alter the effects of adversity, the terms “protective” and “vulnerability” should be used to describe overall effects that are beneficial versus detrimental.” (Luthar et al., 2000; p.554)
28
but also for distinguishing the constructs of childhood and youth attributed to them, understanding the meanings of their particular experiences (related to migration and all the surrounding themes), and developing a perspective which does not categorize them as a homogenous mass of other but locate them also within the society that they are currently living in.
Finally, the study at hand focuses on the life histories of six cases of independent young people on the move; not to reconstruct them within the west-centric assumptions and international policies’ terms of reference but to explore the perspectives and experiences of these young people taking into account the individual, inter-relational and ecological forces in their lives. I believe that incorporating the implications of the new paradigm introduced above in my research helps to challenge the logic of the constructs attributed to the categorical framing of the empirical phenomenon, and to bring forward the complex relationship of people’s own experiences and the constructs; in response to, or by virtue of, those categories.
29 3. METHODOLOGY
For adequate research, sensitive to the abovementioned debates, it is important to use of methodology that does not reproduce a top-down, non-participatory approach like traditional policy, advocacy and research efforts use to frame the phenomenon of young people on the move. Instead, for this research, a methodology is required that serves to reveal the complexities, liminalities, and multifaceted subjectivities, to promote the subjects’ agency and voice, and to position them within the broader structural, social, cultural forces and constructs; challenge conventional, oversimplifying, homogenizing and sometimes stereotyping understandings, and provide different insights involving passivized social actors, through a deeper and wider perspective.
To a large extent, biographical approaches meet these requirements by enabling a holistic perspective involving both individuals’ whole lives and their interrelations with wider social contexts and structural forces; and also by promoting and prioritizing voice, agency and participation of the research subject. In her research on young migrants in Britain, Adams adopts a narrative approach for its particular appeal for research with children and young people in the way that it combines the new paradigm of childhood studies that acknowledge and value ‘the child’s voice’, with an interpretive paradigm that recognizes the partial and situated quality of research knowledge (2009). Focusing on discourses of integration and migrant narratives in the Swedish context, Cederberg (2014) also favors a biographical approach in order to center the multifaceted migrant subject, to explore migrants' experiences and trajectories with more depth, and to bring their voices to the fore, instead of limiting perspectives to value-charged concepts.
In terms of understanding the migratory experience, Cederberg (2014; p.134) further argues that “biographical accounts can help challenge reductionist discourses of migrants and migration, by
30
presenting alternative knowledge of migrant lives and identities” and enabling a critique of the “homogenizing constructions of identities” that frequently constrain their lives and opportunities; especially when they go together with an intersectional approach that can highlight “the multiple position/ing of individuals and thus problematizes group-based categorisations”. Similarly, Breckner (2007) proposes case-oriented approaches with a biographical perspective in order to grasp specific aspects and dimensions of the complex field of migration. In addition, she also proposes these approaches to reconstruct migration as a process by disclosing the concrete social contexts in which migration is embedded and experienced, and the perspective of migrants (which develops from their experiences in the contexts of both departure and arrival). Moreover, concentrating on the debates of seeking ways to avoid stereotyping migrants as ‘different’ or as ‘strangers’, Breckner desires to arrive at a dialogue about different, as well as structurally-shared, frames of reference and experience of migrants and non-migrants. She states that:
A biographical research conception seems to promise to escape from too strong normative conceptual implications inherent in discourses on migration. When looking at migration experiences in a concrete and processual fashion from a biographical perspective, a simple scheme of positive/negative evaluation becomes inappropriate. At the same time, the construction of a typology is confronted with a complexity that entails not only the diversity of references in which experiences of migration can take shape, but also the variety of possibilities in which processes of biographical construction can refer to (or ignore) experiences of migration. (Breckner, 2007; p.136)
Moreover, Miles and Crush (1993) evaluate life-history approach, as having considerable potential in rewriting historical accounts “from below” and conducting research “from within”, based on several advantages that they identify. As scholars from various disciplines suggest,
31
such techniques not only allow alternative voices to be heard, but also correct the silences and euro-centrism of many archival documents, help the researcher to achieve a degree of depth, flexibility, richness and vitality (often lacking in conventional interviews); help uncover not only what people did, but what they wanted to do, what they believed they were doing, and what they now think they did; illuminate both the logic of individual courses of action and the effects of systemic and structural constraints within which life courses evolve; and lastly, crack the codes of the muted groups by documenting the personal histories and struggles of “invisible” people (Miles & Crush, 1993).
3.1. Life History Approach
According to Watson and Watson-Franke, a life history is “any retrospective account by the individual of his life in whole or part, written or oral form, that has been elicited or prompted by another person” (1985; p.2). However, Rosenthal (1993; 2005) highlights the distinction between the life as narrated (life story) and the life as experienced (life history); while the life story is a social construct in its own right, the life history is obtained through an “interpretive review of the past and the manner of presentation of the life story”. For the purposes of this study, I abide by this perspective, since it allows the researcher to consider how “the stories cannot be seen as simply reflecting life as lived, but should be seen as creative constructions or interpretations of the past, generated in specific contexts of the present” (Eastmond, 2007; p.250).
Rosenthal (2005) argues that a social phenomenon that is tied to people’s experiences, needs to be interpreted in the overall context of the biography. Thus, regardless of the specific research
32
question, it is necessary to examine the whole life story, based on the following theoretical assumptions: 1) understanding and explaining social and psychological phenomena, requires reconstructing their genesis- the process of their creation, reproduction and transformation-; 2) understanding and explaining people’s actions needs to find out about both the subjective perspective of the actors and the courses of action (What is experienced, what meaning they gave their actions at the time, what meaning they assign today, and in what biographically constituted context they place their experiences); 3) understanding and explaining the statements of an interviewee about particular topics and experiences in his/her past, needs to interpret them as part of the overall context of his/her current life and his/her resulting present and future perspective (2005; p.28).
3.2. Sample and Data Collection
This research was designed as a case study aiming to challenge the existing constructs and categorizations about young people on the move, while focusing on the themes of childhood, vulnerability and agency. Therefore, the first step of data gathering was completed through reviewing the literature revolving around the themes and debates introduced above. After the life history approach was deemed most adequate for the purpose of this study, effort was made to review various methodological resources, and then to practice the method in advance with a voluntary interviewee. Finally, the empirical data was collected through conducting life story interviews with participants during the fieldwork in Istanbul, Turkey between February and March 2015.
33
The participants were selected from the wider community of young Afghan migrants who were apprehended as “unaccompanied minor migrants” in their arrival to Turkey. The decision to constrain the focus on a single migrant community (and even more specifically, a subgroup of it) is based on the assumption that the more I explore the narratives of individuals from a particular community, the deeper insight I could achieve into the overall context of their departure; which in turn, helps me to better understand and to explain the participants’ subjective perspectives and processes of meaning-making, since “every in-depth exploration of an individual life-in-context brings us that much closer to understanding the complexities of lives in communities” (Cole & Knowles, 2001; p.11). The preference of the Afghan community, in particular, was primarily driven by my prior acquaintance with some young Afghans. Also importantly, Afghans (as a national group) comprise of the majority of unaccompanied minor migrants in Turkey4. Nevertheless, the choice to restrict my sample to Afghans does not aim to attribute uniqueness or homogeneity to the group. In fact, an attempt to understand the particular complexities and diversities within the group is attained through a “theoretical sampling” 5.
According to life-history scholars, the question of representativeness is mostly out of concern in the research design, while the importance is given more to the principles of relationality, mutuality, empathy, care, sensitivity, respect, and authenticity (Cole & Knowles, 2001), ‘adequacy’ at the level of meaning (Roberts, 2002), and validity of the life-history text (that already resides in the power of narrative form) (Miles & Crush, 1993). Therefore, in terms of
4 See next chapter
5 Within the “grounded theory” approach, Glaser and Anselmo (1967) propose “theoretical sampling” as the process
of data collection that is controlled by the emerging theory. Thus, throughout data gathering I attempted to arrive at subgroups of comparison based on the factors of: having living family members or not, access to education, having grown up in Iran or Afghanistan, and also arriving in Turkey within different time frames (concerning the changing structural conditions lately).
34
sampling, Cole and Knowles suggest locating a rather small number of individuals who will make a commitment to working with the researcher over a certain period of time, stating that:
[I]f we accept the subjective and intersubjective nature of human experience and meaning-making, the dynamic, multidimensional, and contextual nature of knowledge, and the related unpredictability of the human condition, then concerns about "sample size" and representativeness, purity of "truths" told, and generalizability of research findings to populations of people become nonissues. (Cole & Knowles, 2001; p.65)
Accordingly, the particular commitment my study requires, in terms of working under a restricted time-schedule and going through distressful memories embedded in their pasts, were quite determinant for the involvement of the particular six people in this research. My earlier two contacts provided such a commitment owing to the friendly rapport that we previously established. Through one of their connections, I reached to two more participants who also showed great commitment to collaborate with me. However, I had difficulties in finding further participants who were enthusiastic and who had time to devote for this study6. Driven by theoretical rational I finally included two more participants in the study; however, after observing saturation7 through the data elicited, I decided to stop further sampling. For the sampling process, I preferred to reach the participants through another participant’s reference, rather than contacting them through an outsider or an institution (such as the shelter in which they live), in order to leave a more trustworthy impression by underlining my independence from
6 This situation will be discussed further.
7 “Saturation means that no additional data are being found whereby the sociologist can develop properties of the
