The Reflections of Postmodernism on International Migration Studies

Öz

This study aims to understand the effects of the postmodernist understanding of science in the field of international migration studies in the context of methodological, theoretical and conceptual preferences. In this context, the first section discusses postmodernism in the context of its basic arguments, followed by the historical course of social science research in the field of migration in the world and in our country. In the following, by addressing the main problem of the research, it is tried to understand how migration studies have been affected by the postmodernist approach in epistemological, theoretical, methodological and conceptual terms, and these effects are traced on the basis of the findings of the main studies and approaches that constitute the turning points in the migration literature and the findings of multifaceted bibliometric studies. According to the results of the research, postmodernist arguments have significant effects on recent migration studies; significantly transformed the concepts of migration; shifted from universal definitions of migration and migrants to time and space dependent realities; initiated a wave of criticism in the theoretical context; inspired studies that decipher the power relations behind the discourses, definitions and policies related to migration; and caused a qualitative and cultural turn in terms of the topics and methodological preferences chosen.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Modernism
• Postmodernism
• Migration Studies
• Positivist Methodology.

Postmodernizmin Uluslararası Göç Çalışmalarına Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, postmodernist bilim anlayışının; yöntemsel, kuramsal ve kavramsal tercihler bağlamında uluslararası göç çalışmaları alanındaki etkilerini anlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, öncelikle temel savları bağlamında postmodernizm ele alınmakta, ardından dünyada ve ülkemizde göç alanında yürütülen sosyal bilim araştırmalarının tarihsel seyrine değinilmektedir. Araştırmanın ana probleminin ele alındığı sonraki bölümde ise, göç çalışmalarının postmodernist yaklaşımdan epistemolojik, kuramsal, metodolojik ve kavramsal bağlamda nasıl etkilendiği anlaşılmaya çalışılmakta ve göç literatüründe dönüm noktalarını teşkil eden temel çalışma ve yaklaşımlar ile çok yönlü bibliyometrik araştırmaların bulguları temelinde bu etkilerin izleri sürülmektedir. Araştırma sonucunda; son dönem göç çalışmalarında postmodernist iddiaların önemli etkiler doğurduğu; göçe ilişkin kavramları belirgin ölçüde dönüştürdüğü; evrensel göç ve göçmen tanımlarından zaman ve mekan bağımlı tanım ve gerçekliklere yöneldiği; kuramsal bağlamda göze çarpan bir eleştiri dalgası başlattığı; göçe ilişkin söylem, tanım ve politikaların ardında yatan güç ilişkilerini deşifre eden çalışmalara ilham verdiği ve seçilen temalar ve yöntemsel tercihler açısından nitel ve kültürel bir dönüşüme neden olduğu anlaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Modernizm
• Postmodernizm
• Göç Çalışmaları
• Pozitivist Metodoloji

Kaynakça

1. Amelina, A. (2021). After the reflexive turn inmigration studies: Towards the doing migration approach. Popul Space Place, 27 (e2368).
2. Anderson, B. (2019). New directions in migration studies: Towards methodological de-nationalism. CMS, 7 (36). Bauböck, R. (Ed.). (2017). Transnational citizenship and migration. Routledge.
3. Baudrillard, Jean. (2006). Amerika. Ayrıntı Yayınları.
4. Bernstein, R. J. (1986). The rage against reason. Philosophy and Litarture, 10 (2), 186-210.
5. Blommaert J., Rampton B. (2016). Language and Superdiversity. Language and Superdiversity (s. 21–48) içinde. Routledge.
6. Boccagni, P., Schrooten, M. (2018). Participant observation in migration studies: An overview and some emerging issues. Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies. IMISCOE Research Series (s. 209-225) içinde. Springer.
7. Bouma, G., Arunachalam, D., Gamlen, A., & Healy, E. (2022). Religious diversity through a super-diversity lens: National, sub-regional and socio-economic religious diversities in Melbourne. Journal of Sociology, 58(1), 7-25.
8. Brubaker, R. (2002). Ethnicity without groups. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 43(2), 163–189.

9. Caponio T., Borkert M. (2010). The local dimension of migration policymaking. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
10. Capra, F. (1982). The turning point: Science, society, and the rising culture. New York: Simon and Schuster.
11. Carver, N. (2019). The silent backdrop: Colonial anxiety at the border. Journal of Historical Sociology, 32(2), 154-172.
12. Collins, F. L. (2022). Geographies of migration II: Decolonising migration studies. Progress in Human Geography, 46, 1241–1251.
13. Crul M. (2016). Super-diversity vs. assimilation: How complex diversity in majority–minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(1), 54–68.
14. Çağlayan, P. (2023). Uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde göç araştırmaları: Türkiye'deki doktora tezleri üzerine bir değerlendirme (2000-2021). Göç Dergisi, 10 (1), 25-42.
15. Dallmayr, F. (1987). Political inquiry: Beyond empiricism and hermeneutics. Idioms of inquiry: Critique and renewal in political science (s. 169-185) içinde. State University of New York Press.
16. Derrida, J. (1981). Positions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Eco, U. (1983). Travels in Hyperreality. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.
18. El-Enany, N. (2021). (B)ordering Britain: Law, race and empire. London: Hart.
19. Erbaş, H. (1999). Metodoloji Tartışmaları Işığında Göç ve Etnisite. DTCF- Sosyoloji Bölümü Dergisi, 2, 17-39.
20. Erbaş, H., & Türker, Ö. A. (2019). Göç araştırmaları alanında kavramsal sorunlar ve etik/politik sorumluluk. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 59(2), 883-911.
21. Erdal, M.B., Oeppen, C. (2013). Migrant balancing acts: Understanding the interactions between integration and transnationalism. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6), 867–884.
22. Faist, T. (2012). Toward a transnational methodology: Methods to address methodological nationalism, essentialism, and positionality. Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales, 28(1), 51–70.
23. Featherstone, M. (1988). In pursuit of the postmodern: An introduction. Theory, culture & society, 5(2-3), 195-215.
24. Fedyuk, O., Zentai, V. (2018). The interview in migration studies: A step towards a dialogue and knowledge co-production?. Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies. IMISCOE Research Series (s. 171-188) içinde. Springer, Cham.
25. Findlay, A. M. and Li, F. L. N. (1999). Methodological issues in researching migration. The Professional Geographer, 51(1), 50-59.
26. Fish, S. (1989). Working on the Chain Gang: Interpretation in Law and Literature. Doing What Comes Naturally (s. 87-102) içinde. Duke University Press.
27. Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary West. University of California Press.
28. Foucault, M. (2015). İktidarın gözü (I. Ergüden, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
29. Gamlen, A., & McIntyre, C. (2018). Mixing methods to explain emigration policies: A post-positivist perspective. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(4), 374–393.
30. Geddes A. (2005). Migration Research and European Integration: The Construction and Institutionalization of Problems of Europe. International Migration Research: Constructions, Omissions and the Promises of Interdisciplinarity (s. 265–280) içinde. Aldershot: Ashgate.
31. Glick Schiller, N., & Çağlar, A. (2016). Locating migrant pathways of eco-nomic emplacement: Thinking beyond the ethnic lens. An anthology of migration and socialtransformation: European perspectives (s. 307–326) içinde. Springer.
32. Goodman, N. (1984). Of mind and other matters. Harvard University Press.
33. Göç İdaresi Başkanlığı, 2024. İkamet izinleri. https://www.goc.gov.tr/ikamet-izinleri adresinden, 7 Şubat 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
34. Göçer, D. ve Şenyuva, Ö. (2021). Uluslararası ilişkiler disiplini ve niteliksel yöntem: Türkiye’de göç çalışmaları örneği. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18 (72), 19-36.
35. Graff, G. (1979). Literature against itself. University of Chicago Press.
36. Habermas, J. (1985). Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Zwölf Vorlesungen. Suhrkamp.
37. Hafez, F. (2018). Schools of Thought in Islamophobia Studies: Prejudice, Racism, and Decoloniality. Islamophobia Studies Journal, 4(2), 210–225.
38. Harman, W. (1988). The postmodern heresy: Consciousness as causal. Griffin, D. R. (Ed.) The reenchantment of science: Postmodern proposals (s. 115-128) içinde. State University of New York Press.
39. Harvey, D. (1997). Postmodernliğin durumu. (S. Savran, Çev.). Metis.
40. Hess, S. (2012). De-naturalising transit migration: Theory and methods ofan ethnographic regime analysis. Population, Space and Place,18(4),428–440.
41. Khazaei, F. (2018). Grounds for dialogue: Intersectionality and superdiversity. Tijdschrift Voor Genderstudies, 21(1), 7–25.
42. King, R. (2018). Context-based qualitative research and multi-sited migration studies in europe. R. Zapata-Barrero, E. Yalaz (Ed.) Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies. IMISCOE Research Series (s.35-56) içinde. Springer.
43. King, R.; Skeldon, R. (2012). Theories and typologies of migration: An overview and a primer. Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare.
44. Kmak, M., & Björklund, H. (Ed.). (2022). Refugees and knowledge production: Europe's past and present (1st ed.). Routledge.
45. Krippner, S. (1988). Parapsychology and Postmodern Science. D. R.Griffin (Ed.) The keen- chantment of science: Postmodern proposals (s.129-140) içinde. State University of New York Press.
46. Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3 (1), 47-57.
47. Leszko M, Allen DJ. (2024). Caring from a distance: Experiences of Polish immigrants in the United States providing care to parents with dementia overseas. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 79 (3).
48. Leurs, K., Prabhakar, M. (2018). Doing digital migration studies: Methodological considerations for an emerging research focus. R. Zapata-Barrero, E. Yalaz (Ed.) Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies. IMISCOE Research Series (s. 247-266) içinde. Springer.
49. Levy, N.; Pisarevskaya, A., & Scholten, P. (2020). Between fragmentation and institutionalisation: The rise of migration studies as a research field. Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1), 1–24.
50. Lyotard, J. F. (1997). Postmodern durum (A. Çiğdem, Çev.). Vadi Yayınları
51. Mamdani, M. (2018). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton University Press.
52. Mayblin, L. (2017). Asylum after empire: Colonial legacies in the politics of asylum seeking. Rowman & Littlefield. Mertens, D. M. (2013). Emerging advances in mixed methods: Addressing social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 215-218.
53. Mongia, R. (1999). Race, nationality, mobility: A history of the passport. Public Culture, 11(3), 527–555.
54. Morawska E. (1990). The Sociology and Historiography of Immigration. V., Yans-McLaughlin (Ed.) Immigration reconsidered: History, sociology, and politics (s.187-240) içinde. Oxford University Press.
55. Park, R. E. (1930). Assimilation, social. E. Seligman, & A. Johnson (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the social sciences (s.281) içinde. New York: Macmillan.
56. Pedraza-Bailey S. (1990). Immigration research: A conceptual map. Social Science History, 14 (1), 43–67.
57. Piccoli, L., Ruedin, D. & Geddes, A. (2023). A global network of scholars? The geographical concentration of institutes in migration studies and its implications. CMS, 11 (16).
58. Piekut, A., Rees, P., Valentine, G. & Kupiszewski, M. (2012). Multidimensional diversity in two European cities: Thinking beyond ethnicity. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(12), 2988–3009.
59. Pisarevskaya, A. , Levy, N., Scholten, P. , Joost Jansen (2020). Mapping migration studies: An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field. Migration Studies, 8(3), 455-481.
60. Power, M. (1990). Modernism, postmodernism and organisation. J. Hassard and D. Pym (Ed.). The theory and philosophy of organisations (s.109-124) içinde. Routledge.
61. Ravenstein, E.G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the statistical society of London, 48, 167-235.
62. Rinken, S.; Ortega, J.L. (2022). Leveraging the web for migration studies: Data sources and data extraction.
63. Pötzschke, S., Rinken, S. (Ed.). Migration Research in a Digitized World. IMISCOE Research Series (s.129-148) içinde. Springer.
64. Rocheva, A., Varshaver, E., Ivanova, N. (2022). Targeting on social networking sites as sampling strategy for online migrant surveys: The challenge of biases and search for possible solutions. Pötzschke, S., Rinken, S. (Ed.). Migration Research in a Digitized World. IMISCOE Research Series (s.35-58) içinde. Springer.
65. Ryan, M. (1988). Postmodern politics. Theory, Culture, and Society, 5 (2/3), 559-76.
66. Sassen, S. (2002). Towards post-national and denationalized citizenship. E. Isin, & B. Turner (Ed.). Handbook of citizenship studies (s. 277-291) içinde. Sage.
67. Scholten, P., Pisarevskaya, A., Levy, N. (2022). An introduction to migration studies: The rise and coming of age of a research field. Scholten, P. (Ed.). Introduction to migration studies. IMISCOE Research Series (s. 3-24) içinde. Springer.
68. Sharma, N. (2020). Home Rule: National sovereignty and the separation of natives and migrants. Duke University Press.
69. Shivakoti, R.; Milner, J. (2022). Beyond the partnership debate: Localizing knowledge production in refugee and forced migration studies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 35(2), 805–826.
70. Small, M. (2011). How to conduct a mixed method study: recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 37–86.
71. Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.
72. Soysal, Y.N. (2011). Postnational citizenship: Rights and obligations of individuality. Heinrich Boll Stiftung Migrationspolitisches Portal. https://heimatkunde.boell.de/2011/05/18/postnational-citizenship-rights-and-obligations-individuality adresinden 20 Mart 2024 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
73. Thomas W.I.; Znaniecki F. (1918–1920, ed. 1984). The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Gorham Press.
74. Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Free Press.
75. Tsianos, V.; Karakayalı, S. (2010). Transnational migration and the emergence of the European border regime: An ethnographic analysis. European Journal of Social Theory,13(3), 373–387.
76. Tudor, A. (2018). Cross-fadings of racialisation and migratisation: The postcolonial turn in western european gender and migration studies. Gender, Place and Culture, 25 (7), 1057-1072.
77. Tyler, S. A. (1986). Post-modern ethnography: From document of the occult to occult document. J. Clifford; G. E. Marcus. Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (s. 122-140) içinde. University of California Press.
78. Vargas-Silva, C. (2019). Does the gap in migration research between high-income countries and the rest of the world matter? COMPAS, University of Oxford içinde. https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2019/does-the-gap-in-migration-research-between-high-income-countries-and-the-rest-of-the-world-matter/ adresinden 20 Şubat 2024 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
79. Vertovec S. (2021). The social organization of difference. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(8), 1273–1295.
80. Vertovec S., Hiebert D., Gamlen A., Spoonley P. (2022). Visualizing superdiversity and “seeing” urban socio-economic complexity. Urban Geography, 1–22.
81. Walby, S. (2021). Developing the concept of society: Institutional domains, regimes of inequalities and complex systems in a global era. Current Sociolog, 69(3), 315–332.
82. Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system. Academic Press.
83. Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation–state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334.
84. Yalaz, E., Zapata-Barrero, R. (2018). Mapping the qualitative migration research in Europe: An exploratory analysis. R. Zapata-Barrero, E. Yalaz (Ed.) Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies. IMISCOE Research Series (s.9-31) içinde. Springer.
85. Zapata-Barrero, R.; Caponio, T.; Scholten, P. (2017). Theorizing the “local turn” in a multi-level governance framework of analysis: A case study in immigrant policies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(2), 241–246.