(Re)Searching with Imperial Eyes: Collective Self-Inquiry as a Tool for Transformative Migration Studies

Abstract

Migration scholars, and the universities and institutions who fund them, at times neglect to address the ways in which the traces of the imperial past, and references to the ‘post’ colonial serve to obfuscate and legitimize discriminatory practices in their work. The ‘imperial eyes’ of the academy set the terms and limitations on interactions, locations, and relationality in research, reducing the agency of migrants, producing stratified configurations in the positionality of both migrants and researchers and, subsequently, exacerbating dynamics of exclusion and extraction. As early-stage researchers, we see a critical need for an approach to migration studies which undermines the ongoing impact of colonialism and the normativity of institutionalized, hierarchical narratives that haunt academia. Our research builds on the work of scholars who write about the autonomy of migration, liberation theorists, and critical Indigenous perspectives, but our positions are also influenced by those on the ‘frontlines’ resisting various manifestations of violence and exclusion. In this article, using an interdisciplinary model, we propose the notion of collective self-inquiry to critically question and inquire into our own methods and approaches and provide a set of methodological tools that can be applied by other researchers within and outside of the university. These tools invite us to work collectively and look more critically at the b/ordering of movement(s) across former empires, thus helping us navigate towards the undercommons, a place where the liberatory potential of the academy can be realized.

Study of Educational Trajectories Through Biograms and Semantic Exploration, an Approach to Narrative Studies

“…Individual and cultural narratives are interrelated. (Bolívar et al, 2001, p. 22) Accordingly, Bass et al (2020), Ferrarotti (1983), and Ford (2020 point out the polysemic nature of biographicalnarrative research, highlighting the need to make a differentiation of terms, since in recent decades there has been a considerably marked methodological evolution. The development indicated corresponds to a first differentiation between the two terms that gave rise to this characteristic method (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984), biography and autobiography.…”

The moral economy of voice within IOM’s awareness-raising industry: Gambian returnees and Migrants as Messengers

“…In presenting our empirics, we remain aware of the limitations and implications of White, European and middleclass research in the Global South. This applies equally to the phases of data collection, analysis and dissemination (Bass, Córdoba, and Teunissen 2020). Especially in both the unhindered mobility of Western researchers and their preferential access to research sites and actors, the upcoming findings should therefore be considered as manifestations of White privilege.…”

Method as Border: Tuning in to the Cacophony of Academic Backstages of Migration, Mobility and Border Studies

“…Although this mobility approach seeks to address (in its own way) an ontology of separation (e.g., Naylor, Daigle, Zaragocin, Ramírez, & Gilmartin, 2018), the extractive and exclusionary dynamics of migration research reproducing unequal research relations remains implicit. Bass, Cordova, and Teunissen (2020) reflect on how discriminatory practices of so-called 'migration scholars' can be explained as traces of the "imperial eyes" through which academia legitimizes such dynamics. As early stage researchers they are influenced by scholars working with the autonomy of migration, liberation theory, critical perspectives of indigenous peoples/individuals and those working on the frontlines.…”

“…As early stage researchers they are influenced by scholars working with the autonomy of migration, liberation theory, critical perspectives of indigenous peoples/individuals and those working on the frontlines. From this mixed source of inspiration, Bass et al (2020) invite us to question our methods and approaches by providing a set of tools which could be applied by researchers not only inside but also outside academic structures. Motivated by their shared affinities rather than disciplinary or methodological concerns, the authors find in the "collective process of self-inquiry" (Bass et al, 2020, p. 150), a path to delink from the individualistic tendency of academic work.…”