This article addresses ethnosurvey methodology, a combination of ethnographic and
survey research in migrant origin and destination countries, that is designed to
elucidate a better understanding of the multiple facets of migration processes.
First, the article reviews the utility of ethnosurvey methodology for
researching contemporary migration. Second, it outlines the strengths of
ethnosurvey methodology with its combination of ethnographic and survey research
for allowing study of phenomena for which social embeddedness matters.
Ethnosurvey research carried out in the Polish context since the 1990s is used
to illustrate both the advantages, for example, complexity of approach,
multilevel analyses, ability to capture various forms of mobility, and
disadvantages, for example, sampling, methodological foundations, and the value
added of mixed methods for ethnosurvey methodology.
BeaucheminC.González-FerrerA. (2011). Sampling international
migrants with origin-based snowballing method: New evidence on biases and
limitations. Demographic Research,
25, 103-134.
2.
BilsborrowR. E. (1997). International migration statistics:
Guidelines for improving data collection systems.
Geneva, Switzerland:
International Labour
Organization.
3.
BilsborrowR.ZlotnikH. (1995). The systems approach and the
measurement of the determinants of international migration.
In van der ErfR.HeeringL. (Eds.), Causes of international migration (pp.
61-76).
Luxembourg:
Eurostat.
BrymanA. (1988). Quantity and quality in social
research. London, England:
Unwin Hyman.
6.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating
quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(1),
8-22.
7.
BulmerM. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology:
Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological
research. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago
Press.
8.
BurgessE.BogueD. J. (Eds.). (1967). Urban sociology.
Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
9.
CreswellJ. W.
PlanoClarkV.
L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
10.
CreswellJ. W.
PlanoClarkV.
L.GutmannM.HansonW. (2003). Advanced mixed methods
research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research (pp. 209-240).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
11.
de HaasH. (2010). The internal dynamics of
migration processes: A theoretical inquiry. Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36,
1587-1617.
12.
DurandJ.MasseyD. S.PrenK. A. (2016). Double disadvantage:
Unauthorized Mexicans in the US labor market. ANNALS
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
666, 78-90.
13.
EngbersenG.SnelE.de BoomJ. (2010). A “van full of poles”:
Liquid migration from Central and Eastern Europe. In
BlackR.EngbersenG.OkólskiM.PantîruC. (Eds.), A continent moving west? EU enlargement and
labour migration from Central and Eastern Europe (pp.
115-140). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Amsterdam University
Press.
14.
FaistT. (2000). The volumes and dynamics of
international migration and transnational social spaces.
Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
15.
FaistT. (2012). Migration. The Wiley-Blackwell
encyclopedia of globalization. Oxford,
England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
16.
FassmanH. (2009). Historical overview and
statistical problems. In FassmanH.ReegerU.SieversW. (Eds.), Statistics and reality: Concepts and measurement
of migration in Europe (pp. 21-42)
(IMISCOE Series). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Amsterdam University
Press.
17.
FawcettJ. T. (1989). Networks, linkages and
migration systems. International Migration
Review, 23,
671-680.
18.
FrejkaT.OkólskiM.SwordK. (1999). In-depth studies on migration in
Central and Eastern Europe: The case of Ukraine. New
York, NY: United
Nations.
19.
GentschK.MasseyD. (2011). Labor market outcomes for
legal Mexican immigrants under the new regime of immigration
enforcement. Social Science Quarterly,
92, 875-893.
20.
GileK. J.HandcockM. S. (2010). Respondent-driven sampling:
An assessment of current methodology. Sociological
Methodology, 40,
285-328.
GuestG. (2013). Describing mixed methods
research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 7(2),
141-151.
23.
HeckathornD. D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling:
A new approach to the study of hidden populations.
Social Problems, 44(2),
11-34.
24.
HorvathK. (2012). National numbers for
transnational relations? Challenges of integrating quantitative methods into
research on transnational labour market relations.
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35,
1741-1757.
25.
IglickaK.JaźwińskaE.OkólskiM. (1996). Współczesne migracje
zagraniczne ludności Polski: Podejście etnosondażowe
[Contemporary international migration from Poland: ethnosurvey approach].
Studia Demograficzne,
126(4),
3-42.
26.
JanickaA.KaczmarczykP. (2016). Mobilities in the crisis and
post-crisis times: Migration strategies of Poles on the EU labour
market. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 42,
1693-1710.
27.
JaźwińskaE.ŁukowskiW.OkólskiM. (1997). Przyczyny i konsekwencje emigracji
z Polski [Causes and consequence of emigration from Poland] (CMR
Working Paper No. 7). Warsaw, Poland:
University of Warsaw, Centre for Migration
Research.
28.
JaźwińskaE.OkólskiM. (Eds.). (1996). Causes and consequences of
migration in Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw,
Poland: University of Warsaw,
ISS.
29.
JaźwińskaE.OkólskiM. (Eds.). (2001). Ludzie na huśtawce.
Migracje między peryferiami Polski i Zachodu [People on a swing: Migration between peripheries of Poland and
the West]. Warsaw, Poland:
Scholar.
30.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1(2),
112-133.
31.
KaczmarczykP. (2005). Migracje zarobkowe Polaków w dobie
przemian [Labour migration of Poles at
the time of changes]. Warsaw,
Poland: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu
Warszawskiego.
32.
KaczmarczykP. (Ed.). (2011). Mobilność i migracje w dobie
transformacji: Wyzwania metodologiczne [Mobility and Migrations at the Time of Transformation: Methodological
challenges]. Warsaw, Poland:
Scholar.
33.
KaczmarczykP.AnackaM.JaźwińskaE.KopczyńskaJ.łukowskiW.MostowskaM.OkólskiM. (2011). Etnosondażowe podejście do
badania migracji jako procesu społecznego [Ethnosurvey approach to study migration as a social
process]. In KaczmarczykP. (Ed.), Mobilność i migracje w dobie transformacji:
Wyzwania metodologiczne [Mobility and
Migrations at the Time of Transformation: Methodological
challenges] (pp. 68-154).
Warsaw, Poland:
Scholar.
34.
KanburR.RapoportH. (2005). Migration selectivity and
the evolution of spatial inequality. Journal of
Economic Geography, 5(1),
43-57.
35.
KingR. (2012). Theories and typologies of
migration: An overview and a primer (Willy Brandt Series of Working
Paper No. 12/3). Malmö, Sweden:
Malmö University.
36.
LevineD. B.HillK.WarrenR. (Eds.). (1985). Immigration statistics: A
story of neglect. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
37.
LiangZ.ZhangT. (2004). Emigration, housing
conditions, and social stratification in China.
International Migration Review, 38,
302-324.
38.
Livi-BacciM. (2012). A short history of
migration. Cambridge, England:
Polity Press.
39.
LouisK. S. (1982). Multisite/multimethod
studies: An introduction. American Behavioral
Scientist, 26,
6-22.
40.
MasseyD. S. (1987). The ethnosurvey in theory
and practice. International Migration
Review, 21,
1498-1522.
41.
MasseyD. S. (1999). Why does immigration occur?
A theoretical synthesis. In HirschmanC.KasnitzP.DeWindJ. (Eds.), The handbook of international migration: The
American experience (pp. 34-52).
New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.
42.
MasseyD. S. (2009). When surveys fail: An
alternative for data collection. In StoneA. A.TurkkanJ. S.BachrachC.JobeJ. B.KurtzmanH. S.CainV. S. (Eds.), The science of self-report: Implications for
research and practice (pp. 145-160).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
43.
MasseyD. S. (2014). Challenges to surveying
immigrants. In TourangeauR.EdwardsB.JohnsonT. P. (Eds.), Hard-to-survey populations (pp.
270-292). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University
Press.
44.
MasseyD. S.AlarconR.DurandJ.GonzálezH. (1987). Return to Aztlan: The social
process of international migration from Western Mexico.
Berkeley: University of
California Press.
MasseyD. S.DurandJ.PrenK. A. (2016). The precarious position of
Latino immigrants in the United States: A comparative analysis of
ethnosurvey data. ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 666,
91-109.
47.
MasseyD. S.EspinosaK. E. (1997). What’s driving Mexico-U.S.
migration? A theoretical, empirical and policy analysis.
American Journal of Sociology, 102,
939-999.
48.
MasseyD. S.KalterF.PrenK. (2008). Structural economic change
and international migration from Mexico and Poland.
Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie,
60(1),
134-162.
49.
MasseyD. S.SanaM. (2005). Household composition,
family migration, and community context: Migrant remittances in four
countries. Social Science Quarterly,
86, 509-528.
50.
MasseyD. S.ZentenoR. M. (2000). A validation of the
ethnosurvey: The case of Mexico-U.S. migration.
International Migration Review, 34,
766-793.
51.
McKenzieD. J.MistiaenJ. (2009). Surveying migrant
households: A comparison of census based, snowball and intercept point
surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 172,
339-360.
52.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source
book of new methods. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
53.
MorganD. L. (1998). Practical strategies for
combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Applications for health
research. Qualitative Health Research,
8, 362-376.
54.
MullanB. (1995). The UN/ECE international
migration surveys in Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine: methodological
issues. In van der ErfR.HeeringL. (Eds.), Causes of international migration (pp.
223-253).
Luxembourg:
Eurostat.
55.
NewmanI.McNeilK. (1998). Conducting survey research in the
social sciences. New York, NY:
University Press of
America.
56.
NewmanI.NewmanD.NewmanC. (2011). Writing research articles
using mixed methods. Methodological considerations to help you get
published. In RoccoT. S.HatcherT. (Eds.) The handbook of scholarly writing and
publishing (pp. 191-208).
San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley.
57.
OECD. (2017). International migration
outlook 2017. Paris, France:
Author.
58.
OkólskiM. (2012). Spatial mobility from the
perspective of the incomplete migration concept.
Central and Eastern European Migration Review,
1(1),
11-36.
59.
PalloniA.MasseyD. S.CeballosM. (2001). Social capital and
international migration: A test using information on family
networks. American Journal of Sociology,
106,
1262-1298.
60.
ParkR. E. (1928). Human migration and the
marginal man. American Journal of
Sociology, 33,
881-893.
61.
PriesL. (1996). Transnationale soziale
räume: Theoretisch-empirische Skizze am Beispiel der Arbeitswanderungen
Mexiko-USA. Zeitschrift für Soziologie,
25, 437-453.
62.
SingletonA. (1999). Combining quantitative and
qualitative research methods in the study of international
migration. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 2,
151-157.
63.
SipavicieneA., (Ed.). (1997). International migration in
Lithuania: Causes, consequences, strategy.
Vilnius: UN Economic
Commission for Europe and Lithuanian Institute of Philosophy and
Sociology.
64.
StarkO.BloomD. (1985). The New economics of labor
migration. American Economic Review,
75, 173-178.
65.
StolaD. (1998). Migrations in Central and
Eastern Europe. International Migration
Review, 32,
1069-1072.
66.
TashakkoriA.NewmanI. (2010). Mixed methods: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. In
PetersonP.BakerE.McGawB. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education
(3rd ed., pp. 514-520).
New York, NY:
Elsevier.
TeddlieC.YuF. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A
typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1(1),
77-100.
69.
ThompsonS. K. (1990). Adaptive cluster
sampling. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 85,
1050-1059.
70.
ThompsonS. K. (1997). Adaptive sampling in
behavioral surveys. In HarrisonL.HughesA. (Eds.), The validity of self-reported drug use:
Improving the accuracy of survey estimates (NIDA Research Monograph
No. 167, pp. 296-320). Rockville,
MD: National Institute of Drug
Abuse.
71.
ThompsonS. K.SeberG. (1996). Adaptive sampling.
New York, NY:
Wiley.
72.
TourangeauR.EdwardsB.JohnsonT. P. (Eds.). (2014). Hard-to-survey
populations. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University
Press.
73.
TurkP.BorkowskiJ. (2005). A Review of adaptive cluster
sampling 1990–2003. Environmental and Ecological
Statistics, 12(1),
55-94.
74.
United Nations Development Programme. (2009).
Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development. Human
Development Report 2009. New York,
NY:
Author.
75.
Van WeyL. K. (2005). Land ownership as a
determinant of international and internal migration in Mexico and internal
migration in Thailand. International Migration
Review, 39,
141-172.
76.
YoungM. D.WillmottP. (1992). Family and kinship in East
London. Berkeley:
University of California
Press.
77.
WallaceC.VincentK. (2007). Recent migration from the
new European borderlands. Review of
Sociology, 13(2),
1-15.
