2.000 Aile Araştırması: Bazı Sonuçlar ve Gelecek Araştırmalar için Potansiyeli

Öz

Son yıllarda, göç alanında kaydedilen gelişmelere rağmen, Avrupa’ya olan göçün analizine ilişkin yeterince aydınlatılmamış çalışma alanları mevcuttur. Göçün menşe ülkede kalanlara kıyasla, göçmenler, çocukları ve torunları üzerindeki etkileri hakkındaki bilgimiz oldukça sınırlıdır. Benzer şekilde, kuşaklar arası aktarımın nasıl geliştiğini ve şekillendiğini anlamaya yönelik akademik çalışmalar, varış ülkesinde yaşayan iki kuşağın karşılaştırılması ile sınırlıdır. Bu sınırlamalar, menşe ülkelerindeki göçmen olmayanlarla ve geri dönen göçmenlerle karşılaştırmayı içeren ve çoklu kuşaklar arası aktarım süreçlerini izleyen çalışmaların azlığından kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu çalışma, ilgili alandaki teorik ve metodolojik tartışmalarla birlikte 2.000 Aile Araştırması’nın, tasarımını ve veri setini tanıtan bir özet niteliğindedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de ve en az sekiz farklı Avrupa ülkesinde yaşayan üç kuşağı kapsayan, yaklaşık 50.000 göçmen ve göçmen olmayan Türk aile üyesinin katılımı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Köklerden farklılaşma teorik bakış açısını benimseyen bu çalışma ile, araştırmaya dair belirleyici bulgular sunulmaktadır. Bu anket çalışması, katılımcıların bireysel özelliklerinin, değerlerinin, kaynaklarının ve tutumlarının yanı sıra üç kuşak boyunca aile geçmişleri ve göç deneyimleri hakkında zengin bilgiler sağlamıştır. Ayrıca, 2.000 Aile Çalışması’nın gelecekteki göç araştırmaları için potansiyeli yansıtılmaktadır. Araştırmacılar, 2.000 Aile verilerini, GESIS veri bankasından (GESIS data archive) indirip analiz edebilirler. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• 2.000 Aile,uluslararası göç,Türkiye’den göç,köklerden farklılaşma,kuşaklar arası aktarım

2000 Families Research: Some Findings and Potential for Future Research

Öz

We have only a limited understanding of the consequences of migration for migrants and their descendants, relative to staying behind; and our insights of intergenerational transmission is limited to two generations of those living in the destination countries. These limitations stem from a scarcity of studies and data that include comparisons with those left behind and return migrants – in origin countries and which trace processes of intergenerational transmission over multiple generations in the migration context. This paper outlines the theoretical and methodological discussions in the field and data of the 2000 Families study. It introduces the unique design of the 2000 Families study, and its datasets, and discusses the research potential for future research. This study provides some core findings from the study, framed within a theoretical perspective of “dissimilation from origins”, and reflects on its potential for future migration research in all fields of the social sciences. The rich datasets are stored in the GESIS data archive and are open for researchers to explore and answer hitherto unanswerable research questions on multigenerational transmission, international migration, Turkish migration, (transnational) family relations, friendship, socioeconomic, cultural, political, religious behaviour, attitudes, values and relations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• 2000 Families,migration,Turkish migration,dissimilation from origins,intergenerational transmission

Kaynakça

1. Abadan-Unat, Nermin, Rusen Keles, Rinus Penninx, Herman Van Renselaar, Leo van Velzen, & Leyla Yenisey. (1975). Migration and development: A study of the effects of international labour migration on Bogazlayan destrict. Ankara: Ajans – Turk Press.
2. Akgunduz, Ahmet. (2008). Labour migration from Turkey to Western Europe, 1960–1974: A multidisciplinary analysis. Aldershot: Ashgate.
3. Alba, R., Logan, J. Lutz, A., & Stults. B. (2002). Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the grandchildren of contemporary immigrants. Demography, 39(3), 467–484.
4. Alba, R., & Nee. V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31(4), 826–874.
5. Amelina, A., & Faist. T. (2012). De-naturalizing the national in research methodologies: Key concepts of transnational studies in migration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(10), 1707–1724.
6. Baykara-Krumme, H. (2015). Three-generation marriage patterns: New insights from the ‘dissimilation’ perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(8), 1324– 1346.
7. Baykara-Krumme, H. (2016). Consanguineous marriage in Turkish families in Turkey and in Western Europe. International Migration Review, 50(3), 568–598. doi:10.1111/imre. 12176.
8. Bayrakdar, S. & Guveli, A. (2019). The educational consequences of migration for women and men. Migrant and Europe-born Turkish origin people compared to non-migrants in Turkey. ISER Working Paper Series, No.201908.

9. Beauchemin, C. (Ed.). (2018). Migration between Africa and Europe. Springer International Publishing.
10. Beauchemin, C. (2014). A manifesto for quantitative multi-sited approaches to international migration. International Migration Review, 48(4), 1747–7379.
11. Beauchemin, C., & Amparo G. F. (2011). Sampling international migrants with origin-based snowballing method: New evidence on biases and limitations. Demographic Research, 25, 103–134.
12. Bengtson, V.L., Casey E., Norella, C., Putney, N., & Silverstein, M., (2009). A longitudinal study of the intergenerational transmission of religion. International Sociology, 24(3), 325–345.
13. Borjas, G. J. (1992). Ethnic capital and intergenerational mobility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (1), 123–150.
14. Carol, S. (2014). The intergenerational transmission of intermarriage attitudes and intergroup friendships. The role of Turkish migrant parents. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(10), 1550–1571.
15. Castles, S., De Haas, H., & Miller. M. J. (2014). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world. 5th ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
16. Chan, T. W., & Boliver. V. (2013). The grandparents effect in social mobility: Evidence from British birth cohort studies. American Sociological Review, 78(4), 662–678. doi:10.1177/0003122413489130.
17. Crul, M., & Schneider. J. (2010). Comparative integration context theory: Participation and belonging in new diverse European cities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1249–1268.
18. Dustmann, C. (2008). Return migration, investment in children, and intergenerational mobility – comparing sons of foreign- and native-born fathers. Journal of Human Resources, 43(2): 299–324.
19. Dustmann, C., Itzhak F., & Weiss, T. (2011). Return migration, human capital accumulation and the brain drain. Journal of Development Economics, 95(1), 58–67.
20. Eroglu-Hawksworth, S, (2018). Trapped in small business? An investigation of three generations of migrants from Turkey to Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44, 1214-1232.
21. FitzGerald, D. (2012). A comparativist manifesto for international migration studies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(10), 1725–1740.
22. Ganzeboom, B. G. H., Sozeri, E.K. Guveli, A. & Bayrakdar. S. (2015). 2000 Families: Migration histories of Turks in Europe, Data Documentation. Amsterdam: VU University of Amsterdam.
23. Glass, J., Bengtson, V.L. & Dunham. C.C. (1986). Attitude similarity in three-generation families: Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence? American Sociological Review, 51(5), 685–698.
24. Glick, J. E. (2010). Connecting complex processes: A decade of research on immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 498–515.
25. Guveli, A. (2015). Are movers more religious than stayers? Religiosity of European majority, Turks in Europe and Turkey. Review of Religious Research, 57, 43–62.
26. Guveli, A., Ganzeboom, B.G.H., Baykara-Krumme, H., Platt, L., Eroglu, S., Spierings, N., Bayrakdar, S., Nauck, B. & Sözeri, E.K. (2017). 2,000 Families: Identifying the research potential of an origins-of-migration study. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(14), 2558-2576.
27. Guveli, A. Ganzeboom, B. G. H., Baykara-Krumme, H., Bayrakdar, S., Eroglu, S., Hamutci, B., Nauck, B., Platt, L. & Sözeri, E.K. (2016). 2000 Families: Migration histories of Turks in Europe. GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA5957 Datenfile Version 1.0.0. doi:10.4232/1.12541.
28. Guveli, A., Ganzeboom, B.G.H. Platt, L. Nauck, B., Baykara- Krumme, H., Eroglu, S. Bayrakdar, S., Sozeri, E.K. & Spierings. N. (2016). Intergenerational consequences of migration: Socio-economic, family and cultural patterns of stability and change in Turkey and Europe. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Guveli, A. & Platt. L. (2011). Understanding the religious behaviour of Muslims in the Netherlands and the UK. Sociology, 45 (6), 1008–1027.
30. Guveli, A. (2011). Social and economic impact of the headscarf ban on women in Turkey. European Societies, 13(2), 171-189.
31. Hagan, J., MacMillan, R. & Wheaton. B. (1996). New kid in town: Social capital and the life course effects of family migration on children. American Sociological Review, 61(3), 368–385.
32. Hagestad, G.O. (2006). Transfers between grandparents and grandchildren: The importance of taking a threegeneration perspective. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung-Journal of Family Research, 18(3), 315–332.
33. Herberg, W. (1955). Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An essay in American religious sociology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.
34. Hitlin, S. (2006). Parental influences on children’s values and aspirations: Bridging two theories of social class and socialization. Sociological Perspectives, 49(1), 25–46.
35. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., (1992). Overcoming patriarchal constraints: The reconstruction of gender relations among Mexican immigrant women and men. Gender & Society, 6, 393–415.
36. Huijnk, W., & Liefbroer. A.C. (2012). Family influences on intermarriage attitudes: A sibling analysis in the Netherlands. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(1), 70–85.
37. Ichou, M. (2014). Who they were there: Immigrants’ educational selectivity and their children’s educational attainment. European Sociological Review, 30(6), 750–765.
38. Kalmijn, M., Liefbroer, A.C., Van Poppel, F., & Van Solinge. H. (2006). The family factor in Jewish-Gentile intermarriage: A sibling analysis of the Netherlands. Social Forces, 84(3), 1347–1358.
39. Koenig, M., Maliepaard, M, & Güveli, A. (2016). Religion and new immigrants’ labor market entry in Western Europe. Ethnicities, 16(2), 213–235.
40. Koopmans, R., Michalowski, I., & Waibel. S. (2012). Citizenship rights for immigrants: National political processes and cross-national convergence in Western Europe, 1980–2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117(4), 1202–1245.
41. Lazerwitz, B., & Rowitz. L. (1964). The three-generations hypothesis. American Journal of Sociology, 69(5), 529– 538.
42. Maliepaard, M., & Lubbers. M. (2013). Parental religious transmission after migration: The case of Dutch Muslims. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(3), 425–442.
43. Markides, K.S. (1986). Sources of helping and intergenerational solidarity: A three-generations study of Mexican Americans. Journal of Gerontology, 41(4), 506–511.
44. Massey, D.S. (1987). The ethnosurvey in theory and practice. International Migration Review, 21(4), 1498–1522.
45. Massey, D.S., Alarcon, R., Durand, J., & Gonzalez. H. (1987). Return to Aztlan: The social process of international migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.
46. Montero, D. (1981). The Japanese Americans: Changing patterns of assimilation over three generations. American Sociological Review, 46(6), 829–839.
47. Nauck, B. (2001). Social capital, intergenerational transmission and intercultural contact in immigrant families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(4), 465–489.
48. Obucina, O. (2013). Occupational trajectories and occupational cost among Senegalese immigrants in Europe. Demographic Research, 28(19), 547–580.
49. Phalet, K., & Schonpflug. U. (2001). Intergenerational transmission in Turkish immigrant families: Parental collectivism, achievement values and gender differences. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(4), 489–504.
50. Platt, L. (2007). Making education count: The effects of ethnicity and qualifications on intergenerational social class mobility. The Sociological Review, 55(3), 485–508.
51. Portes, A., & Rumbaut. R.G. (2001). Legacies. The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
52. Schneider, J., & Crul. M. (2010). New insights into assimilation and integration theory: Introduction to the Special Issue. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33 (7), 1143–1148.
53. Schönpflug, U. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of values: The role of transmission belts. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 32 (2), 174–185.
54. Schoorl, J., Heering, L., Esveldt, I., Groenewold, G., Van der Erf, R., Bosch, A., De Valk, H., & De Bruijn. B. (2000). Push and pull factors of international migration: A comparative report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.
55. Spierings, N. (2015). Gender equality attitudes among Turks in Western Europe and Turkey: The interrelated impact of migration and parents’ attitudes. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(5), 749–771.
56. Telles, E.E., & Ortiz. V. (2009). Generations of exclusion: Mexican Americans, assimilation, and race. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
57. Thomas, W.I., & Znaniecki. F.E. (1918). The polish peasant in Europe and America: Monograph of an immigrant group. Boston, MA: Richard G. Badger.
58. Vermeulen, H. (2010). Segmented assimilation and cross-national comparative research on the integration of immigrants and their children. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1214–1230.
59. Wimmer, A., & Schiller. N.G. (2003). Methodological nationalism, the social sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology. International Migration Review, 37(3), 576–610.