A growing body of literature addresses the experiences of transnational students, but relatively little research has focused on students who negotiate international border crossings on a regular basis. This study documents the role of cross-border mobility in the lives of university students in Brownsville, Texas (U.S.)/Matamoros, Tamaulipas (Mex.) and links students’ transnational experiences to their development of critical cosmopolitan identities and perspectives.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
This study explores South Texas university students’ lived experiences of cross-border mobility at a time of sociopolitical upheaval in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands and illuminates how specific forms of mobility can shape students’ educational and social subjectivities.
Research Design
An insider-outsider researcher and two undergraduate insiders collaborated to design and implement the study. An online survey was used to gather basic information about students’ cross-border mobility and educational experiences; subsequently, 16 focal participants were selected to participate in ethnographic interviews. Interview data were analyzed in NVivo using a two-cycle coding process and triangulated with survey data.
Findings/Results
Cross-border mobility offered academic and social benefits to the participants, but the benefits of mobility were inextricable from its drawbacks. Participants acknowledged the everyday difficulties associated with cross-border mobility; they also believed that these difficulties made them more responsible and successful. In addition, while participants spoke openly about the impact of violence on the borderlands, having to navigate this reality allowed them to develop a powerful form of insight connected to “knowing two versions” (one from each side of the border) of events.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The results invite researchers and educators to engage more critically with the cosmopolitan voices of students from areas often regarded as sites of marginality, poverty, and violence, such as the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Participants’ cross-border experiences simultaneously challenged and benefited them; these experiences gave them opportunities to construct, traverse, and inhabit a wider range of emotional geographies where they could make sense of their relationships to people, events, and places on both sides of the border.
On the border,
conflict of the heart or of the nation
has but one cure:
recognition of jointness
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvarezR. (2012). Borders and bridges: Exploring a new conceptual architecture for (U.S.Mexico) border studies. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 17(1), 24—40.
AppiahK. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York, NY: Norton.
4.
AraujoB., & de la PiedraM. T. (2013). Violence on the U.S.-Mexico border and the capital students use in response. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(3), 263—278.
5.
BalibarE. (2004). We, the people of Europe? Refections on transnational citizenship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
BeckU., & GrandeE. (2010). Varieties of second modernity: The cosmopolitan turn in social and political theory and research. British Journal of Sociology61(3), 409—443.
7.
BejaranoC. (2010). Border rootedness as transformative resistance: Youth overcoming violence and inspection in a U.S.-Mexico border region. Children's Geographies8(4), 391—399.
8.
BüscherM., & UrryJ. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 99—116.
9.
ByramM. (2003). On being bicultural and intercultural. In AlredG., ByramM., & FlemingM. (Eds.), Intercultural experience and education (pp. 50—66). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
10.
CharmazK. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In DenzinN., & LincolnY. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 249—291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CliffordJ. (2012). Feeling historical. Cultural Anthropology, 27(3), 417—426.
Correa-CabreraG. (2014). Violence on the “forgotten” border: Mexico's drug war, the state, and the paramilitarization of organized crime in Tamaulipas in a “New Democratic Era.” Journal of Borderlands Studies, 29(4), 419—433.
14.
CresswellJ. W., & MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124—130.
15.
CresswellT. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 17—31.
16.
de la PiedraM. T., & GuerraJ. C. (2012). The literacy practices of transfronterizos in a multilingual world. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(6), 627—634.
17.
DorseyM. E., & DíazåBarrigaM. (2015). The Constitution free zone in the United States: Law and life in a state of carcelment. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 38(2), 204—225.
18.
DuanyJ. (2000). Nation on the move: The construction of cultural identities in Puerto Rico and the diaspora. American Ethnologist, 27(1), 5—30.
19.
DysonA. H., & GenishiC. (2005). On the case. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20.
EnriquezJ. G. (2011). Tug o where: Situating mobilities of learning (t)here. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(1), 39—53
21.
FenwickT., EdwardsR., & SawchukP. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. London, U.K.: Routledge.
22.
GetrichC. (2013). “Too bad I'm not an obvious citizen”: The effects of racialized U.S. immigration enforcement practices on second-generation Mexican youth. Latino Studies11(4), 462—482.
23.
GonzálezN., Griego-JonesT., Martínez-BriseñoY. M., & ZavalaE. M. (2012). Estudiantes trasnacionales dentro de flujos globales: Una perspectiva teórica. In Valdéz GardeaG. C. (Ed.), Movilización, migración y retorno de la niñez migrante: Una mirada antropológica (pp. 41—74). Hermosillo, Mexico: El Colegio de Sonora, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa.
24.
HamannE. T., & ZúñigaV. (2011). Schooling and the everyday ruptures transnational children encounter in the United States and Mexico. In CoeC., ReynoldsR. R., BoehmD. A., HessJ. M., & Rae-EspinozaH. (Eds.), Everyday ruptures: Children, youth, and migration in global perspective (pp. 141—160). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
25.
HannerzU. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, Culture and Society, 7(2), 237—251.
26.
HeylB. S. (2001). Ethnographic interviewing. In AtkinsonP., CoffeyA., DelamontS., LoflandJ., & LoflandL. (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 369—383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
HeymanJ. M. (1998). State effects on labor exploitation: The INS and undocumented immigrants at the Mexico-United States border. Critique of Anthropology, 18(2), 157—180.
28.
HockeyJ., & ForseyM. (2012). Ethnography is not participant observation: Reflections on the interview as participatory qualitative research. In SkinnerJ. (Ed.), The interview: An ethnographic approach (pp. 69—87). London, U.K.: Berg.
29.
HornbergerN. H. (2000). Bilingual education policy and practice in the Andes: Ideological paradox and intercultural possibility. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31(2), 173—201.
30.
HullG. A., StornaiuoloA., & SahniU. (2010). Cultural citizenship and cosmopolitan practice: Global youth communicate online. English Education, 42(4), 331—367.
31.
IngoldT. (2014). That's enough about ethnography!Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383—395.
32.
KasunG. S. (2016). Interplay as a way of knowing among Mexican-origin transnationals: Chaining to the border and to transnational communities. Teachers College Record118(9), 1—32.
33.
KonradV., & NicolH. (2011). Border culture, the boundary between Canada and the United States of America, and the advancement of borderlands theory. Geopolitics, 16, 70—90.
34.
KralM. J. (2014). The relational motif in participatory qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(2), 144—150.
35.
LeanderK. M., PhillipsN. C., & TaylorK. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329—394.
MartínezO. (1994). Border people: Life and society in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
38.
MaxwellJ. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
MéndezZ. Y., & StaudtK. (2013). Transnationalism at the border: Students' experiences in border schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(3), 257—262.
40.
MignoloW. (2000). The many faces of cosmo-polis: Border thinking and critical cosmopolitanism. Public Culture, 12(3), 721—748.
41.
NyersP. (2003). Abject cosmopolitanism: The politics of protection in the anti-deportation movement. Third World Quarterly, 24(6), 1069—1093.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
PollockS., BhabhaH. K., BreckenridgeC. A., & ChakrabartyD. (2002). Cosmopolitanisms. In BreckenridgeC. A., PollockS., BhabhaH. K., & ChakrabartyD. (Eds.), Cosmopolitanism (pp. 1—14). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
45.
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2014). NVivo qualitative data analysis Software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 10, 2014.
46.
RabinowP. (1986). Representations are social facts: Modernity and post-modernity in anthropology. In CliffordJ., & MarcusG. (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 234—261). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
47.
Relaño PastorA. M. (2007). On border identities: “Transfronterizo” students in San Diego. Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung Heft, 3(2), 263—277
48.
RobbinsB. (1993). Comparative cosmopolitanism. Social Text31/32, 169—186.
49.
RumfordC. (2008). Introduction: Citizens and borderwork in Europe. Space and Polity, 12(1), 1—12.
50.
RumfordC. (2014). Cosmopolitan borders. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
51.
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
SánchezP. (2007). Urban immigrant students: How transnationalism shapes their world learning. The Urban Review, 39(5), 489—517.
53.
SánchezP., & Machado-CasasM. (2009). At the intersection of transnationalism, Latina/o immigrants, and education. The High School Journal, 92(4), 3—15.
54.
SchensulS. L., SchensulJ. J., & LeCompteM. D. (1999). Essential ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.
55.
SchillerN., BaschL., & Blanc-SzantonC. (1992). Transnationalism: A new analytic framework for understanding migration. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 645. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb33484.x
56.
SellarS., & GaleT. (2011). Mobility, aspiration, voice: A new structure of feeling for student equity in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 52(2), 115—134.
57.
ShellerM., & UrryJ. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207—226.
58.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
59.
StuesseA., & ColemanM. (2014). Automobility, immobility, altermobility: Surviving and resisting the intensification of immigrant policing. City & Society, 26(1), 51—72.
60.
Suárez-OrozcoM. M., DarbesT., DiasS. I., & SutinM. (2011). Migrations and schooling. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 311—328.
61.
VasudevanL. M. (2014). Multimodal cosmopolitanism: Cultivating belonging in everyday moments with youth. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(1), 45—67.
VillenasS. A. (2009). Knowing and unknowing transnational Latino lives in teacher education: At the intersection of educational research and the Latino humanities. The High School Journal, 92(4), 129—136.
64.
WahlströmN. (2014). Toward a conceptual framework for understanding cosmopolitanism on the ground. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(1), 113—132.
65.
WarrinerD. S. (2008). Transnational literacies: Immigration, language learning, and identity. Linguistics and Education, 18(3), 201—214.
66.
ZentellaA. C. (1996). The “Chiquitafication” of U.S. Latinos and their languages, or why we need an anthropolitical linguistics. In SALSA III: Proceedings of the Symposium on Language and Society (pp. 1–18). Austin, TX: Texas Linguistic Forum.
67.
ZentellaA. C. (2016). “Socials,” “Poch@s,” “Normals” y los demas: School networks and linguistic capital of high school students on the Tijuana-San Diego border. In AlimH. S., RickfordJ. R., & BallA. F. (Eds.), Raciolinguistics: How language shapes our ideas about race (pp. 327—343). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
