RESEARCH OF MIGRATION PROCESSES: HISTORIOGRAPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Yuliia Artymyshyn
{"title":"RESEARCH OF MIGRATION PROCESSES: HISTORIOGRAPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS","authors":"Yuliia Artymyshyn","doi":"10.33402//ukr.2022-35-130-145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article outlines the main stages of the study of migration processes in English historiography from the end of the XIX century (in the works of Ernst Georg Ravenstein and Georg Simmel) till the beginning of the XXI century, and special attention is paid to the issue of population movement in the humanities. Classifications and typologies of the migration process by Henry Pratt Fairchild, William Petersen, Wilbur Zelinsky, Charles Tilly, and Robin Cohen are considered. How changes in scientific paradigms and the geopolitical situation have influenced trends in population movement research is observed. It’s highlighted that since the 1960s, with the introduction of several new methods in the humanities, scientists have actively used the comparative method in studying migratory movements. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, one group of researchers insisted on expanding migration studies to the global scope, while another suggested focusing on the participation of nation-states in this process. The author analyzed how the idea of transnationalism became widespread in the mid-1990s, eventually influencing the emergence of the so-called international approach to population movement research. It’s confirmed that other important modern trends are rethinking current approaches to the study of ethnicity and assimilation theories, increased attention to gender issues, and the paradigm of mobility. An interpretation of the concept of transfer proposed by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Research is shown. Also, an explanation of the terms of forced migration according to the definitions of the International Organization for Migration – IOM, International Association for the Study of Forced Migration – IASFM is given. A brief problematic review of the works of Ukrainian sociologists, lawyers, and economists who have studied various aspects of the phenomenon of migration is considered. It is noted that there is an issue with the interpretation of the terms of resettlement, and deportation in most Ukrainian historical research.","PeriodicalId":194701,"journal":{"name":"Ukraine: Cultural Heritage, National Identity, Statehood","volume":"310 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ukraine: Cultural Heritage, National Identity, Statehood","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33402//ukr.2022-35-130-145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article outlines the main stages of the study of migration processes in English historiography from the end of the XIX century (in the works of Ernst Georg Ravenstein and Georg Simmel) till the beginning of the XXI century, and special attention is paid to the issue of population movement in the humanities. Classifications and typologies of the migration process by Henry Pratt Fairchild, William Petersen, Wilbur Zelinsky, Charles Tilly, and Robin Cohen are considered. How changes in scientific paradigms and the geopolitical situation have influenced trends in population movement research is observed. It’s highlighted that since the 1960s, with the introduction of several new methods in the humanities, scientists have actively used the comparative method in studying migratory movements. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, one group of researchers insisted on expanding migration studies to the global scope, while another suggested focusing on the participation of nation-states in this process. The author analyzed how the idea of transnationalism became widespread in the mid-1990s, eventually influencing the emergence of the so-called international approach to population movement research. It’s confirmed that other important modern trends are rethinking current approaches to the study of ethnicity and assimilation theories, increased attention to gender issues, and the paradigm of mobility. An interpretation of the concept of transfer proposed by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Research is shown. Also, an explanation of the terms of forced migration according to the definitions of the International Organization for Migration – IOM, International Association for the Study of Forced Migration – IASFM is given. A brief problematic review of the works of Ukrainian sociologists, lawyers, and economists who have studied various aspects of the phenomenon of migration is considered. It is noted that there is an issue with the interpretation of the terms of resettlement, and deportation in most Ukrainian historical research.
移民过程的研究:史学和方法论方面
本文概述了从19世纪末(恩斯特·乔治·拉文斯坦和乔治·齐美尔的著作)到21世纪初英国史学中移民过程研究的主要阶段,并特别关注了人文学科中的人口流动问题。考虑了Henry Pratt Fairchild, William Petersen, Wilbur Zelinsky, Charles Tilly和Robin Cohen对迁移过程的分类和类型学。观察了科学范式和地缘政治形势的变化如何影响人口流动研究的趋势。重点指出,自20世纪60年代以来,随着人文学科中几种新方法的引入,科学家们积极运用比较方法研究迁徙运动。铁幕倒塌后,一组研究人员坚持将移民研究扩大到全球范围,而另一组研究人员则建议关注民族国家在这一过程中的参与。作者分析了跨国主义的概念是如何在20世纪90年代中期变得普遍,并最终影响了所谓的人口流动研究的国际方法的出现。可以肯定的是,其他重要的现代趋势是重新思考当前研究种族和同化理论的方法,增加对性别问题的关注,以及流动范式。本文给出了国家统计和经济研究所提出的对转移概念的解释。此外,还根据国际移徙组织- -国际强迫移徙研究协会- -的定义解释了强迫移徙的术语。对乌克兰社会学家、律师和经济学家研究移民现象的各个方面的工作进行了简要的有问题的回顾。值得注意的是,在大多数乌克兰历史研究中,对重新安置和驱逐出境的条款的解释存在问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信