Feminist methodologies in migration research

Abstract

In the context of a methodological turn in migration studies since the early 2000s, this commentary focuses on three key contributions of feminist methodologies in migration research over the past two decades. This is not to suggest that feminist methodologies are “new,” or that some of these methodological orientations were not present in earlier work, but rather to highlight methodologies rooted in feminist praxis that have become more prevalent in migration studies recently. This commentary focuses on questions of positionality and reflexivity, radical care and (co-)creative methodologies. This is not an exhaustive list but provides examples of the transformative and generative potential of feminist methodologies in migration studies (see also Cleton & Scuzzarello, this issue; Fresnoza-Flot, this issue).

Before delving into the details of these three methodological contributions, I outline here what I believe are feminist epistemologies and praxis. Feminism is aligned with critical approaches to epistemology that squarely centre power in the production and reproduction of knowledge (Kouri-Towe & Mahrouse, 2023; Nawyn, 2010; Silvey, 2004). Rather than assuming “objectivity,” feminist researchers acknowledge that our research questions, methods, data collection and analysis are all embedded in particular contexts and ways of knowing. Feminist research also attends to divisions of labour – both in the research questions we ask, but also in the doing of research. How these different roles are valued and reflected in the research process and “outputs” are particularly feminist concerns. Feminist praxis is oriented in the process of research, but also, through critical epistemologies and ontologies, the changes that come about through our individual and collective work. Feminist researchers are not content to simply describe what is; we are driven to uncover and dismantle structures of oppression. Feminist methodologies therefore have the potential to be generative and transformative. In particular, they extend beyond studies explicitly focused on women or gender, to encompass ontological, epistemological, ethical and methodological approaches that can be applied to any research project.

Feminist researchers have normalized explicit positioning of researchers within intersecting power relations in their work (see Fresnoza-Flot, this issue). This reflexive positionality is particularly important in migration studies, where severe power inequities – between research participants and researchers, service providers and gatekeepers – result from precarious legal status, differential citizenship, and reliance on governments, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs for basic services (Clark-Kazak, 2021). Migration experiences are diverse and affected by intersecting power relations rooted in racialization, gender, age, class, (dis)ability, religion, etc. (see Cleton & Scuzzarello, this issue for a call for the use of intersectionality in migration governance research). The long-standing feminist practice of locating oneself in these power relations and reflexively considering the impact on research is therefore salient in migration studies, and is increasingly common practice, even amongst researchers who do not explicitly identify as feminist researchers.

Within this context of increased attention to positionality and reflexivity, feminist migration scholars have led the important epistemological and existential questioning around centring lived experiences in our work. In critical refugee studies, for example, feminist scholars have engaged in acts of refusal of damage-centred narratives, that reinforce “helpless victim” tropes to instead highlight the creative possibilities of engaging seriously with researchers' own experiences of displacement and migration (Espiritu, 2006; Espiritu & Duong, 2018; Nguyen & Phu, 2021). In forced migration studies, the IASFM Code of Ethics (2018) explicitly questions the “expertise” attributed to researchers who parachute in and extract information on other people's lives. These feminist initiatives move away from tokenism to shift the control of research and narratives to people who are most affected by, and implicated in, the research.

Alongside increasing attention to methodologies in migration studies in the past two decades have been conversations around the specific ethical issues that arise in migration contexts (Bloemraad & Menjívar, 2022; Bose, 2020; Krause, 2017). Feminist researchers have led these discussions and have pushed the boundaries beyond dominant paradigms rooted in procedural ethics to consider broader research relationships. Much of this work has been influenced – directly or indirectly – by feminist work on radical care (Clark-Kazak, 2023). Radical care centres on reciprocal relationships, emotions and a proactive approach to preventing harm (Hobart & Kneese, 2020; Lawson, 2007; Tronto, 1998).

The intersection of feminist epistemologies and praxis on care and migration studies has been particularly fruitful in three key ways. First, it has generated a deeper and more sustained reflection on what ethical research looks and feels like. There is widespread acknowledgement that most migration research has historically been extractive, with limited benefit for people with lived experiences of displacement and migration (Pittaway et al., 2010). This has led to serious conversations about the harms of research and how researchers can proactively seek to minimize these harms, but also use research processes to challenge inequitable structures (Block, 2013). Second, it has valorized and prioritized care work in the doing of research (Tungohan, 2023), from epistemology, through methods, to the labour involved in generating data and presenting results.

Third, it has opened up conversations about structural changes in the academy and what these transformations would look like in migration pedagogy, research and knowledge sharing. These changes are evident in syllabi, teaching resources and conference and workshop programs that present more inclusive ways of (un)learning, knowing and being. For example, at the 2022 International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) hosted in Brazil, conference organizers invited people with lived experiences of forced migration to submit in languages other than English and included different ways of presenting, including a “marketplace of good practices” for “innovative actions/projects (not necessarily connected to academia/research).” In the selection criteria listed in the call for proposals, the organizers explicitly foregrounded “expanding inclusiveness” by prioritizing both “academic quality and equality principles, focusing on balances in gender, geographical, race, other vulnerabilities and career stages representation” (IASFM, 2021).

Feminist epistemology also underpins much of the work on co-creative methods. While migration research has historically been dominated by established qualitative and quantitative methods, conference programs and journals now have whole panels and sections on creative methodologies, accompanied by an exponential growth in grey and published literature (Grabska & Clark-Kazak, 2022; Lenette, 2019). Like all academic trends, some of this growth represents co-option or add-ons, but the fact that creative methods are mainstreamed and accepted as “legitimate” is a testament to the careful work of feminist migration scholars who have advocated and demonstrated the effectiveness of these approaches in migration contexts.

Creative methods have, in some cases, also generated benefits that go beyond the scope and purpose of the research project. While many research methods are implicitly or explicitly focused on the quantity and quality of data gathered or generated from research, creative methodologies foreground the process of (co-)creation. In migration contexts characterized by mobility, but also enforced immobility, the creative process can facilitate people making sense of their lives and their circumstances and creating beauty and meaning even in constrained, painful and difficult contexts. For example, Arellano (2022, 20) explains how quilting as a method “valu[es] quilting, quilters, and process in a capitalist, patriarchal, product driven academic context” and allows for a sensitive and creative way of addressing the uncomfortable topic of migrant deaths in the Arizona desert.

The (co-)production of creative works has also raised important questions around copyright and ownership. While “data” are usually assumed to “belong” to the researcher, an artwork, film or photograph is a tangible invitation to have serious conversations about who owns the work and how that work can be used in research and beyond (Donà & Godin, 2022). This then opens up the possibility of more directly addressing (co-)authorship and attribution of other research “products” (like articles, books, reports and conference papers) from more traditional methods such as interviews.

The increased prominence of feminist epistemologies, ethics and methodologies in migration studies opens up possibilities of reimaging migration studies precisely because of the generative and transformative underpinnings of feminist approaches. By taking seriously power inequities in the (re)production of knowledge, feminist researchers must adapt to shifting power constellations – in the academy, in migration contexts, and in our own lives. This is an invitation for continuous reflexivity and (un)learning in (co-)production of knowledge.

The opinions expressed in this Commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors, Editorial Board, International Organization for Migration nor John Wiley & Sons.