Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theodoros Iosifides - Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies - A Critical Realist Perspective-Taylor & Francis (2011)
Theodoros Iosifides - Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies - A Critical Realist Perspective-Taylor & Francis (2011)
Theodoros Iosifides - Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies - A Critical Realist Perspective-Taylor & Francis (2011)
Migration Studies
This book is wholeheartedly dedicated to Maria
Qualitative Methods in
Migration Studies
A Critical Realist Perspective
Theodoros Iosifides
University of the Aegean, Greece
First published 2011 by Ashgate Publishing
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
1 Introduction 1
Bibliography 239
Index 263
This page has been left blank intentionally
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Tables
The idea of writing this book has been developed over the last few years and
has been the outcome of my experiences of teaching, researching and taking
part in various debates regarding social science epistemology, methodology and
applied research practice on migration-related phenomena. Prior interaction
with colleagues in Greece and abroad, my students – undergraduate and
postgraduate – and academic texts of all sorts, along with my personal
dissatisfaction with contemporary metatheoretical convictions of qualitative
methods, partly shaped my ideas contained in this volume. These ideas were also
shaped by my involvement in qualitative (and quantitative) research practice
on migration-related issues and processes. This involvement convinced me of
the value and inherent advantages of qualitative methods for the investigation
of social complexity and identification of real causal processes that occur in
the social world. It also convinced me that the metatheoretical commitments
underpinning much of today’s qualitative research in general, and qualitative
migration research in particular (e.g. various versions of interpretivism, social
constructionism, post-structuralism and postmodernism) circumscribe rather
than enhance its inherent strengths and advantages and need to be replaced by
alternative commitments, notably those of critical realism. This is the line of
argument I advance throughout the book.
I would like to thank Routledge Publishing for granting me permission
to reuse the following tables and figures: ‘Domains of reality’ (Table 3.1),
‘Intensive and extensive research: a summary’ (Table 4.1) and ‘Levels of
realist theorising’ (Figure 3.2). I also thank Cambridge University Press for
allowing me to reuse Figures 10, 11, 12 and 17 from Archer 1995 (Table 3.3
and Figure 3.1). I am extremely grateful to many people who have engaged in
conversations with me and supported me in various ways all these years. First
of all, I owe many thanks to the Department of Geography at the University
of the Aegean, Lesvos, Greece, for granting me a one-year sabbatical leave,
without which this book would not have been completed. I am also grateful
to many colleagues based in this department or in other institutions for their
valuable insights and comments regarding issues discussed in the book.
More specifically, I thank Apostolos Papadopoulos, Electra Petracou, Ioannis
Chorianopoulos, Thanasis Kizos, Manos Spyridakis and Sotirios Koukoulas.
I would also like to thank Dr Ekaterini Nikolarea for helping with the English
language editing. I express my gratitude to my students and especially to
participants in my research endeavours, who were always a source of inspiration
and reflection. Finally, I owe many thanks to Neil Jordan – a social science
x Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
commissioning editor with Ashgate Publishing – for his overall support during
my work on this book.
Theodoros Iosifides
Mytilene
Lesvos
Greece
List of Abbreviations
The slave trade was organized in the notorious ‘triangular trade’: ships laden
with manufactured goods, such as guns or household implements, sailed from
ports such as Bristol and Liverpool, Bordeaux and Le Havre, to the coasts of
West Africa. There Africans were either forcibly abducted or were purchased
from local chiefs or traders in return for goods. Then the ships sailed to the
Caribbean or the coasts of North or South America, where the slaves were sold
for cash. This was used to purchase the products of the plantations, which were
brought back for sale in Europe. (Castles and Miller 2003: 53)
It is estimated that between 1600 and 1900 10.24 million slaves from Africa
were transported to the Americas (Lovejoy 2000). After the abolition of slavery
in the British Empire (1833) and especially in the USA (1863–1865), labour
availability was guaranteed through the development of the system of indentured
(‘coolie’) labour. Castles and Miller (2003: 55) point out that ‘[A]ccording to
Potts (1990: 63-103) indentured workers were used in 40 countries by all the
major colonial powers. She estimates that the system involved 12 to 37 million
workers between 1843 and 1941, when indentureship was finally abolished in
the Dutch colonies’. The system was abolished gradually from 1878 in Malaya
to 1920 in Fiji and India, while in the Dutch colonies indentured labour was
abolished in 1941 (King 1994).
Due to the exploitation of the colonies and of migrant labour of various types,
capital accumulation accelerated in the major areas of the global core after the
eighteenth century (Castles and Miller 2003). This acceleration, along with the
deepening of capitalist relations of production to urban and rural areas, was
simultaneously based on and caused by massive internal movements of peasants
to the dynamic, predominately urban, areas of manufactured production. Different
countries and areas in Europe followed various paths of industrialisation,
urbanisation and internal population mobility as regards time and characteristics.
Thus, in Britain, where industrial development accelerated rapidly after the end
of the eighteenth century, internal migration resulted in balancing urban and rural
population in 1850 (Mousourou 1990: 13).
In other countries, urbanisation reached the same levels much later, notably in
Germany in 1890, France in 1930, in the Soviet Union in 1960 and in Greece just
in 1970 (Mousourou 1990: 13). Nevertheless in many other countries and areas the
rate of urbanisation and internal migratory movements was faster. Thus:
Contemporary Migration 7
By 1801 nearly one-tenth of the population of England and Wales was living in
cities of over 100,000 people. This proportion doubled in 40 years and doubled
again in another 60 years. As the process of the Industrial Revolution spread
to other countries, the pace of urbanisation quickened. The change from a
population of 10% to 30% living in urban areas of over 100,000 people took 80
years in England and Wales; 66 years in the USA; 48 years in Germany; 36 years
in Japan and 26 years in Australia. (Guinness 2002: 38)
new types of dependent work. Thus, laws of this kind were passed to ‘control
the displaced farmers and artisans, the ‘hordes of beggars’ who threatened public
order. Workhouses and poorhouses were often the first form of manufacture,
where the disciplinary instruments of the future factory system were developed
and tested’ (Castles and Miller 2003: 56). Conditions in the poorhouses were
deliberately appalling in order to increase the attractiveness of – in many cases
equally appalling – working conditions in factories (Crowther 1981). In reality,
the workhouse and poorhouse system was a tool for imposing involuntary forms
of labour on internal migrants, continuing the proto-capitalist ‘tradition’ of forced
and unfree labour use.
Before 1920, migration to North America was free but between 1921 and 1924 the
introduction of the ‘quota system’ imposed barriers to prospective immigrants of
non-Anglo-Saxon origin, and mass migrations in the area ended with the economic
crisis of 1929 (Mousourou 1991: 29). Other types of migratory movement in the
pre-war period include intra-European labour migrations from countries such as
Poland, Ireland and Italy to industrial centres of England, Germany and France
(Entzinger and Fermin 2008) and refugee movements, ‘because of political and
religious persecution (Jews fleeing the pogroms in Russia to England but also
the USA, Armenians fleeing the massacres of the Turkish army, many of them
received by France) and civil conflicts (the Russian Revolution) and world wars’
(Entzinger and Fermin 2008: 19). As far as the first type of migration during the
inter-war period is concerned, France was the most popular destination with about
567,000 immigrants entering the country between 1920 and 1930, mainly because
of demographic reasons (Entzinger and Fermin 2008). Finally, a total number of
about 7.5 million involuntary immigrants were brought to Nazi Germany in order
to substitute German conscripts (Castles and Miller 2003: 65).
The period after World War II was marked by various types of migratory
movements both within Europe and between Europe and other countries. Castles
and Miller (2003: 68–9) as well as Entzinger and Fermin (2008: 20–21) stress that
the main types were labour, ‘guestworker’ migrations within Europe, migrations
from former colonies to former colonial countries and permanent, settlement
migrations from Europe to North America and from Asia and Latin America to
Australia.
The successful reconstruction of Western Europe after World War II and
the introduction of the Fordist model of mass production resulted in labour
shortages and urgent need for imported labour so that Western Europe could
keep pace with accelerated capital accumulation. The main sources of migration
towards north-western Europe were the peripheral countries of southern Europe
and the Balkans, notably Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Yugoslavia and Turkey
(Bade 2003). The main destination countries were Belgium, France, the Federal
Republic of Germany (FRG), the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and
10 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
the United Kingdom (Castles and Miller 2003). By 1975, the percentages of
immigrant workers with regards to total population in the preceding destination
countries varied from 2.6% in the Netherlands to 16% in Switzerland; the same
percentage was 6.6% in FRG, 7.9% in France and 8.5% in Belgium (Castles and
Miller 2003: 73). Apart from rapid economic development in the north-west,
especially after 1955, labour shortages came about for a variety of other reasons
as well, some of which included demographic deficiencies, the extension of
educational duration and certain changes in work and life preferences of local
populations (Ventura 2006). Changes in work and life preferences occurred
because people had greater opportunities for upward social mobility within
conditions of accelerated prosperity and full employment (Mousourou 1991).
At the other end of this migration system, there are some factors that explain
the ‘push’ towards emigration. The most significant of those factors were
demographic dynamism, low GDP per capita and high mean income differentials
between source and destination areas, substantial social and economic inequality
within source countries – resulting both in internal and international movements
– structural unemployment and underemployment, poverty and geographical
proximity (Mousourou 1991, Bade 2003, Ventura 2006).
Labour migrations towards north-west Europe featured primarily their
industrial and more or less organised character (Ventura 1994). The main sectors
of immigrant employment in destination countries were the mining, iron and steel
industries, metallurgy, automobile manufacturing, public works, construction and
to some extent, agricultural production in France (Castles and Miller 2003, Ventura
2006). Migratory movements of this type were in most cases highly organised.
This entailed bilateral agreements between prospective source and destination
countries along with the establishment of special recruiting agencies in source
countries. Thus, to give but one example, in 1946 Italy and Belgium signed an
agreement which guaranteed a possible recruitment of 2,000 Italian immigrants
to Belgium per week (Ventura 1994: 48). But it was the Federal Republic of
Germany that made the paradigmatic case of the ‘guestworker’ system in the post-
war era. West Germany established recruitment offices in various countries such
as Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Morocco, Portugal, Tunisia and Yugoslavia acting
as selection agencies of appropriate prospective immigrants. By 1973, 2.6 million
immigrants had gone to West Germany (Castles and Miller 2003). Recruitment
was based on granting annual contracts to prospective immigrants and on the
system of ‘rotation’ (King 1994).
migrants had already been taken care of by their home countries. By admitting
only single workers, social support costs for families were avoided. And by
returning them to their home countries through the rotation policy, no costs of
non-productive old age were required. (King 1994: 25).
Canada followed policies of mass migration after 1945. At first only Europeans
were admitted. Most entrants were British, but Eastern and Southern Europeans
soon played an increased role. The largest immigrant streams in the 1950s
and 1960s were of Germans, Italians and Dutch. The introduction of a non-
discriminatory ‘points system’ for screening potential migrants after the 1966
White Paper opened the door for non-European migrants. (Castles and Miller
2003: 75)
Economic crises in the wealthier countries after 1974 – due to the decline of the
Fordist model of mass production – led to lingering efforts to restore the profit-rate
and reverse downturns in productivity. Termed ‘socio-economic restructuring’,
those efforts resulted in a series of significant socio-economic transformations
which affected the character and directions of global migratory movements
in a distinct way. A thorough analysis of the vast restructuring and economic
globalisation literature exceeds the purposes of the present section. Nevertheless,
efforts to overcome the ‘rigidities’ of Fordism led to the adoption of a production
model characterised by greater flexibility, with regards both to the geographical
mobility and allocation of various business and productive units and resources, as
well as to the functions and reorganisation of the labour process. The transition
from Fordism to the new model, known as ‘flexible specialisation’, has entailed
the partial abandonment of standardised, mass production patterns in favour of
specialised production for fragmented and equally specialised markets and market
niches (Iosifides 1997a).
Although the universality, the extent and the depth of the transition from
Fordism to flexible specialisation (or flexible accumulation) is questioned, it is
widely acknowledged that socio-economic restructuring processes have resulted
in a series of novel social, economic and labour market developments. These
developments are related mainly to the drop or slack of industrial employment
in wealthier countries, the increase of self-employment and the tertiary sector,
the trend towards more casualisation of the labour force, informalisation of
certain sectors of economic activity, the increase of long term unemployment, the
Contemporary Migration 13
migration of women. As Nancy Green (2004: 141) points out, the feminisation
of migration in the United States in 1930 was reported in an article only in 1984.
Now, regarding contemporary estimates of the number of international
migrants globally, according to the United Nations World Economic and Social
Survey (2004), those were about 175 million in 2000, while Lowell (2007)
estimates the same figure to be 190 million in 2005. Since the beginning of the
twentieth century international migration increased fivefold while the global
population increased less than fourfold (UN 2004). The direction of international
migration shifted towards the wealthier countries during the last four decades.
Only about 37% of the total number of international migrants moved to a poorer
country during this period (UN 2004). International migrants are also concentrated
geographically within the core countries. Therefore in 2000 the United States
was ‘host’ of about 35 million international migrants (about 20% of the total),
the Russian Federation 1.3 million (7.6%), Germany 7.3 million (4.2%), Ukraine
6.9 million (4%) and France 6.3 million (3.6%) (UN 2004: 30). Geographical
concentration is evident in source countries as well as only three countries, China,
India and the Philippines, account for about 63 million international migrants (35,
20 and 7 million respectively).1
The total number of international migrants may seem high in absolute terms
but it accounts for only a very small fraction of the total world population (about
3%), whereas the volume of internal migration, especially within poorer countries
is much higher. To give but one example, only in India, about 24 million people
were internal migrants (living outside the State they were born in) in 1981 (UN
2004: 25). Faist (2000: 81, 94) addresses the question of low immobility out of
most places and relative high mobility out of few places stressing factors such as
the asymmetric dependence between emigration and immigration countries, the
differentiation in granting rights to immigrants (access to labour markets, civil,
social, political and citizenship rights) between Western Europe/North America
and peripheral countries (for example, the Arab gulf countries) and the function of
migratory networking systems. The global distribution of international migrants
for 2000 is as follows;2, 3 Europe (including the European part of the former USSR)
1 http://images.gmanews.tv/html/research/2007/12/world_migration_report_2005.
htm (accessed: 7 September 2009).
2 http://images.gmanews.tv/html/research/2007/12/world_migration_report_2005.
htm (accessed: 7 September 2009).
3 Southern European countries (Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal) have been
transformed from source to destination areas since the late 1970s. It is estimated that in the
1990s at least 2 million and probably closer to 3 million immigrants resided in southern
European countries (Iosifides and King 1996). The main reasons for this transformation
are related to the relative ease of entry, geographical proximity with various source
countries, the narrowing of economic gap between southern and north-western Europe, the
Mediterranean demographic divide and the demand for cheap labour due to socio-economic
restructuring and the persistence of the informal economy (Iosifides and King 1996).
Nevertheless, it should be noted that, for example, in Greece delayed acknowledgment
Contemporary Migration 15
‘hosts’ 56.1 million immigrants (7.7% of the European population), Asia 49.9
million (1.4% of Asian population), North America 40.8 million (12.9% of the
total North American population), Africa 16.3 million (2% of African population),
Latin America 5.9 million (1.1% of Latin American population) and Australia 5.8
million (18.7% of the Australian population).
Now let me examine some key types of contemporary population movements,
namely labour and temporary migration, irregular migration, skilled migration
and refugee/asylum seekers movements, placing special emphasis on Europe.
Continuing international labour migration in the contemporary era is a phenomenon
which is linked directly not only with the ‘push’ factors in the source countries
but also to specific ‘pull’, labour demand factors in various sectors of economic
activity or labour market segments in destination countries. As Sassen (1988: 43)
points out:
What partly explains the continuing demand for cheap immigrant labour
in wealthier countries is the interrelated processes of globalisation and
internationalisation of production, labour market segmentation, informalisation
of certain sectors or subsectors of economic activity and tertiarisation. These
processes result in the polarisation of labour demand between high-skilled,
relatively protected and low-skilled, casual, and in many cases, informal jobs
(King 1994). Globalisation processes and the emergence of global cities results
in, predominately female, migratory movements in export-led zones in poorer
countries and in increased complementarity between innovative, dynamic
sectors and economic activities as well as in demand of low-skilled, often
informal immigrant labour (Iosifides 1997a). With regard to the former process,
active labour market participation of women in the labour markets of peripheral
countries leads to changes in traditional rural economies and international male
and female migratory movements. Thus, internationalisation of production and
investments in poorer countries does not necessarily ease migratory pressures.
On the contrary, introduction and proliferation of market relations often lead to
an increase rather than to a decrease of movements (Iosifides 1997a). As regards
the latter process:
of its transformation to an immigration country has also been related to the persistence
of official discourses on ‘cultural homogeneity’ and the associated self-image of ‘cultural
integrity and unity’ (Ventura 2004).
16 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Of course, the above processes do not solely explain international labour migratory
movements. Globalisation is much more complex, entailing simultaneously both
mobility and immobility of labour. Thus, the ability of certain segments of capital
to move around the globe and to relocate where the terms of accumulation are
more favourable, results in putting pressures for labour immobility (Papastergiadis
2000). This ability has been noted by the New International Division of Labour
(NIDL) thesis, according to which ‘from the 1960s onwards, large companies
within the more developed countries elected to relocate an ever great part of the
production process in the developing world in order to increase profits by drawing
on the lower labour costs than were possible on the so called ‘core economies’
(Gould and Findlay 1994: 23). Furthermore, understanding international population
movements requires a thorough examination of the crucial role that various
actors, other than capital and economic interests, play such as states, political
pressure groups and parties, civil society and rights advocacy organisations. The
‘growing politicization of migration’ (Castles and Miller 2003: 9) along with the
securitisation of international population movements, explains a great part of the
directions of official migration policies both at an international and national level
(Bade 2003, Papadopoulos 2007).
Labour migratory movements, especially in Europe, were affected significantly
by the demise of the central planning regimes of Eastern Europe and the former
USSR in the early 1990s. In 2002/2003 in Western Europe, there were about 10
million registered labour migrants, 37% higher than that of 1995, although in
Southern European countries4 a great proportion of this increase was a result of
regularisation programmes (Salt 2005). Furthermore, temporary labour migration
has been increasing in the last 10 years, with the USA being the most popular
destination country (UN 2004). Temporary labour migrants fill low-skill shortages
mainly in sectors such as services and agriculture, and are often regulated either
by bilateral or multilateral agreements or by provisions of regional organisations
such as NAFTA (UN 2004). Thus, in 2000–2001, there were about 530,000
temporary migrants in the United States, 330,000 in Germany, 200,000 in Japan,
132,000 in the UK, 128,000 in Australia and 56,000 in Switzerland (UN 2004:
128). Lastly, a type of significant contemporary labour migratory movement is
that of irregular migration. Of course, and due to its very character, the volume
of irregular migration is extremely difficult or even impossible to estimate with
precision, despite the fact that a series of direct or indirect methods (multiplier,
refugees (Bade 2003: 265) and not as a result of mitigating the root causes of
involuntary displacement. The same tendencies of hostility against refugees have
also been observed for asylum seekers as well (although in varying degrees across
countries). Thus, as Salt (25–6) points out: ‘[S]everal destination countries have
also put into operation asylum reduction models designed to interdict flows, curtail
administrative processes and reduce benefits to asylum seekers’. Concerning
general trends of asylum applications in the developed world, ‘[D]uring the period
1999–2003, 2.8 million asylum claims were lodged in the industrialized countries,
16 per cent more than in the previous five-year period’ (UN 2004: 182).
The preceding, inevitably incomplete and partial, discussion of migration-related
processes and phenomena in the twentieth century and in the contemporary era
nevertheless indicates their complexity, multifacetedness and multidimensionality.
It also sets the ‘factual’ scene for the brief critical examination of attempts to
theorise and explain migration-related phenomena in the next section.
This section contains a relatively brief discussion of the main attempts to theorise
the migratory phenomenon, or, to be more precise, to theorise various aspects of
it. The migration process is extremely complex and multi-faceted and thus any
attempt to produce any coherent theoretical frameworks about it leads inevitably
to a confinement to some dimensions of the process and to addressing only some
fundamental questions related, for example, to the causes of movements, their
direction, their impacts and consequences, their dynamics and so on. Furthermore,
theories of migration usually tend to focus only on some migratory types, such
as internal migration, international migration, refugee movements, labour or
skilled migration, although their range may have been proven to be much broader.
Theoretical frameworks, discussed below, are not exceptions, although there
have been attempts by some scholars to capture the totality of the phenomenon.
Nevertheless, every theoretical framework either generic or more specialised, not
only in migration studies but in social sciences in general, implicitly (and some
times explicitly) adopts a certain view on the nature of social reality (ontology), the
means of knowledge production (epistemology) and on the appropriate research
practices (methodology). Those implicit assumptions of migration theories will be
critically examined subsequently.
Micro-level theories originate mainly from economics and their basic feature is
related to the level of analysis, considered to be central for theorising migratory
movements; that is the individual or other types of atomistic units such as the
household or the business unit. According to Faist (2000: 31), micro-level theories
put special emphasis on individuals’ values and expectations and on individual
Contemporary Migration 19
the rate of labour absorption depends on the rigidity of the rate of capital
accumulation in the industrial sector of the dualistic economy and on the
strength and character of innovational activities. Labour is assumed to be
abundant and its marginal productivity to be near zero in rural areas; also wages
are assumed to be at the subsistence level. The industrial sector of a dualistic
economy then can have at its disposal virtually unlimited supplies of labour
at a subsistent wage level determined by institutional forces. The procedure of
labour reallocation will stop when the rate of economic growth matches the rate
of population growth and when wages rise to a level at which further expansion
of the capitalist sector will be unprofitable. (Iosifides 1997a: 18)
There is increasing consensus that capitalism as such cannot be blamed for the
problems of underdevelopment, but that the specific developmental effects of
incorporation of a region or country into the global capitalist system seems
to depend much more on the conditions under which this takes place, that is,
22 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
A relational analysis obviates the rigid micro vs. macro distinction because it
focuses more on the form and content of the relationship rather than on the
properties or attributes of the actors or positions. On the meso level, the social
and symbolic ties of the movers and stayers vary with respect to their structure,
such as density and strength and their content. (Faist 2000: 33)
Contemporary Migration 23
5 See Carter (2000) for the theorising of ‘race’ and developments related to migration
processes and policies in the United Kingdom, all from an explicitly critical realist
perspective.
Contemporary Migration 25
For Bourdieu social (and other forms of) capital is distributed unevenly
according to actors’ positioning in different fields of action. Thus for Bourdieu
the various capitals are inscribed both subjectively (in the embodied habitus)
and objectively (in fields of action). Bourdieu’s notion of social capital therefore
forms a bedrock for the social inequality and social justice axis of the social
capital debate. Indeed in providing theoretical bridges between social capital
and issues of social inequality, in the social capital debates for those working
from a critical perspective, Bourdieu’s work tends to be championed. (Adkins
2005: 197)
Coleman’s rather vague definition and the ‘laundry list’ of forms – a list that
arguably conflates determinants, sources, and outcomes of social capital –
has been lamented by Portes (1998) for having opened the way to confusion
and contradiction in the wider social capital literature. Coleman has also been
criticized for his conservatism, with his emphasis on the primordial role of
traditional family structures and religious participation to generate strong social
capital. (PRI 2003: 18)
Finally, Putnam (2001) relates social capital to the formation and functioning of
social networks and to features such as social bonding, norms and trust which
allow people to pursue and implement common goals in an effective way. One
26 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Social norms are informal rules that condition behaviour in various circumstances
[…] A social network is an interconnected group of people who usually have an
attribute in common […] Trust is simply the level of confidence that people have
that others will act as they say or are expected to act, or that what they say is
reliable. (Productivity Commission 2003: x)
they originate from social interaction and are characterised by structural and
cultural emergent properties; that is, by novel systemic properties, complexity and
relative irreducibility as regards the properties of individuals or social actors (see
Archer 1995, Sawyer 2005). Thus, ‘ethnic mobility entrapment’ may lead to the
reproduction of the marginalised social position of certain immigrant communities
and prevent upward social mobility opportunities (PRI 2003). ‘Ethnic’ enclaves
are ‘characterised by the spatial concentration of the immigrant group and by
considerable within-group stratification that give rise to clustered networks of
business owned by group members’ (Heisler 2008: 88), while ‘ethnic’ niches
‘emerge when a group is able to colonize a particular sector of employment in such
a way that members have privileged access to new job openings, while restricting
outsiders’ (Heisler 2008: 88).
Despite its relative usefulness in elucidating various aspects of migratory
experiences and processes, the concept of social capital has been criticised
for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons are: its alleged novelty, the lack
of empirical specificity and the neglect of issues of power (SARD 2001: 12).
Furthermore the concept, and the associated theoretical elaborations, especially
those made by Putnam, are criticised for failing to link macro societal processes to
micro processes of social networking and for having limitations in illustrating the
negative sides of social bonding (SARD 2001). In general, it should be noted that
the concept of social capital has been mostly used in a highly quantified manner
and with clear inclinations towards empiricism and methodological individualism.
Despite the high sophistication of quantitative methods, social capital research
remains largely descriptive and variable oriented. Furthermore, it tends to reduce
social causality to finding and analysing empirical regularities. Research on social
capital and migration needs to be enhanced by theoretical and methodological
stances aiming at investigating deeper mechanisms that produce certain outcomes.
Qualitative methods may prove extremely helpful in examining social interaction,
actors’ practices, perspectives, meanings and societal constraints and opportunities
thus, contributing significantly to theorising and empirically investigating the depth
mechanisms that produce certain relations between social capital/networking,
immigrant experiences and processes within specific socio-cultural contexts (see
Iosifides 2009).
– Contextually-specific.
– Explanatory as well as descriptive in orientation.
– Dynamic – both in terms of time (diachronic) and in terms of interaction
between actors, institutions and structures (synchronic).
– Historically grounded.
30 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
– Actor-oriented.
– Concerned with agency as well as structure within social, economic and
political processes.
– Explicitly concerned with linking between micro, meso and macro levels.
(Collinson 2009: 14)
Critical realism is a philosophy of social sciences that may act as a ‘guide’ towards
substantive theorising and empirical research, either qualitative or quantitative.
Thus, it comes as no surprise that there is not a critical realist ‘tradition’ in migration
theorising with very few exceptions.6 Nevertheless, as already mentioned in the
previous subsection, a series of migration theoretical frameworks, especially those
of a synthetic kind, are characterised by several features similar to those of critical
realism, thus making them implicitly realist. Ratcliffe (2007: 314), criticising
push–pull, structuralist and ‘subjectivist’ migration theories, from a critical realist
perspective, points out that:
He also stresses that: ‘[T]o the realist the search is for those generative mechanisms
that lie behind the empirical facts of population movements’ (Ratcliffe 2007:
313). Thus, critical realists advocate an in-depth approach, which elucidates the
interaction between structural, cultural and agential features producing certain
outcomes regarding population mobility and immobility. The processes of
emergence, the stratified nature of the social world and the reality of structural
and cultural properties are crucial for critical realist theorising and researching
into migration and other social phenomena (Sayer 2000). These notions will be
analysed further, and in detail, in subsequent chapters (especially Chapters 3 and 4).
In this section, I examine, in a concise manner, some key issues concerning the
relations between ontology, epistemology and social research methodology and
their impact on research practice, giving special emphasis to research practices
related to migration. Within this framework, the premises of the old and enduring
polarisation between qualitative and quantitative methods in social research are
briefly discussed, using examples from migration studies. This discussion aims
at highlighting the ontological and epistemological assumptions of positivist
quantitative and interpretative/constructionist qualitative research that make their
antithesis inevitable and ‘methodological eclecticism’ even more problematic.
Every research endeavour, in every field of social science, is characterised,
in most cases implicitly, by certain ontological and epistemological assumptions,
inevitably closely linked to each other. With regard to the former it adopts a
certain view on the character of social reality and, as far as the latter is concerned,
it adopts a theory about the nature of knowledge of that reality (Archer 2005,
Hartwig 2007). Thus, according to Fleetwood:
The way we think the world is (ontology) influences: what we think can be known
about it (epistemology); how we think it can be investigated (methodology and
research techniques); the kinds of theories we think can be constructed about it;
and the political and policy stances we are prepared to take. Although having
the ‘right’ ontology does not guarantee that the ensuing meta-theory, theory and
practice will also be ‘right’, having the ‘wrong’ ontology makes this virtually
impossible – although we might be ‘right’ by accident. Similarly, having an
unambiguous ontology does not guarantee that the ensuing meta-theory, theory
and practice will also be unambiguous, but having an ambiguous ontology
makes this much harder. In short, ontology matters. (Fleetwood 2005: 197–8)
for the basic reason that it contextualizes social reality in certain terms, thus
identifying what is there to be explained and also ruling out explanations in terms
of entities or properties which are deemed non-existent’ (Archer 2005: 17). For a
long time, migration studies have been dominated by – and in some disciplines
such as economics, it is still prevalent – a mode of methodological individualism
and empiricism. Here we are presented with a significantly coherent way of
thinking where ontological and epistemological principles affect methodological
choices towards highly sophisticated, variable-oriented, quantitative methods and
modelling techniques. Empiricism reduces reality to surface, ‘sense data’, through
which knowledge of the social world becomes possible. Thus, it conflates ontology
with epistemology and commits what critical realists call ‘the epistemic fallacy’
(Archer 1995, Sayer 2000). Consequently, empiricism rejects ontological depth;
that is, powers and mechanisms operating at levels of social reality which are, in
many cases, unobservable and adopts a notion of social causality as regularity, e.g.
constant conjunction of discrete events (Morgan 2007b).
Having been dominant especially in migration economics, empiricism,
conceptualises migratory phenomena and processes of migration decision making
through assumptions related to methodological individualism, to ‘a utilitarian
ontology of the self’ and a ‘uniform concept of rationality’ (Boswell 2008:
552). Limitations in social explanation based on focusing solely on individual
dispositions, actions and behaviours governed by an alleged universal, utility-
maximising rationality, led to calls for the incorporation into explanatory schemes
of features related to actors’ subjective understandings, intersubjective meanings,
shared norms and socio-cultural factors (Boswell 2008). These features are better
investigated by applying qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviewing or
participant observation, but problems with combining different methodological
approaches (quantitative and qualitative) in a complementary way are destined
to persist when implicit or explicit ontological and epistemological assumptions
between the two remain distinct or contradictory.
Empiricism is not a feature of methodological individualism alone.
Methodological holism, which prioritises structural explanations reducing
human agency to a mere epiphenomenon of structures (Archer 1995) has
affected migration theorising and research to a considerable extent; Marxist
and neo-Marxist elaborations being the main examples. This mode of thinking
is characterised by deterministic inclinations and ‘structural reductionism’; that
is, ‘the attempt to explain all human behaviour structurally’ (Porpora 2007:
423). Despite its efforts, holism fails to account for processes and mechanisms
beyond the surface of social reality because it lacks the appropriate conceptual
tools, such as relationality and emergence to shed light on the ontological status
of social structures (Archer 2005). Thus, the incorporation of structural factors
into explanatory schemes does not prevent an overall empiricist account of social
reality. As Archer (1995: 54) points out: ‘[F]or structural features are allowed in
under the rubric (as yet) “undefined group properties” provided they increase our
explanatory/predictive power by helping to account for observed regularities. It is
34 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Despite the important insights into the value of biographical methods in migration
research derived by the above examples, they nevertheless fall into the ontological
and epistemological premises of ‘structuration theory’ which reduces their
explanatory power; this is mainly due to the inability of this theory to grant real and
separate causal powers to social structures, incorporate time into social analysis
and extend the notion of ‘practical consciousness’ towards full appreciation of
the role of ‘practice’ in social life (Archer 1995). Overcoming these limitations
presupposes the adoption of the realist notions of emergence, reality stratification
and interplay between the distinct causal powers of structure, culture and agency
(Collier 1994, Creaven 2000). Thus, within realist ontological and epistemological
assumptions, biographical migration research may contribute considerably not
only to an in-depth understanding of agential actions and intentionality, but also,
more crucially, to an examination of social outcomes produced by the interaction
between them and structural/cultural factors:
Contemporary Migration 37
Realist insights into overcoming the traditional dualism between quantitative and
qualitative methods, the identification of the former with positivism and the latter
with interpretivism or social constructionism and between micro- and macro-
approaches, enhances significantly the explanatory potential of qualitative (and
quantitative) research. Thus, qualitative methods may be viewed as the intensive
part of social research and quantitative methods as its extensive counterpart, both
aiming to identify ‘generative mechanisms and describe how they are manifested
in real events and processes’ (Danermark et al. 2002: 165). Within the critical
realist perspective, ontological and epistemological clashes and contradictions
between qualitative and quantitative inquiry are resolved; their differences
lie mainly in examining different sort of relations (i.e. substantial relations of
connections and formal relations of similarity, respectively) (Danermark et al.
2002: 165) or posing different questions about the same reality. As the main task
of both methodological paradigms becomes the same, problems of ontological and
epistemological character, which would threaten their potential for combination
and complementarity, are sharply diminished (Ragin 2000).
Under realist presuppositions, qualitative migration research may extend its
scope beyond its ‘traditional’ interests – those being the examination of the role
of subjectivity, lived experience or micro-interaction – or may continue to pursue
them within different conceptual and theoretical frameworks, incorporating more
strongly notions of the interplay between structure and agency, social causality
and of outcomes generated by the interaction of various causal mechanisms.
Only indicatively, some of the themes which may be investigated qualitatively
under those terms include: changes in ‘ethnic’ categorisations and identities due
to migratory movements, processes of formation and implementation of migration
policies at different administrative and/or spatial levels, spatial and social
mobility of immigrants and refugees, migration decision making, migration-
related experiences, socio-spatial inequalities, segregation and migration, gender
and migration, immigrant social exclusion, collective action, social and political
participation and immigrant associations, causal chains and causal mechanisms
resulting in population movements, institutional and everyday racism, xenophobia
and discrimination, immigrant networks of transnational, sub-national or local
38 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
character, skilled migration, labour migration, employment and the labour market,
processes of social incorporation of immigrants, public attitudes and discourses
towards migrants and migration and processes of social change resulting from
migratory movements from the global to local levels.
Even from the above limited list of potential themes for qualitative migration
research, it becomes evident that migration is a phenomenon so complex and
multi-dimensional that interdisciplinarity or even post-disciplinarity (Favell
2008) in its study becomes an inevitable tendency. Of course, this applies
both to quantitative and qualitative migration research.7 Besides the need for
greater interdisciplinarity, which is considered by Castles (2007: 352-365) as
an intrinsic feature of migration research, the same author points out a series of
challenges in the sociological investigation of migration: (1) taking into account
transnationalism and globalisation along with overcoming methodological
nationalism; (2) focusing on specific topics and on the analysis of global social
change; (3) analysing global social transformations at different spatial levels; (4)
enhancing the critical element in the sociological investigation of migration; and
(5) developing migration studies. Furthermore, Castles (2007: 367) includes in the
‘basic methodological principles for a critical migration sociology’ the need for
comparative and holistic approaches, to examine the interaction between agency
and ‘macro-social organisations and institutions’ and ‘the need for participatory
research methods, which give an active role to migrants and other persons affected
by migration in research processes’.
Similarly, the International Migration Institute (IMI) (2006), apart from
interdisciplinarity, prioritises four directions towards a new agenda for international
migration research:
More specifically, the Institute places emphasis on three sets of specific research
themes to deepen understanding of twenty-first-century migratory phenomena:
7 As Chandra (2006: 397) points out: ‘ethnic identities are a subset of identity
categories in which membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed
to be associated with, descent (described here simply as descent-based attributes). I
argue, on the basis of this definition, that ‘ethnicity either does not matter or has not been
shown to matter in explaining most outcomes to which it has been causally linked by
comparative political scientists. These outcomes include violence, democratic stability,
and patronage’.
Contemporary Migration 39
Taking the opportunity presented by the above themes and research directions, I
should point out that qualitative, intensive inquiry does not need to confine itself
to the ‘traditional’ topics of interest, such as migratory experiences at individual
or household level or social interaction and networking from the point of view
of interactants. On the contrary, intensive research may enhance our in-depth
understanding of broader processes and their constant interplay with individual
and collective action. For example, in-depth investigation of the processes of
migration policymaking at supra-national, national or local levels may reveal the
conditions under which systemic properties of migratory movements arise and are
reproduced and transformed. This in-depth investigation may occur by utilising an
array of qualitative methods such as interviewing policy makers and key persons
along with key actors influencing migration policies, content analysis of official
and internal documents or participant observation of official or informal meetings
concerning policymaking or consultation, to name but a few. Furthermore,
researching the root causes of migration may be enriched by in-depth and detailed
life history and biographical research, through which broader and contextual
conditions that made migratory options possible may be highlighted. Even
topics which traditionally are dominated by economics and quantitative research,
such as the economic impacts of migration in destination countries may also be
investigated by intensive methods, offering novel and valuable insights. Thus, for
example, researching the experiences of landlords who lease previously empty
houses or rooms to immigrants may lead to deeper understandings of relatively
unnoticed processes of income generation due to immigration.
that accounts included in this section are only indicative, brief and rather descriptive,
as the subsequent chapters contain a much more thorough and detailed analysis both
of qualitative migration research methods and of concrete empirical examples.
During the last two decades, migratory movements have been taking place within
a specific contextual and structural environment: that of globalisation and, more
specifically, that of neoliberal globalisation (Overbeek 2002). If we define social
structures as ‘systems of human relations among social positions’ (Porpora, 1998:
343), then neoliberal globalisation entails the emergence of structural and systemic
properties, the most significant of which is the expansion and deepening of market
relations (Overbeek 2002, Hatziprokopiou 2006). Thus according to Overbeek:
The essential moving factor of this process is the expansion of the market: even
more people, countries, and regions are incorporated into the global market
economy (expansion as geographic widening), and more and more spheres and
dimensions of human existence are invaded by market relations and subordinated
to the pursuit of private profit (expansion as deepening). (Overbeek 2002: 75–6).
constructions and their functions. For example, a possible area of qualitative inquiry
is related to the ways that ‘national’ or ‘ethnic’ categories are ideologically used by
different social actors (such as states, political parties, lay persons etc.) in order to
promote certain social interests. This usage may be investigated further when one
compares internal with international migration or intra-country with inter-country
mobility. In the former case, mobility is highly encouraged, whereas, in the latter
case mobility is regulated and, for the low skilled, is actively discouraged and
curbed. Thus, while mobility across space is considered as a human right within
national borders, the same act is viewed as potentially dangerous or generally
unwanted across borders. This differentiation has, to a great extent, to do with the
persistence of the legitimation of state power by discourses around ‘nationhood’
and national belonging and with the associated use of ‘ethnic’ and ‘national’
conceptual categories in politics and everyday social life.
National or ‘ethnic’ categories may be ‘empty’8 (Demertzis 1996) of real content,
but they are full of uses which accommodate and socially legitimise certain power
relations between different social interests and groups. Their uses tend to create
ideological discourses, views and interpretations which stress the normality and the
non-discriminatory nature of migration control by sovereign states (Bagaric and
Morss 2005) and tend to obscure social antagonism under supposedly legitimate
‘ethnic’ or ‘national rights’. Qualitative research has a lot to offer in these fields
of interest, provided that it is an inquiry without the limitations and weaknesses of
orientations such as for examples constructionist and Foucauldian discourse analysis
and characterised by the development of a renewed mode of ideology critique able
to conceive the ‘Real of class antagonism as the disavowed core of ideological
fantasy…’ (Vighi and Feldner 2007: 141) or the ‘real’ of social antagonism in general.
Remaining in the socio-political realm, qualitative investigation of phenomena
such as racism, xenophobia and social discrimination may be linked with broader
socio-political processes such as: party politics and more specifically, extreme
right party politics, distribution of power and the continuous interplay between
structural and cultural elements with agential, personal and/or collective, action.
As Rydgren (2003: 62) convincingly argues:
critiques’ (Potter and López 2001). Explanatory critiques entail proving certain
ideas or beliefs to be false – that is, to be antithetical to the interests of their
holders – proving certain social relations to be exploitative and asymmetric,
and, in many instances, proving the necessity of holding false ideas for the
reproduction of exploitative or oppressive social relations (Sayer 2000). At this
point, it is worth noting the potentially crucial role of realist qualitative methods
in exploring in-depth the origins and ramifications of ideological discourses and
their repercussions in actors’ social practices. For example, in investigating the
relations between actors’ xenophobic or racist ideas, defensive ethno-national
identities, and actions such as voting for extreme right, anti-immigrant parties,
a realist qualitative researcher places much attention on questions such as the
adequacy of actors’ understanding of their own ideas and actions along with the
possibility that those ideas and actions reproduce social relations which threaten
the interests of actors themselves (Manicas 2006). Thus, apart from interpreting
actors’ meanings, a realist qualitative inquiry moves towards causally explaining
them as well, without this being a contradiction.
The basic assumption of critical realism – that is, the existence of a social
reality independent of our knowledge or our identification of it (Sayer 1992: 5,
Fleetwood 2005: 198) – is in contrast with idealism both in its traditional and
its contemporary (linguistic/discursive) forms. Psillos (2007: 398) points out that
apart from the metaphysical character of this basic assumption, ‘it has a semantic
as well an epistemic component’:
The semantic thesis urges that a certain discourse or class of propositions (e.g.,
about theoretical entities, or numbers, or morals) should be taken at face value
(literally), as purporting to refer to real entities. The epistemic thesis suggests
that there are reasons to believe that the entities posited exist and that the
propositions about them are true. Given the epistemic thesis, realism is opposed
to skepticism about a contested class of entities. (Psillos 2007: 398)
to which conceptual schemes are the sources of truth propositions about reality
(Cruickshank 2003a, Psillos 2007) – is a contemporary form of idealism. Finally,
attempts to incorporate or integrate realism with a non-reductive, non-mechanistic
materialism such as emergentist Marxism (Creaven 2000) and hylorealism (Bunge
2006) are relatively compatible or reconcilable with the overall approach adopted
in this book.
Although there are philosophical and theoretical differences between various
versions of critical realism, there is a series of, more or less, common principles,
which may be summarised as follows:
In the following subsections, I analyse some of the most basic features of the
critical realist approach to social sciences.
Regarding the relations between the subjects and objects of sciences in general
and of social sciences in particular, critical realism stresses the differentiation
between the intransitive, the transitive and the metacritical dimensions of scientific
inquiry (Sayer 2000, Hartwig 2007). The intransitive dimension consists of
social processes, phenomena, structures and systems of social relations that exist
independently of social scientists’ knowledge or identification of them, whereas
the transitive dimension includes conceptual schemes, theories and propositions
about the former (Collier 1994). As for the metacritical dimension of scientific
inquiry, it
Thus, critical realism makes a distinction between real objects of social scientific
inquiry and the description and theorising of them by social analysts – that is, of
thought objects (Judd 2003). This distinction goes along with the differentiation
between the ontological and epistemological realm which is a necessary
presupposition for scientific inquiry, whether natural or social, to be possible
(Judd 2003). Now, empiricist–positivist and idealist–relativist approaches alike
fail to acknowledge this distinction and thus commit different forms of what is
called the ‘epistemic fallacy’ (Archer et al. 1998). This kind of fallacy consists
in asking questions about reality in terms of ways of knowledge of this reality
(Danermark 2002), in other words, in defining what exists ‘wholly in terms
of what is knowable…’ (Cruickshank 2003a: 96): in the case of empiricism in
terms of knowledge of observable empirical reality generated by sense abilities
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 49
other people and constantly ascribe meanings to them, even when they do not fully
realise doing so. Most times these meanings are comprehensible, understandable
and communicable (Potter and López 2001).
The preceding quotation indicates that the possibility to hold more or less successful
theories of reality and to satisfactorily judge about their validity is based on certain
relations that exist between the transitive and the intransitive realms. Hence, the
two reams are not autonomous form each other and the transitive one does not
constitute reality out of a formless, unstructured (and inherently) unknowable-in-
itself domain (Nightingale and Cromby 2002). On the contrary, the two realms
interact with each other, as conceptual schemes, theories, beliefs and discourses
are never fully self-referential but are always ‘about something’ which is formed,
structured and exerts causal powers of its own. Thus:
We make reference through the play of differences among signs, but equally,
the development of such networks of signs depends on reference (including
reference to other discourses) and practical involvement in the world. Whether
the patient is in the hospital is not reducible to a matter of discursive definition,
for once one has provided definitions (within a wider discourse, of course), one
is still left with the empirical question of whether the thing defined as ‘patient’
is in the thing defined as ‘hospital’. The discourse-dependence of reference does
not mean that we can never distinguish between successful and unsuccessful
references… (Sayer 2000: 38)
Hence, in many cases, even people’s most shared discourses, beliefs and
expectations, and the most concerted social action, fail to be fulfilled according to
initial goals or to confront reality which resists certain meanings and interpretations.
As Archer (1998: 190–91) asks:
what is it that depends upon intentional human action but which never conforms
to these intentions? What is it that is reliant upon people’s conceptualisations
but which they never fully know? What is it that is always activity-dependent
but that never exactly corresponds to the activities of even the most powerful?
What is it that has no organisational form without us, yet which also forms us
its makers? And what is it whose constitution never satisfies the precise designs
of anyone, but because of this always motivates its attempted reconstitution?
(Archer 1998: 190–91)
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 51
(see Iosifides and Sporton 2009). One task would be to interpret the meanings
and representations of immigrants in order to understand, through somehow
empathising with them, their motives, intentions, aspirations, expectations and, to
some extent, their actions. Another task would be to place those meanings within
the context of their whole biographical trajectory so as to be able to gain insights
into the relations between meanings, representations, social circumstances and
events. But the realist’s tasks would be more than that – notably, to be able to
explain causally certain outcomes that are worldviews, social relations and/or
action chains which are directly or indirectly derived from biographies. Now,
should we, for example, follow social constructionist epistemological principles,
we could not accomplish that task because causal explanation is not considered
attainable in the social world. This is due to the fact that constructionism adopts
the irrealist position according to which causal relations are not real properties of
an independent social reality but properties ascribed to the social world by certain
discourses and conceptual schemes (see McNally 1997). Referring to historical
causal inquiry, Foster (1997: 185) rightly stresses that:
Source: Hartwig 2007: 401 (Table 37) © Routledge 2007, reproduced with permission.
The empirical and the subjective domains of reality comprise social actors’
experiences of phenomena, events and processes of the social world along with
conceptual and interpretative schemes through which the apprehension of the
experiential world becomes possible (Danermark et al. 2002, Hartwig 2007). The
1 This is not to suggest that appearances are less real than depth realities, since, for
critical realism, the former are also a part of reality. It rather suggests that reality is not
confined to appearances – that is, to surface experiences or events.
54 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
domain of the empirical/subjective includes also the ‘semiosic’, which ‘like the
empirical, also has actual and real dimensions’ (Hartwig 2007: 401). On the one
hand, the domain of the actual refers to events which occur in the social world
whether experienced or not while the domain of the real refers to real objects,
that is objects described by real definitions (Outhwaite 1998); on the other hand,
the real is the domain of ontological depth and refers to generative mechanisms
that produce events and phenomena and to the structural and causal powers of
entities and objects (Sayer 2000, Danermark et al. 2002). Critical realism is a
philosophy of social science preoccupied with the domain of the real and aims
to guide social science in order to establish the existing connection among the
empirical/subjective, the actual and the deep (in most cases unobservable)
dimensions of reality. For critical realism, both the empirical/subjective and the
actual domains are equally real as the deep dimension (Fleetwood 2005: 199).
However, social explanation is impossible or inadequate without postulating the
mechanisms and structural/causal contexts which condition and produce actual
events and experiences; that is, without effectively linking the three domains of
reality with each other.
According to the above scheme, we may identify four different modes of real
entities in the social world (Fleetwood 2005: 199–202); materially real, ideally
real, artefactually real and socially real entities. Problems arise when various
epistemological and theoretical paradigms in social sciences conflate different
modes of reality or reduce reality to some of its domains while denying the
existence of others. Thus, empiricism reduces social reality to what it ‘could be
verified by sense-data/empirical observation’ (Cruickshank 2003a: 9). Actualism,
a consequence of empiricism, ascribes universal, explanatory causal power
to regularities between empirical, observable phenomena while denying the
existence of, often unobservable, generative mechanisms bringing about events
and processes (Sayer 1998). Thus, actualism conceptualises social causality as
derived from constant conjunctions of empirical events – that is, by empirical
regularities (Hartwig 2007).
Relativist, subjectivist-interpretative and constructionist paradigms in
contemporary social science are characterised by a different kind of actualism/
empiricism. They overemphasise the role of conceptual/interpretative schemes
and cultural/semiosic frameworks for grasping the social world, ascribing to them
autonomy and constitutive powers as regards social reality. Reality is exhausted
by interpretations and discourses which do not construe a more or less independent
world, but are constitutive of it; they literally produce or ‘construct’ it. Qualitative
methods are mostly influenced by those notions as one of their basic scopes is the
apprehension the social world through the experiences and thought categories of
social actors.
While empiricism/actualism and subjectivism/relativism/constructionism
are often portrayed as sharply different and antithetical, they share a series of
commonalities (see Patomäki and White 2000, Hibberd 2001a). The most
important of those commonalities lie in their anti-realism and, subsequently, in
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 55
of the relations that exist between language/discourses and their extra- or non-
discursive referents (Doxiadis 2008) and their conceptualisation as systems of
self-reference. Thus, Sayer (2000: 36) points out that:
In recent years in social theory, referents and the act of reference have received little
attention, for, following the work of Saussure, it has been widely overshadowed
by a preoccupation with the ‘horizontal’ relation between signifiers (equivalent
to words and images) and signifieds (equivalent to concepts), together with
forming signs, in abstraction from any relation to referents. The elimination of
the referent – the death of the object – is, of course, consistent with the turn to
discourse and away from materialism in social theory. It inevitably obscures the
role of language in practical life. (Sayer 2000: 36)
While language is not the transparent and direct medium to accessing the social
world that naive or empirical realism thought, its alleged centrality in social reality
and social knowledge is seriously misleading and may be convincingly challenged.
For critical realism, it is practice and practical action which should be prioritised
in investigating and researching the social world because it is this element that
is always dialectically linked with discourse and provides a way to account for
depth and intransitivity (see Fairclough et al. 2004). Thus, Archer (2000: 121, 154)
stresses the ‘primacy of practice’ over discourse and language and points to the
‘the practical order as pivotal’ in comparison with the natural and social orders,
while scholars such as Theodore R. Schatzki, Karin Knorr Cetina and Eike von
Savigny (2001) call for a ‘practice turn in contemporary theory’. Utilising the
concepts of emergence and vertical explanation, Lau (2004: 370–79) integrates
practice and Bourdieu’s notion of ‘habitus’ within the critical realist perspective as
an alternative to phenomenological constructionist approaches to human agency
and action. ‘Habitus’ is conceptualised as a set of un-reflective dispositions which
emerge horizontally from structural arrangements. Furthermore, practice itself
is characterised by emergent and irreducible causal properties. Lau (2004: 337)
points out to three sets of habitus components:
Thus, social practices, characterised by tacit and implicit rules and understandings,
are dialectically linked with social meanings and discourses. The latter have
always to become embedded in concrete material social practices in order to exert
a causal influence and the former always supersede initial meanings, discourses,
expectations and beliefs due to their emergent character; in other words, due to
60 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Different explicit or implicit positions about the character of social reality lead both
to varying degrees of appreciation of causality and causal relations in the social
world and to different conceptions of social causality itself (Reiss 2009). Thus,
empiricism and positivism adopt a reductive notion of social reality, confining it to
the empirical and actual domains. Reducing reality to the levels of the empirical and
the actual, empiricism rejects notions of ontological depth – that is, unobservable
causal powers and mechanisms that bring about change and have an impact on
things. This is because it adopts a notion of causality as the constant conjunction
between discrete events, whereas when an event A is regularly observed to follow
an event B, then the cause of A must be B. This successionist (Pawson and Tilley
1997, Kazi 2003) or regularity notion of causality leads inevitably to inclinations
towards determinism since it considers the succession between discrete events as
necessary (Sayer 2000):
and takes into account the character of social reality according to critical realism:
a reality characterised by openness, stratification, emergence and ontological
depth. Thus, causality and causal relations for critical realism are a matter of
natural necessity rather than regularity (Pawson and Tilley 1997, Danermark et
al. 2002). ‘To ask for a cause of something is to ask what “makes it happen”,
what “produces”, “generates”, “creates”, or “determines” it, or, more weakly, what
“enables” or “leads to” it’ (Sayer 1984: 104). For realism, causality is not viewed
as a succession between discrete, observable, empirical events, where some are the
causes while others are the effects, but rather as an interaction between underlying
causal mechanisms which may or may not produce empirical events or regularities
of empirical events. Causal powers and liabilities are inherent characteristics of
entities and objects and, especially for social reality, of certain social relations. In
other words, causal powers and liabilities are exerted due to the structure of social
objects or, in most cases, due to the structure of social relations (Sayer 1984, Kazi
2003). Thus, a social network between immigrants and non-immigrants which is
characterised by asymmetrical structured relations of exploitation and domination
exerts causal powers over various social domains and fields such as the labour
market and class positions of immigrants, broader income inequality, immigrant
spatial organisation and so on. Whether these powers are exercised or not, along
with their directionality and intensity, is a matter of wider conditions or a result of
their interactions with other causal mechanisms.
Social relations may be divided into substantial and formal: ‘Substantial
relations means there are real connections between the objects, formal that there
are not, but nevertheless the objects somehow share a common characteristic – they
are in some respect similar’ (Danermark et al. 2002: 45). What is of more interest
for the realist notion of social causality is the differentiation between internal
and necessary from external and contingent relations. The former constitute the
structure of social relations from which causal powers and liabilities originate
while the latter form the social conditions which may play a role in the exercise
of causal powers. Internal and necessary relations mean that the parts of the
relationship depend on the nature of the relationship for what they are in reality.
When this dependence exists for all parts of the relationship, then the relations are
internal and symmetrically necessary. When it exists only for one or some parts,
then the relations are internal and asymmetrically necessary (Danermark et al.
2002, Hartwig 2007).
Now, the exercise of causal powers and the production of events or phenomena
of specific character depend on generative mechanisms – that is, on certain
conditions and circumstances. ‘A mechanism is that which can cause something
in the world to happen, and in this respect mechanisms can be of many different
kinds’ (Danermark et al. 2002: 55). Due to the contingency between causal powers
and mechanisms responsible for their activation, we cannot establish causal
relations by observing constant conjunctions of events, for those are the products
of the interaction between different underlying generative mechanisms. Moreover,
the existence of causal mechanisms cannot be derived directly from empirical
64 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
observations because the former may remain unexercised for a series of reasons.
As Jones (2003: 225) rightly points out: ‘everyday observation of the world
does not enable identification of the causes of experienced events because of the
disjuncture between real structures, the actual events produced, and the restricted
range of the events available to experience (that is, the empirical evidence)’.
Thus, causal powers for critical realism do not produce or lead to outcomes in
a stable, law-like and deterministic way since this would presuppose closure.
Causal powers, when exercised, are tendencies, and their empirical actualisation
and manifestation depend upon other contingent factors (Bhaskar 1998a, 1998b,
Archer 1998a). To give but one example, I quote Sayer (1998: 125):
The law of value does not refer to an empirical regularity, nor a generalisation,
nor a trend, but a mechanism which operates in virtue of the competitive nature
of capitalist commodity production. The effects produced by it at the empirical
level depend upon contingently related conditions, including those produced
by other mechanisms which are sometimes called ‘counteracting tendencies’.
(Sayer 1998: 125)
As we may understand from the preceding quotation, the critical realist social
causality does not entail any notion of closure, determinism or essentialism; and
this is because, according to the realist approach to social causality:
There are four barriers to determinism. Firstly, whether causal powers – such
as the ability to bear children – exist depends on the contingent presence of
certain structures or objects. Secondly, whether these powers are ever exercised
is contingent, not pre-determined. Thirdly, if and when they are ever exercised,
their consequences will depend on mediation – or naturalization – by other
contingent phenomena. A fourth possibility is that natural and social causal
powers themselves (and note merely whether and in what circumstances they
are exercised) can be changed. (Sayer 2002: 95)
The preceding remarks show quite clearly that critical realism debunks the
dualism of interpretive understanding versus causal explanation, providing
a novel notion of social causality distinct from the positivist and deterministic
approaches of regularity and constant conjunction of empirical events. Critical
realism recognises human agency as the ultimate causal factor in the social world,
within certain limits and opportunities set by structural and cultural constraints
and enablements. However:
are more or less ‘rational’, related to definite interests, and so on, their (structured)
practices and the changes in them are not generally, if ever, intended; still less are
these changes ‘rational’. As historically sedimented unintended consequences of
intentional activities, they appear as ‘natural’ (Marx), but there is no reason to
support that their ‘development’ is telic, that change is under the governance of
some grand design […]. (Manicas 1998: 321)
the distinction between a real reason for a belief or action (one which is causally
efficacious) and a possible reason (that is, I take it, something that has the logical
standing of a reason for it, whether or not it is anybody’s reason), is fundamental
to our whole way of thinking about thought and action. (Collier 1984: 154)
66 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
This, of course, does not mean that rationalisations are not causes in general; it
means only that they are not causes of agential action. For example, the real reason
that many immigrants change their names into names common in ‘host’ societies
in everyday interaction with non-immigrants is an attempt to increase social
acceptance and to reduce unfavourable or discriminatory treatment (see Table 3.2).
The reason that many may give for this action – that is, their appreciation of the
cultural habits of ‘host’ societies – is a mere rationalisation. This rationalisation
is not the cause of their action, but this does not mean that it is no cause at all
or that it does not affect things or that it does not lead to some change. For this
rationalisation may be believed by certain non-immigrants and result in outcomes
aimed at by immigrants in the first place. ‘In other words reasons don’t have to
involve “true” or coherent beliefs to be causes’ (Sayer 1984: 111).
Table 3.2 summarises the basic features of social causality according to critical
realism, giving examples for each one of them from migration studies. Nevertheless,
realist social causality may not be fully intelligible without understanding another
central dimension of realist thinking and theorising, notably social complexity and
the phenomenon of emergence.
Table 3.2 Basic features of social causality according to critical realism
Formal social relations of Social categories, similarity as regards a common Immigrants employed in the service sector or immigrants below 25 years
similarity characteristic of age
Substantial social relations Real connections Immigrant associations
External and contingent Not structured relations Social relations between immigrants and their neighbours
relations
Internal and symmetrically Structured relations, every part of the relationship Social relations within a dense, informal immigrant network of mutual
necessary depends on it for what it is support and solidarity
Internal and asymmetrically Structured relations, not every part of the Social relations within local labour markets clearly divided along
necessary relationship depends on it for what it is ‘ethnic’ lines
Structures Internal and (symmetrically or asymmetrically) ‘Ethnically’ segmented labour markets
necessary social relations
Causal powers and liabilities ‘potentialities which may or may not be exercised’ Employment placement of immigrants according to ‘ethnic’ background
(Hartwig 2007: 57) but irrespective of educational and training qualifications and skills
Generative mechanisms ‘What makes something happen in the world’ Gender, ‘ethnic’ and class relations as well as inter-relations resulting
(Danermark et al. 2002: 206) in concentration of immigrants in certain sectors of the labour market;
for example Filipina immigrants in the domestic sector in Greece (see
Iosifides 1997a, 1997b, Topali 2008)
Tendencies ‘potentialities which are exercised but may be Tendencies towards immigrant employment in the informal economy
unactualised and/or unmanifest to people’ (Hartwig and social and work insecurity and instability due to mechanisms related
2007: 57) to legalisation regulations (terms and conditions for regularisation,
broader migration policy regime) (see Iosifides and King 1996)
Human reasons as causes Causal powers of human agency (reasons, Immigrants’ practice to change their names in everyday usage in order
interpretations, intentions and beliefs, when acted to avoid discriminatory acts and to achieve more favourable social
upon) (Hartwig 2007) incorporation terms in ‘host’ societies
Source: Compiled by the author and partially based on the following sources: Sayer 1984, Collier 1994, Archer 1995, Iosifides and King 1996,
Iosifides 1997a, 1997b, Archer et al. 1998, Danermark et al. 2002, Sayer 2002, Hartwig 2007, Topali 2008.
68 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
One of the basic features of critical realist ontology – that is, reality stratification
– entails social complexity, which is a necessary presupposition of phenomena of
social emergence. Furthermore, complexity and emergence are closely linked to
the realist conception of social causality – that is, the exertion of powers capable
of producing change and affecting things, operating because of the structures of
entities or structural relations at different levels, such as material-institutional,
cultural, agential as well as because of their interrelations.
Social emergence occurs when interaction or combination of social entities
results in social forms that possess qualitatively different properties from those of
initial social agents and entities and when these social forms are causally efficacious
to agents and entities (Archer 1995, Elder-Vass 2005, Bedau and Humphreys
2008). Thus, in the process of emergence we may identify two different kinds
of entities: higher-level entities and lower-level entities, from which the former
emerge (Sawyer 2005). Higher-level entities are dependent on lower-level ones
despite the fact that their properties are irreducible to those of lower-level ones,
are inexplicable and cannot be predicted by them. Thus, following Archer’s (1995:
9) assertions and examples:
Emergent properties are relational, arising out of combination (e.g. the division
of labour from which high productivity emerges), where the later is capable of
reacting back on the former (e.g. producing monotonous work), has its own causal
powers (e.g. the differential wealth of nations), which are causally irreducible to
the powers of its components (individual workers). (Archer 1995: 9).
happens because higher-level properties are not the aggregative results of lower-
level characteristics but the novel products of a certain degree of complexity (see
McLaughlin 2008). ‘Only in cases where the relation between higher- and lower-
level properties is wildly disjunctive beyond some threshold of complexity will
the higher-level property not be lawfully reducible’ (Sawyer 2005: 68–9). Thus,
emergence of irreducible entities and social forms is possible because the type
and the complexity of relations between components produce changes in the very
nature of the components themselves and because of certain characteristics such
as ‘nonaggregativity’, ‘near decomposability’, ‘localization’ and ‘complexity of
interaction’ (Sawyer 2005: 95–7). As Sayer (1984: 119) puts it:
Tokens are specific instances of more general categories or types. For example, the
British miners’ strike in 1984 is a token instance of the strike as a recurrent event
under capitalism. […] Methodological individualists assume that it is possible to
reduce both social types and social events, whereas antireductionists only accept
70 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
the reducibility of the latter. The reason for this conclusion is that the relationship
between social types or structures (in Archer’s terminology) and their realization
or observable effects is one of ‘multiple realizability’. (Gimenez 1999: 21)
Furthermore, the strongest assertion of the reality of emergent social forms and
properties may be made using the thesis of ‘synchronic emergence’ along with
that of ‘diachronic emergence’ advocated by Archer. This is because ‘diachronic
emergence’ would always be vulnerable to irrealist critiques. Thus, ‘just because
structure represents the consequences of past actions does not mean that is real or
autonomous from contemporary actions of agents’ (Sawyer 2005: 84). So:
Closely related to the issue of the real ontological status of emergent properties is
also downward causation, which is the exertion of causal powers to lower-level
entities by emergent higher-level entities, since otherwise emergent properties
would be merely epiphenomenal – that is, aggregate effects of micro-interactions
unable to influence interactions and interactants (Bedau and Humphreys 2008,
Bedau 2008). Causal powers exerted by emergent social forms (structural or
cultural) are not determinate but conditional; they condition (constrain or enable)
social action, set limits to options or open up new ones and influence the nature
of the components of social systems and their relations (Archer 1995). Of course,
their actual realisation depends on other contingent conditions and circumstances
and, more importantly, on their interaction with emergent causal powers of
social agents themselves (Archer 2000). This conception of causality, which has
emergence at its core, differs substantially from that of positivism and empiricism.
Thus:
Events are caused by (actual) interactions between the real causal powers of the
entities involved. Thus, they are not usually determined by a single mechanism
or a single ‘law’ as in Hempel’s nomological-deductive model of causation but
rather are ‘multiply determined’ or codetermined by a variety of interacting
mechanisms, which may be attributable to entities at a variety of levels of
the hierarchy of composition (Bhaskar 1978). Causal powers, then, cannot be
understood adequately without theorizing part–whole relations, but their effects
cannot be understood adequately without understanding the relation of a system
with its environment. (Elder-Vass 2007: 415–16)
nature of the components of the system, increasing its complexity and leading to
irreducibility of the properties of the system to the properties of its components.
Sawyer (2005, 2009) analyses the types of downward causation exerted by
different kinds of social emergents – notably, by ephemeral emergents that are
frames of social interactions and by stable emergents that are emergents that
last ‘across more than one encounter’ (Sawyer 2009: 5-6). Thus, for example,
ephemeral emergent frames of social interaction constrain interactants by
limiting their strategic options and choices and stable emergents constrain social
interaction. ‘Emergents constrain the kinds of discursive patterns that can occur,
and this is a strictly semiotic, interactional phenomenon, independent of human
agency’ (Sawyer 2009: 8). The preceding remarks point to the fact that the
phenomenon of social emergence is a central feature of social reality as a whole,
not confined to macro-structures alone. It characterises even micro-interactions
among individuals, the concessive field of study by interpretivists (see Martin
2009). Emergent social forms arise in every level of social reality with varying
degrees of stability and endurance, exerting causal powers to lower-level entities
and contributing to the production of irreducible, complex social systems.
Social emergence produces and presupposes systemic complexity. There is a
relatively long tradition of systemic thinking in social sciences, from the structural
functionalist paradigm of Talcott Parsons, to general systems and chaos theory and
more recently – form the 1990s onwards – to the complex dynamical systems theory
(Sawyer 2005). The last paradigm is concerned specifically with ‘emergence,
component interactions and relations between levels of analysis’ (Sawyer 2005:
22) and is based on the so-called ‘complex adaptive systems’ (CAS) theory.
Complex adaptive systems are combinations of interacting components at different
levels of organisation, constantly evolving through feedback and exchanges from
their environment (Fromm 2004, Sawyer 2005). Complex adaptive systems are
characterised by the following features:
– They ‘comprise many different parts, which are connected in multiple ways’.
– Their components ‘interact both serially and in parallel’; thus events may
happen sequentially or simultaneously.
– They ‘display spontaneous self-organisation’ which blurs the borderline
between the internal and the external environment.
– Self-organisation gives rise to structures which ‘are not necessarily reducible
to the interactivity of the components’ of the system.
– Emergent qualities tend to cover the whole system, despite their generation
from local interactions. (Taylor 2001: 142 quoted in Doak and Karadimitriou
2007: 215)
For example, a regional migration policy regime may be viewed and analysed as
a complex adaptive system of numerous, interacting actors and agents of different
kinds, operating at different spatial and/or organisational levels: regional political
or economic organisations, states, sub-state agents – such as municipalities or other
72 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
The selective adoption of complexity notions enables the revision of the concept
of social system. The complexity notion of the system/environment distinction
enables a more nimble conceptualization of systems and their interactions.
This allows the rejection of the notion that a system must saturate its territory,
enabling multiple systems of inequalities in the same space or institutional
domain. It enables the rejection of the notion that parts must be nested within
a whole, and thus a rejection of the reduction of one set of social relations of
inequality to another. Complexity theory provides the theoretical flexibility to
allow systematic analysis of social interconnections without the reductionism
that so marred the old. The re-working of these core concepts of social theory is
necessary to adequately theorize the ontological depth of intersecting multiple
systems of social inequality. The rethinking of the concept of social system is
necessary to address this central issue in social theory. (Walby 2007: 466–7)
The above approach, which is perfectly compatible with critical realist thinking,
may be accomplished more fruitfully by adopting a complexity theoretical
framework as a conceptual tool for guiding concrete empirical research.
McDowell (2007) refers to gendered and racialised identities and to class practices
that intersect and result in different emergents, within different spatial and socio-
cultural contexts – in other words, in different arrangements or patterns of overall
inequality and power relations. Furthermore, and regarding recent migrants,
especially those from Eastern Europe in the UK, McDowell raises the question
of connecting diverse factors, processes, phenomena and categorisations such as
‘skin color, accent, visa status, class position, gender and sexuality’ or ‘nationality
and English-language ability’ (McDowell 2007: 502) in order to account for
intersecting social inequalities and immigrants’ and employers’ identity work.
74 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
What is worth noting about this study is that it is ‘evidence based’, and is informed
by data derived through qualitative, in-depth semi-structured interviews with
Afghan urban-elite individuals ‘motivated to reflect on power’ (Geller and Moss
2007: 117). Thus, qualitative methodologies may be linked with social simulation
modelling in constructive and fruitful ways. Contextual and rich data derived
by in-depth investigation of real case studies can inform social simulation rules,
processes and procedures, resulting to outcomes which approximate real social
dynamics more accurately.
Moreover, I would add that qualitative research is valuable in highlighting
crucial aspects of the actual complexity of multiple causal generative mechanisms
regarding various social phenomena, including power relations and associated
conflicts, even when statistical, quantitative data are available and credible. For
example, Yang and Gilbert (2007) present a case study research in ‘the socialisation
of newcomers into existing organisational groups, and examining how the entry of
a new member reshapes the members’ interactions and the structure of the group’
(Yang and Gilbert 2007: 208), utilising ethnographic, qualitative data for Agent
76 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Based Modelling (ABM). Werth and Moss (2007: 321) make use of data produced
by qualitative, semi-structured interviews for an Agent-Based Social Simulation
(ABSS) of ‘Asset Specificity in the IT-Outsourcing context’. Qualitative data
are employed as a source for the formulation of agents’ behaviour rules and as
a means for model validation. Hassan et al. (2007) integrate quantitative and
qualitative (life history methods) in order to develop an ABSS on the evolution
of religiosity in contemporary Spain. One of the main tasks of the study was to
take into account the qualitative aspects of agents’ behaviour (Hassan et al. 2007:
706) through created life stories of representative (ideal-type) agents using a
Natural Language Generation (NLG) system. Finally, Taylor (2003) incorporates
quantitative and qualitative methods for Agent-Based Modelling on the impact
of e-commerce upon the value chain. Qualitative interview data were utilised in
order to develop different scenarios regarding the impact of e-commerce on value
chain and validation purposes.
All the preceding examples indicate that qualitative methods may be applied
or integrated in studies whose aim is to investigate complex and dynamic social
processes, emergent social forms and multiple causal generative mechanisms.
From a realist point of view, qualitative methods can serve as a powerful means
for social explanatory endeavours moving beyond traditional descriptive and/
or interpretative tasks. Their increasing incorporation into Multi Agent Systems
modelling indicates, more than clearly, this potential.
To conclude this part of the section, I would like to make some remarks on
the importance and centrality of social complexity and emergence for a critical
realist approach to social inquiry. First, because society is characterised by
complexity and emergence, both methodological individualism and holism are
inadequate approaches to social explanation. This occurs because prioritising
either individuals or collectivities and reducing the former to the latter or vice
versa does not allow for the investigation of the multiple outcomes of their
interactions. Second, social complexity and the emergence of social forms,
which are irreducible to interacting entities or individuals and possess causal
powers of their own, undermine the surface epistemologies of interpretivism and
social constructionism. This happens because agents’ interpretations, intentional
actions, social discourses and discursive practices are always conditioned by
emergent social forms, participate in the causal social order, and entail/produce
unanticipated and unintended outcomes and consequences. In other words, they
are in constant interplay with the intransitive elements of the social world, which
systematically resists wilful interpretation or construction of it (see Goldspink and
Kay 2007). Finally, the very nature of societies as emergent and complex systems
brings causality once again to the centre of social inquiry, taking it beyond the
flawed positivist conception of it and away from its disastrous demise at the hands
of interpretivism and social constructionism.
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 77
are ‘patterns of aggregate behavior that are stable over time’ (Porpora 1998: 340)
– that is, social structures for individualists are the visible, repeated and stable
patterns of individual behaviour at the aggregate level (Porpora 1998) which
have their explanatory basis at the micro-level. Structures are epiphenomenal
to individual behavioural patterns, have no real existence of their own and are
not causally efficacious in an independent manner. Collins (1981: 989 quoted in
Porpora 1998: 341) explains the individualist logic:
and their ontological inseparability (Archer 1995). Within this framework (e.g.
structuration theory), the social world is conceptualised as a series of ‘rule-
following practices’ of highly knowledgeable social actors who possess adequate
practical knowledge to ‘go on’ in life (Cruickshank 2003a: 69). Thus, for
elisionism, the solution to the structure–agency problem lies in the close linkage
between structural context and social action in a way that the former is always the
outcome and condition of the latter. This linkage implies inseparability between
structure and agency, their mutual constitution and the preclusion of any notion of
distinct causal powers or temporal differentiation between them (Archer 1995). For
elisionist approaches, social structure is viewed as ‘rules and resources’ (Porpora
1998: 345) which produce the ‘situated’ practices of social actors. This concept
grants structures a ‘virtual existence’, stripping them of any independent causal
powers and denying them any ontological independence from social practices
(Porpora 1998, Cruickshank 2003a). Thus, ‘[V]irtual structures become real once
instantiated, but this is not to say that structures, or rather, structural properties,
are emergent properties as emergent properties, would be, for Giddens, reified
“things” that existed outside people and which deterministically “shoved” people
about’ (Cruickshank 2003a: 78).
Problems with this kind of theorising on the relationship between structure and
agency are manifold. Contra Archer, Giddens’ structuration theory is charged with
being methodologically individualist rather than elisionist (Cruickshank 2003a).
This is because the close linkage of structural properties – that is, of informal rules
– with the social practices of individuals makes impossible the conceptualisation
of how the former become the constraining or enabling social context for the latter.
Thus, for Cruickshank (2003a: 81):
Structure and agency are not elided simply because structure is reduced into
agency: rules are nothing more than individuals’ practices. This produces a
sociology of the present tense because we could not understand how individuals
made history in circumstances not of their choosing. We would not explain
how structures are furnished a social context which enabled and constrained
individuals’ practices. Instead, all we could refer to would-be individuals’
practices. Such a position would clearly be individualist, because there could be
no reference to anything other than individuals and their acts. […] In short, we
have upwards conflationism (rather than central conflationism), which can only
explore individual’s acts and meanings in the here and now, because it cannot
conceptualise the existence of a broader social context influencing individuals
(and changing only slowly). (Cruickshank 2003a: 81)
face-to-face interaction and non face-to-face (extended in space and time) social
interaction respectively (Archer 1995, Mouzelis 1997, Cruickshank 2003a).
In general, it should to be noted that the problem of linking agency to structure
(and to culture) remains central to contemporary social theory since almost all
epistemological and theoretical paradigms prioritise either structure, culture
or agency, or merge them in various ways, and irrespective of the terms used
they are unable to avoid the errors of reductionism or elisionism. Interpretivism
is characterised by an individualist ontology, only this time it is individuals’
meanings and interpretations rather than certain behavioural dispositions that take
precedence in social theorising. Methodological situationism, which is mainly
characteristic of the symbolic interactionist approaches, is a form of micro-
level reductionism (Mouzelis 1997); yet others, for example Creaven (2000),
group it, together with post-structuralism, postmodernism and structuration
theory, within the elisionist tradition. Certain versions of social constructionism
may be categorised as upwards, downwards or central conflationist (elisionist)
modes of thinking. Therefore, micro-social constructionism (see Burr 2003)
falls into methodological individualism or situationism, while macro-social
constructionism, influenced by postmodernism and post-structuralism, may be
viewed as an extreme form of downwards conflationism ‘because postmodernism
not only asserts the primacy of (linguistic) structure over human agency, it
ultimately seeks to dissolve the human subject entirely’ (Archer 2000: 25). The
classical social constructionism of Berger and Luckmann is a central conflationist/
elisionist project due to its conceptualisation of structure and agency as mutually
constitutive (Archer 1995, Mouzelis 1997). Despite differences in categorising
these epistemological and theoretical movements, there is a commonality in all of
them: their inability to theorise the structure–agency relationship without falling
into some kind of epiphenomenalism, reductionism and conflationism.
On the contrary, critical (or social) realism offers a more convincing solution
to the conundrum of the structure/culture–agency problem, which simultaneously
avoids conflationism along with the much debated errors of foundationalism
and misplaced essentialism (see Sayer 2000: 86, 89–102). This solution also
allows for a more comprehensive and fruitful theoretical and methodological-
explanatory endeavour in the social sciences. Margaret Archer (1995) termed this
solution ‘the morphogenetic approach’ because it focuses on how the interplay
among, the separate and equally real, structural, cultural and agential powers and
properties results either in maintaining essential social relations (morphostasis)
or transforming them (morphogenesis). So, realism treats structure and agency as
analytically separate and as possessing properties and powers which are different
and distinct from each other. This happens because of the emergent character of
social reality, resulting in the irreducibility of structure to agency and vice versa
and allowing the examination of their interplay over time, rather than the reduction
of the one to the other or their elision. Social emergence is central in order to
understand the relationship between structure and agency. which is characterised
82 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
by their relative autonomy and by the exertion of separate and independent causal
powers (Archer 1995). The interplay between structure and agency
Another strength of social realism is that it treats society and people as distinct,
independent and irreducible and, at this crucial point, is greatly inspired by
Lockwood’s conceptualisations of system and social integration or of the relations
between the parts and the people (see Archer 1995: 170–72 and Mouzelis 1997:
75–98). Thus, system integration concerns the degree of complementarity or
contradiction between the institutional arrangements and the essential structural
relations of societies, while social integration refers to the relations between
different groups of social actors (Mouzelis 1997). Realism extends this notion by
asserting that structure (and culture) is the result of phenomena of social emergence
– in other words, that they are emergent properties. In this way, it avoids reification,
as emergent properties are dependent on lower-level entities for their existence
and are changeable but nevertheless real, exert causal influences on lower-level
entities and are characterised by novel features irreducible to those entities. For
realism, social structures are ‘systems of human relations among social positions’
(Porpora 1998: 343) that are dependent ‘upon material resources, both physical
and human’ (Archer 1995: 175). Social structures are characterised by internal and
necessary relations between their parts but, because they constantly interact with
other structures and with agential powers and actions, their influences may remain
unexercised. Thus, as Porpora (1998: 343) points out:
It follows on the realist view that science has two tasks: to explain the causal
properties of each entity in terms of its internal structure and to explain the
occurrence of particular events in terms of conjunctures of the causal properties
of various interacting mechanisms. Neither of these tasks involves the lawlike
correlations among events that are so integral to the positivist covering law of
explanation. (Porpora 1998: 343)
I would add to this that none of these tasks involves the confinement of social
inquiry to social agents’ meanings and interpretations, as this exhaustion precludes
the examination of the ways that social properties emerge out of social interaction,
are independent of agents’ identification, and causally influence, though do not
determine, social action.
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 83
(i) there are internal and necessary relations within and between social structures
(SS);
(ii) causal influences are exerted by social structure(s) (SS) on social interaction
(SI);
(iii) there are causal relationships between groups and individuals at the level of
social interaction (SI);
(iv) social interaction (SI) elaborates upon the composition of social structure(s)
(SS) by modifying current internal and necessary structural relationships and
introducing new ones where morphogenesis is concerned. Alternatively social
interaction (SI) reproduces existing internal and necessary structural relations
when morphostasis applies. (Archer 1995: 168–9)
Social structures condition, that is constrain or enable, social action and the terms
of social interaction; this conditioning operates through involuntary placement of
people into different social positions characterised by different vested interests
for their maintenance or transformation and by differentiated opportunity costs as
regards social action and action plans (Archer 1995). Of course, there are always
different ‘degrees of interpretative freedom’ (Archer 1995: 208) for social actors
because structural emergents condition, and do not determine, action. In other
words, they supply more or less powerful reasons for action to social agents. ‘[R]
easons not only have to be weighed and found good but if and when they are,
discretionary judgements have to be made about what to do in view of them. Action
then has been consistently seen as resulting from the confluence of powers of the
‘parts’ and the ‘people’’ (Archer 1995: 208). These reasons are conceptualised by
four different ‘situational logics’ which are the results of the relations between and
within different structural emergents; these are the situational logic of ‘protection’
resulting from necessary complementarities within or between structures,
‘compromise’ resulting from necessary incompatibilities, ‘elimination’ resulting
from contingent incompatibilities and ‘opportunism’ resulting from contingent
compatibilities (Archer 1995: 218).
The same scheme applies to culture and Cultural Emergent Properties (CEPs),
since conflationist or elisionist thinking is quite common to cultural analysis as
well (Archer 1996). Here analytical dualism entails the differentiation between
the objective and emergent cultural system and the logical relations between
its components – that is, between ‘theories, beliefs, values, arguments, or more
strictly between propositional formulations of them’ (Archer 1996: 107) – and the
socio-cultural action and interaction of agents. In the case of cultural analysis, the
scheme of the morphogenetic/morphostatic cycle is given by Archer as follows:
(i) there are internal and necessary logical relationships between components of
the Cultural System (CS);
84 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
(ii) causal influences are exerted by the Cultural System (CS) on Socio-Cultural
interaction (the S-C level);
(iii) there are causal relationships between groups and individuals at the Socio-
Cultural (S-C) level;
(iv) there is elaboration of the Cultural System (CS) due to Socio-Cultural
Interaction (S-C) modifying current logical relationships and introducing
new ones, where morphogenesis is concerned. Alternatively Socio-Cultural
Interaction (S-C) reproduces existing internal and necessary cultural relations
when morphostasis applies. (Archer 1995: 169)
Structural conditioning
_____________________
T1
Social interaction
_______________________
T2 T3
Structural elaboration
_______________________
T4
Cultural conditioning
_____________________
T1
Socio-Cultural interaction
_______________________
T2 T3
Cultural elaboration
_______________________
T4
Socio-cultural conditioning
of groups
_____________________
T1
Group interaction
_______________________
T2 T3
Group elaboration
_______________________
T4
Source: Archer 1995: 193–4, Figures 10, 11 and 12. © Cambridge University Press, 1995,
reproduced with permission.
86 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
High Low
Social High Necessary complementarity Necessary contradiction Morphostasis
Integration Low Contingent complementarity Contingent contradiction Morphogenesis
Systemic Integration (structural or cultural)
Source: Archer 1995: 295 (Figure 17. When morphostasis versus when morphogenesis. ©
Cambridge University Press 1995, reproduced with permission).
Now, regarding human agency, and contrary to other approaches that conceptualise
it either in an over- or under-socialised manner, critical realism ascribes to it
genuine powers which are the product of processes of emergence. For realism,
agency is stratified and has real causal powers (see Hartwig 2007: 18–24 and
384–5): agential social practices, actions, reasonings and meanings are integral
components of the causal order of the world and thus need to be explained and
not only interpreted (Archer 2000). And this is because ‘[S]tructural and cultural
emergent properties (SEPs and CEPs) only emerge through the activities of people
(PEPs), and they are only causally efficacious through the activities of people’
(Archer 2000: 307). Human agency is viewed as emergent from the interplay of
different strata and their relative autonomous characteristics and properties. First,
the emergence of self-consciousness is the product of human interaction with the
world as a totality and not only with society or more narrowly through participation
in societal discourses; it is also the product of human interaction with nature and
the practical order whereas practice is rendered to be pivotal and having primacy
over language (Archer 2000, 2002). Thus, according to Archer (2002: 13):
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 87
Self-consciousness is the base for the emergence of personal identity, that is the
totality of relatively enduring and agential properties resulting from interaction with
natural, practical and social orders. ‘[F]undamentally, personal identity is a matter
of what we care about in the world’ (Archer 2002: 15) and it includes concerns
as regards ‘bodily well-being’ (interaction with the natural order), ‘performative
achievement’ (interaction with the practical order) and ‘self-worth’ (interaction
with the social order) (Archer 2002: 16). The emergence of social identity – that
is, of social agential position and action – completes the stratified nature of agency,
according to the critical realist approach. Social agents may be distinguished into
primary agents, corporate agents and actors. Primary and corporate agents are
those that are involuntarily placed in positions within certain cultural and structural
contexts; in other words, they ‘are defined as collectivities sharing the same life-
chances’ (Archer 2000: 261). But while the primary agents lack any collective
action plan towards structural or cultural reproduction or transformation, and they
impact on structural and cultural contexts mostly unintentionally, corporate agents
are characterised by different degrees of collective organisation and seek actively
to influence cultural or structural contexts (Archer 2000, 2002). Finally, social
actors are those who manage to ‘acquire their social identities from the way in
which they personify the roles they choose to occupy’ (Archer 2000: 261).
Social explanation for the realist entails the examination of how the interplay
among structural, cultural and people’s emergent properties (SEPs, CEPs and
PEPs respectively) over time results in certain outcomes. What distinguishes
realism from other approaches to social theorising and explanation is that it avoids
reductionism and grants distinct features and causal powers to agency, culture and
structure. Furthermore, the realist approach does not offer any ready-made specific
theories about the social world but acts mainly as an ‘underlabourer’ (Cruickshank
2003a: 143) of concrete, and always fallible, social research. SEPs, CEPs and
PEPs may be viewed as general realist precepts, the application of which entails
the formulation of domain-specific meta-theories through the immanent critique
of other approaches and explanatory attempts (Cruickshank 2003a). Cruickshank
(2003a) summarises the basic characteristics of realist social theorising as shown
in Figure 3.2.
88 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Metaphysical realism
(metaphysical ontological argument (with no specific clams about being) about reality existing
independently of our perspectives and ideas, contra idealism and relativism)
Domain-specific meta-theory
(applying the realist precepts to a substantive research debate)
Source: Cruickshank 2003a: 144 (Figure 6.1, Levels of realist theorising. © Routledge
2003, reproduced with permission).
Systemic socio-spatial
inequalities at different spatial
levels
theoretical and philosophical position, such as that of critical realism, may lead to
the solution of most of those conundrums.
Now, positivism may be viewed mainly as a position based on the alleged
appropriate source of human knowledge. According to positivism, this source
is sense experience (Morgan 2007b). The ‘logical’ element in logical positivism
lies in the acknowledgement of the role of logic as a means to analyse sense
experienced observations, while its principles are only true by convention (Morgan
2007b, Hibberd 2005). These premises of positivism have led to what critical
realists call the epistemic and the actualist fallacies. The epistemic fallacy has to
do with the confusion of epistemological with ontological questions; ‘what exists
is defined as what can be known, and what can be known is defined by how the
mind knows via sense experience’ (Cruickshank 2003a: 10). Thus, objectivity and
objective reality for positivism is taken to be what is always mediated through the
senses and questions about knowing reality beyond sense experience are rendered
meaningless (Morgan 2007b). This fallacy leads to another one, that of actualism.
Natural and social reality are reduced to the levels of the empirical and the actual,
in other words to levels that serve as bases for the accumulation of knowledge of
observable phenomena and events or for inferences about observable phenomena
and events (Potter and López 2001). These principles lead to a certain view of
causation. Natural and social causation for positivism is nothing more than the
constant conjunction of discrete events ‘i.e., as Hume might put it, if B always
is preceded by A we may infer that A caused B’ (Potter and López 2001: 10).
This succesionist/regularity view of causation is inevitable for positivism since
knowledge of reality is confined to observable events and phenomena and since
processes beyond the surface – such as meaning-making, intentionality, underlying
mechanisms or structural factors – are rendered unknowable in principle and thus
beyond the reach of science (see Hollis 2005). In social sciences, the imitation of
what is taken to be the standard natural-science mode of inference (a flawed and
misplaced imitation though) results in a view according to which the purpose of
studying the social world is the postulation of universal generalisations based on
causal relations between events. ‘Such generalizations of universal invariance of
events [ ] are our scientific laws. Actualism thus is an event based on ontology of
invariance. Empirically observed invariance is generalized, from the subset of
events, this being exhaustive of reality and thus the generalization of invariance is
the law of nature’ (Potter and López 2001: 11).
The above characteristics of positivist thinking are complemented by
the adoption of the so-called deductive-nomological (D-N) or covering law
mode of explanation (Pratten 2007: 193) and atomistic-individualist ontology.
Methodological individualism and atomism seem to be necessarily derived from
the positivist premises of event discreteness and regularity view of causality. Collier
(1994: 75–6) provides a summary of some basic critical points to empiricism,
applied to logical positivism as well, that is worth quoting at length:
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 93
(a) The argument form the necessity of experiment shows that the ‘spectator’
conception of experience as passive observation is inadequate to account for
scientific knowledge.
(b) From this also follows the need to distinguish epistemically significant from
insignificant experience. Empiricism can’t do this, since experience is simply
the succession of impressions cast by nature: the more impressions, the more
experience, the more knowledge; great knowledge of nature would be a function
of old age.
(c) The incapacity of mere successive experiences to ground a theory of
causation, since constant conjunction rarely occur except when produced
experimentally by us – i.e. causation cannot exist as no more than a relation
between successive events; it must involve the generation of events by enduring
structures. Empiricism is irretrievably actualist in its account of causation.
(d) The account of science as an inherently social activity, carried out by
collaboration of institutions which transmit and transform information from
one generation to another, rules out the empiricist assumption that knowledge is
essentially an individual product and possession.
(e) The idea that the mind is a blank age at birth is an empirical hypothesis, though
one on which the weight of evidence seems to be going against empiricism. But
the necessity of scientific training shows that scientific knowledge at least can only
be acquired by a mind that is already far from a blank page. (Collier 1994: 75–6)
The above points of critique are significantly illuminating as they are addressed
mainly against the use of positivism and empiricism in natural sciences. The
positivist conception of scientific laws based on regularities of events presupposes
the existence of closed systems that are rare even in nature. Systems, natural and
social alike, are characterised by varied degrees of openness, and experiments are
possible and useful in natural science because of the lower position of the natural
world in the hierarchy of emergence (Danermark et al. 2002). Thus experiments
act as means for creating artificially closed systems in order to explore the way
of functioning of the deep structures of the physical reality. As Collier (1994: 35)
puts it: ‘we make experiments in order to find out what goes on when we are not
making experiments, and we do find it out.’ Thus, the natural and social world is
characterised by common features, such as openness, stratification and emergence
which, despite their marked differences, allow their scientific investigation. This
investigation may be based on realist rather than positivist premises – and indeed
much of the success of natural science is due to the application, explicitly or
implicitly, of realist reasoning and methods – and the alleged sharp divide between
explanation of the natural world and understanding of the social world does not
hold. It holds only if we replace the term ‘explanation’ with that of ‘positivist
explanation’, but, as already mentioned, the latter is flawed even with regard to
the production of natural scientific knowledge. Thus, interpretivists and social
constructionists are fighting on the wrong battleground; their critique of positivism
94 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
is more or less justified but their conclusions – abandoning any notion of causality
and causal-explanatory task in the social world – are mostly false.
The equation of science and causal explanation with their positivist conception
brought about another long-standing misinterpretation: that the alleged ‘failure’
of social science to apprehend the social world comes about because the later is
characterised by absence of causality, causal powers and mechanisms and deep,
enduring structural features. The real reason for this apparent difference in success
and effective explanation is that social entities and phenomena occupy the highest
positions in the hierarchy of emergence and are characterised by significant
degrees of openness thereby making the experimental manipulation of them
almost impossible (Collier 1994, Danermark et al. 2002). This, of course, does not
render scientific and causal explanation in the social world impossible, only more
unstable and with much less predictive power than that found in the natural one.
Finally, two additional points about positivism should be made: first, its
association with quantitative methods and the repercussions of that, and, second,
its marked anti-realism. Regarding the former, a strong association between
positivist principles and quantitative methods became possible mainly because
positivism prioritises and renders ‘scientific’ only the measurement and measurable
external features and characteristics of events and entities in order to establish
‘laws’ based on the constant conjunction of them. Quantitative methods get a high
position within the positivist rationale because of their ability to represent reality
as quantities (Downward 2007) and to reduce causal explanation in correlations
among abstract quantitative variables. Indeed, the employment of quantitative
methods for the investigation of the social world may lead more easily to a slippage
towards assumptions regarding closure. As Downward (2007: 312) points out:
‘[Q]uantitative methods presuppose degrees of closure. Numeric representations
assume intrinsic closure. Probability distributions assume extrinsic closure. This
casts doubt upon their relevance to the non-experimental realm.’ However, when
quantitative methods are used and quantitative data and findings are interpreted in
a non-positivist manner, they can serve as valuable means in highlighting crucial
aspects of social reality. For example, when empirical regularities or – to put it
more accurately – demi-regularities (Danermark et al. 2002) are not taken to be
causal explanations, they may guide and orient researchers towards the postulation
of generative mechanisms able to explain these demi-regularities causally (Sayer
1992, 2000).
Another equally important aspect or consequence of the association between
quantitative methods and ‘science’ in a positivist manner is the proliferation of
‘quantification’ in modern societies. In most cases it is a positivist quantification
characterised by atomistic and individualist assumptions and findings, leading
to a neglect of structural and socio-political factors and to the proliferation of
managerial practices regarding social problems and processes, informed implicitly
or explicitly by dominant ideological discourses (see Willmott 2003). For example,
referring on the use of statistical findings by educational agencies in the UK,
Willmott (2003: 141) points out that:
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 95
Indeed, the tacit OFSTED3 assumption here is that causal factors are independent,
universal and additive; that is that they do not interfere with each other and are
uninfluenced by their contexts. The ideological import is palpable: teachers are
blamed for pupil ‘failure’ (in other words, poor examination results). Furthermore
the key determinants (later reworked as key ‘factors’) that in OFSTED’s view
constitute ‘effective’ schools are culled at the level of observable events and in
positivist fashion there is no attempt to differentiate between contingency and
necessity. (Willmott 2003: 141)
3.2.2 Interpretivism
compatible with the critical realist rationale. Thus, according to Willis’s (2007:
104) formulation, ‘[T]he first, validation, is based on postpositivism, and assumes
that hermeneutics can be a scientific way of finding the truth.’ It may be supported
that it also includes the methodology called ‘objective hermeneutics’ of Oevermann
(see Lueger et al. 2005: 1147), the main goal of which is to discover
a foundation for qualitative research. Instead they push for understanding of the
topic of study in context. (Willis 2007: 104–5)
world and continue to equate it with causality in general. Thus, while interpretivists
rightly reject it as way of investigating the social world they falsely abandon any
possibility of causal explanation of social phenomena altogether because their
definition and conceptualisation of causality is taken up from the positivist camp.
However, if we adopt the realist notion of causation as consisting of powers,
liabilities, potentialities and tendencies characterising social agents, entities and
emergent social/cultural properties (Mumford 2008, Tacq 2009, Easton 2010),
then human reasons participate fully in the causal order of the social world (see
Witt 2008). This is because reasons and interpretations stem from certain human
powers such as intentionality and reflexivity and can bring about change in the
world; in other words, they are causally efficacious. Contrary to interpretivists’
formulations, ‘actors’ accounts are both corrigible and limited by the existence
of unacknowledged, conditions, unintended consequences, tacit skills and
unconscious motivations’ (Archer et al. 1998: xvi). Furthermore, human reasons
and interpretations are always characterised by a certain material dimension
(Sayer 2000). They are conditioned by certain social and cultural arrangements
and structures and have to be ‘materialised’ in order to have an impact (Sayer
1992, Creaven 2000).
Interpretivism’s neglect of the above issues does not allow for the
acknowledgement of the possibility of error in agents interpretations, meanings,
actions and practices. It does not allow an in-depth investigation of the origins of
beliefs and meanings and of the broader societal and cultural conditions which
contribute to conceptual distortions or to the proliferation of ‘false consciousness’
(Hartwig 2007) and, hence, limits the possibility of a truly emancipatory critique.
As Manicas points out:
The key point […] is that once one gets an understanding of the meaning which
social phenomena has for actors, it must now be asked: Is their understanding
adequate? That is, while actors need to have practical knowledge sufficient to
carry practices in society, they need not have an understanding of the conditions
and consequences of action. They may, accordingly, misunderstand what is
happening in society. More generally, it is possible that they are acting on false
beliefs and that, indeed, if they were to come to this conclusion, they might act
otherwise. (Manicas 2009: 8–9)
The failure of interpretivism to account for error in social actors’ meanings vis-à-
vis a reality existing independently of them is strongly related to the nature of the
appropriate way of approaching social reality, that is, verstehen, or interpretative
understanding. According to interpretivism, verstehen involves mainly an
empathetic, subjective understanding of actors’ motives, intentions, meanings
and actions but this kind of understanding is rendered unable to lead to rational
judgements about different interpretations and meanings. As Willis (2007: 111)
explicitly declares, ‘the purpose of interpretivist research is not the discovery of
universal laws but rather the understanding of a particular situation. Even this
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 99
goal is subjective [my emphasis]. Interpretivists eschew the idea that objective
research on human behavior is possible.’ Note how the above argument builds
on an extreme dualism since it accepts the positivist definitions of objectivity and
causality; there is either the option of discovering universal laws or otherwise we
have to embrace ultra-subjectivism; there is nothing else in between or beyond this
remarkably, and extremely, persistent and false dichotomy.
When verstehen is confined to only one dimension – that is, empathetic
understanding, intuition and insight (Spiro 1996) – and excludes other dimensions
such as the ‘understanding of constitutive meanings’ (Sayer 1992: 37), then
this notion is not very useful for scientific inquiry and research. It is not very
useful because, as Spiro (1996: 767) rightly asserts, ‘[I]t provides no objective or
intersubjective criteria by which conflicting interpretations can be adjudicated.’
This extremely restricted and unidimensional version of interpretative
understanding is based on irrealist and relativist assumptions about the relation
of interpretations to reality. It is based on the assumption that subjective
understandings exhaust the social world and that meanings are wholly ‘subjective’,
in the sense that they are not related in any way to any objective social reality
(Manicas 2009). The latter notion is derived by the theories of language developed
by Saussure and later Wittgenstein (Maze 2001), according to which meaning is
dependent on the network of endless differences between words and concepts
(signifiers and signifieds) (Sayer 2000), excluding the ‘referent’ and reference to
any extra-linguistic entity or reality (Nellhaus 2001). In this case, ‘the epistemic
fallacy often appears as the linguistic fallacy, whereby the limits of language are
the limits of the world’ (Hartwig 2007: 231). This issue will be dealt in more detail
in the next subsection.
What can be asserted here is that verstehen is in reality a much more practical
and common feature of the social world and, in fact, its everyday success guarantees
the continuation of social life. Unlike interpretivists ‘[I]n everyday life, we do not
turn a problem into an impossibility’ (Manicas 2009: 6–7). Indeed, in everyday
life we all depend on differentiating between true or valid understandings of other
people and of social situations and false ones and we pay the price when we fail to
do so. On this issue, Potter and López (2001: 9) assert that:
We can (and do!) rationally judge between competing theories on the basis of
their intrinsic merits as explanations of reality. We do so both scientifically and
in everyday life. If we could not we would not be very frequently successful
in even our most mundane activities. Science, in one sense at least, is merely
a refinement and extension of what we do in the practical functioning of
everyday life. However, it is a refinement! And what critical realism as a
philosophy does is to establish the basis of the possibility of this refinement.
(Potter and López 2001: 9)
exactly the purpose of any interpretive act: to differentiate between the two and to
explain the role of ‘mis-understandings’ (Sayer 1992: 38) in the reproduction of
certain social relations. Thus, interpretative understanding of individual intentions
and motives behind anti-immigrant, racist or xenophobic beliefs may be a good
starting point for engaging in qualitative research (Hartwig 2007, Iosifides 2008),
but it is just that, a starting point, and not the end of investigation. It needs to be
complemented by explanation of both beliefs and associated actions – that is, by
efforts to locate them within certain cultural and social contexts and by efforts to
illustrate the intersections between them and individual biographies. These beliefs
also need to be evaluated critically, in other words to be questioned regarding their
adequacy (Manicas 2009) and their social consequences.
I now turn to another feature that interpretivism shares with positivism – that
is, methodological individualism and the associated rejection of structure and
structural analysis. Mario Bunge (2003: 196–212) dedicates a whole chapter
of his book Emergence and Convergence: Qualitative Novelty and the Unity of
Knowledge to a discussion of the similarities between interpretivism and the mostly
positivistic-scientistic and ahistorical paradigm of rational-choice theory. Despite
their differences those paradigms share a lot of common elements, most notably
methodological individualism – which privileges human agency and its powers,
neglects systemic characteristics of societies and dismisses the distinctiveness and
reality of social structures. Privileging human agency stems from an exaggerated
reaction of interpretivism to the reification of social structures but results in an
overestimation of the role of agency in social change or reproduction and is unable
to explain social continuity and stability (McAnulla 2006). Furthermore, the
failure to account for the impacts and consequences of phenomena of social and
cultural emergence leads to the reducibility of all social processes to individual
interpretations, meanings and actions of the present and past and thus to one of the
most common and unconstructive forms of reductionism (Gimenez 1999). Critical
realism offers a notion of structure that simultaneously avoids reification, allows
for ontological distinctness of structure and agency, owing to the possession of
different kinds of properties by them, and acknowledges the causal efficaciousness
of structures through constraining or enabling agential action (McAnulla
2006). It also pays serious attention to the materiality of social relations, their
objective structuring and the exertion of their causal powers independently of
human identification4 (see Porpora 1993). Closely related to this issue, Gimenez
(1999: 25), in her discussion of the ontological individualism of contemporary
interpretivism, points out that: ‘[T]o deny ontological reality of structures produces
an impoverished social science, one which artificially divides the social form from
4 About this issue Porpora (1993: 215) asserts: ‘[I]t implies that a material thing
will exert a causal effect whether or not actors are aware of it, but not that the causal
effect necessarily will be the same in both cases. Through their awareness, actors by their
actions may modify, mitigate or neutralize the effect, but then awareness of those actions
themselves are effects that produced causally by the thing in question.’
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 101
its material conditions of possibility and is therefore unable to theorize the logic
of social systems and modes of production, and their contradictions, processes,
and tendencies.’
It should be noted though that the realist critique does not totally dismisses
interpretivism. Although most of the conclusions of interpretivists are flawed,
some of their premises and insights are necessary for any kind of social inquiry
and research and are quite compatible with realist social theorising. Thus,
the social scientist always confronts a pre-interpreted social reality and has to
be engaged to what is called ‘double hermeneutic’ – that is, to interpret and
understand social agents’ interpretations too (Sayer 2000, Hartwig 2007). With
certain presuppositions, interpretative understanding is fully incorporated into
realist social theorising and research practice, since systems of constitutive
meanings, their origins and their impacts are real and are always embedded in
or are interlinked with other systems of material/power arrangements (Sayer
1992). Interpretative understanding of agents’ contextual motives, intentions,
interpretations and practices is an indispensable part of any research endeavour,
subject to a critical questioning of their adequacy and to an investigation of them
alongside the results of the interaction among different emergent social properties.
Social scientists engaged in interpretative understanding within a realist rationale
have also to take account the following crucial point made by Potter and López
(2001: 14):
The same aspect of social reality may possess both a transitive and intransitive
dimension simultaneously. The explanation of some aspect of meaningful
sociality may in turn become the subject matter of explanation itself. However,
it is nonetheless possible to be objective about subjectivity [my emphasis]. It is
this aspect of social reality that makes for both the possibility, and arguably the
necessity, for example, of a sociology of sociology. (Potter and López 2001: 14)
since currently they inspire a great part of qualitative social research in a broad
array of topics, including migration. Phenomenology originates from the
writings of the German philosopher Edmund Husserl, but in sociology it was
Alfred Schütz – one of Husserl’s students (Craib 1998, Katrivesis 2004) – who
championed it. The phenomenological tradition, closely related to existentialism
is mainly interested in how the social world is meaningfully constituted in human
consciousness (Craib 1998). Actually, for phenomenology the social world is
exhausted by agents’ meanings of it mainly because it asserts that social knowledge
is created through meaning-making out of a ‘pool of chaotic impressions’ which
are structureless and have no meaning in themselves (Craib 1998: 189). Willis
(2007: 107) defines phenomenology as ‘the study of people’s perception of the
world (as opposed to trying to learn what “really is” in the world)’. Of course,
the first part of this definition is quite straightforward and unproblematic. Every
social scientist, of whatever theoretical and epistemological persuasion, studies or
ought to include to her study people’s perceptions, interpretations and meanings
of social phenomena and processes. Nevertheless the second part is problematic.
Owing to the fact that phenomenology conflates perceptions of reality with reality
itself (Craib 1998), there is nothing left to be studied, discovered or explained
beyond agents’ perceptions. This is a classic version of the epistemic fallacy that
phenomenology – along with other interpretivist paradigms, constructionism and
post-structuralism – commits; that is, confusing reality with what it knowable
about it, according to its premises.
The most central concepts in the phenomenological literature are ‘the
intentionality of consciousness’ ‘the process of typification’, ‘inter-subjectivity’
‘lived experience’ and ‘bracketing-out of reality’ (Craib 1998, Creswell 2007).
The first concept is related to the above-mentioned exhaustion of the social world
in perceptions as constituted in consciousness. According to Creswell (2007: 59):
Thus, according to this premise the real world resides not outside but inside
human consciousness and knowledge is created by the ascription of meanings
to experiences or ‘chaotic impressions’. Knowledge is created by ‘the process of
typification’ of the various meanings of experiences divided according to criteria
of similarity and difference (Craib 1998: 189). Now, a large part of knowledge
is based on social interaction and is derived from the experiences of other social
actors (Katrivesis 2004), so inter-subjective – that is, commonly shared – meanings
are rendered to be necessary for the continuation of social life. Phenomenological
research aims mainly to study the inter-subjective meanings of lived experiences.
‘Phenomenologists focus on describing what all participants [in research] have
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 103
a material dimension, are structured in specific ways, exert causal powers and
influence meanings, interpretations and actions (Mingers 1992).
Regarding ethnomethodology, my account here is very brief as this paradigm
is closely connected with social constructionism – with which I deal in the
next subsection – and employs the doctrines of the so-called ‘linguistic turn’.
Ethnomethodology equates the social world with the ways of conceptualising it
(Craib 1998) and thus agrees, in this aspect, with phenomenology. Nevertheless,
it differs from the latter in placing special emphasis on language and the linguistic
construction of everyday social situations (Craib 1998). Craib (1998) points out
that the two more interesting ideas derived from ethnomethodology are related
to the contextual determination of meaning (indexicality of meaning) and the
notion according to which descriptions of reality simultaneously contribute to
the construction/creation of reality characterised by a specific logic and meaning
(see also Katrivesis 2004: 204–20). As far as the former idea is concerned, most
ethnomethodologists take context to be only the interactional one – that is, the
context ‘constructed’ in language within specific interactional encounters. With
the exception of Aron Cicourel, ethnomethodologists take into account broader
societal context ‘to the extent that it is perceived as relevant by the actor’
(Steensen [date unknown]: 6–7). Now, in relation to the previous statement,
ethnomethodologists overestimate, in an extreme way, the power of discourse
in ‘constructing reality’ and strongly underplay other necessary conditions or
processes for this ‘construction’, such as broader societal relations and the role of
social hierarchies in determining which discourse prevails and has real material
and other consequences and which discourse makes no impact at all (Mouzelis
1997). Thus, ethnomethodology is characterised by all the flaws and fallacies of
methodological situationist accounts such as its inability to account for structural
factors (Craib 1998), emergent properties of societal forms and their dialectical
interplay with agential powers. Ethnomethodologists do not posses the theoretical
armoury to account for the ways that discourses are socially produced and to move
beyond discursive and linguistic reductionism and determinism. Therefore, they
are trapped in a view of the social world characterised by the epistemic fallacy, and
– more specifically – by a particular version of it – that is, the linguistic fallacy.
Finally, symbolic interactionism as a theoretical paradigm and research
practice was developed in the Department of Sociology at the University of
Chicago in the 1920s (Craib 1998). ‘The substantive basis of symbolic interaction
as a theory is frequently attributed to the social behavioral work of Dewey (1930),
Cooley (1902), Parks (1915), Mead (1934, 1938), and several other early theorists,
but Blumer (1969) is considered the founder of symbolic interactionism’ (Berg
2007: 10). The basic premises of symbolic interactionism lie in the alleged close
relationship between action and meaning, based on the assumption that meaning
is produced through social interaction and that change in meanings is based on
interpretative interactional processes (Craib 1998: 161). Blumer (1969: 5) quoted
in Berg (2007: 10) asserts that:
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 105
compacting of self-identity and social identity (and hence of self and self-
presentation) has effectively undermined the common-sense idea that it is
possible and desirable to distinguish between what individuals claim to be and
what they really are. [ ] Yet it does not seem unreasonable to draw precisely this
distinction. After all, only a fool would be so naïve as to suggest, for instance,
a person who expresses racist ideas inside but not outside of the workplace is
one thing in the former and another in the latter. On the contrary, the personal
7 With the exception of the so called ‘Iowa School’ of Manford Kuhn (Craib 1998:
165, Berg 2007), which ‘became distinctive for operationalizing concepts of symbolic
interaction, including concepts such as the self and reference group in standardized ways so
that hypotheses testing could be accomplished’ (Berg 2007: 11).
106 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
regarding cultural identity may be a good start but a realist investigation of the issue
would go much further and deeper than that. It would strongly take into account
the multilayered and stratified nature of social reality and would not confine it
to the levels of individual agency, individual perceptions or intersubjective
meanings. The realist would question the adequacy of these perceptions, which
is the degree to which they capture the real structural and cultural workings of
both Chinese and American societies. Furthermore, the realist would seek, apart
from accurately describing and interpreting those perceptions, to explain them
as well; that is, to place them within certain structural and cultural contexts and
elucidate the relation between the social location of immigrant women and their
identity constructions and perceptions (Moya 2000b). This relation between social
location (gender, ‘race’, class or other structured hierarchies, including the results
of their intersection) and identity is not straightforward or determining but causally
efficacious through various mechanisms, which are therefore worthwhile being
researched and highlighted. Research on those issues would result in insights about
evaluations of perceptions and experiences ‘as sources of objective knowledge
or socially mediated mystification’ (Mohanty 2000: 38) As Moya (2000b: 85)
asserts: ‘our ability to understand fundamental aspects of our world will depend
on our ability to acknowledge and understand the social, political, economic and
epistemic consequences of our social location.’
Thus, the critical realist approach to cultural identity and self-identity explicitly
asserts that perceptions should be treated as theories of interpreting the social
world and should be evaluated for their accuracy and validity like any other theory
(Moya 2000b, Mohanty 2000). That is because, according to the realist approach:
there is a cognitive component to identity that allows for the possibility of error
and of accuracy [emphasis added] in interpreting the things that happen to us. It
is a feature of theoretically mediated experience that one person’s understanding
of the same situation may undergo revision over the course of time, thus
rendering her subsequent interpretations of that situation more or less accurate.
(Moya 2000b: 83)
account of the ‘social self’ ‘is far more systematic and “theorised” ’ (Creaven 2000:
118) than that of post-structuralists’ and postmodernists’. Thus, for the former
theorists the human subject is far from ‘decentered’ as is characterised by powers
that enable its resistance to ‘being constituted as a mere “effect” of discourse,
culture or “relationships” of whatever sort’ (Creaven 2000: 119). For example,
Rod Rhodes and Mark Bevir, who championed a new interpretivist approach
to British politics (see McAnulla 2006), explicitly reject Foucauldian and other
postmodernist and post-structuralist notions regarding all-pervasive powers of
discourse and knowledge/power nexus ‘for appearing to grant no meaningful role
for individuals to alter their webs of belief through creative reasoning’ (McAnulla
2006: 116).
The differences between various versions of the two camps (interpretivism and
social constructionism) are also evident in the critiques that each has developed
of the other. Thus, on the one hand, David Silverman (2006: 123), from a social
constructionist perspective, criticises phenomenology and interpretivism in
general – which he calls ‘emotionalism’ and ‘humanism’ – for attempting to gain
‘authentic’ and ‘deep understanding’ of ‘subjective lived experience’ of social
agents instead of elucidating how subjectivity and experience are constituted
through discourse. On the other hand, and from a phenomenological-existential
perspective, Svend Brinkmann (2006: 94) highlights the affinities of contemporary
social constructionist thought with the logic of ‘consumption-oriented society’
and challenges constructionist assumptions and/or consequences regarding
‘identity morphing, aesthetization of life, and a denial of life’s tragic dimensions’
(Brinkmann 2006: 92). The same author ‘outlines an existential phenomenological
ethics that starts from certain basic facts of human existence, including human
interdependency and mortality. It is argued that nonconstructed moral demands
spring from these facts. Social constructionists too easily miss the fact that
solidarity, compassion, and care are possible only for finite, vulnerable creatures’
(Brinkmann 2006: 92). With social constructionism, along with post-structuralism
and postmodernism, I deal in much more detail in the next subsection.
corresponds to, and has concrete affinities with, the proliferation of a consumerist, sign-
based and communicative capitalism (Iosifides 2004) and its associated cultural features
(Wood 1997, Eagleton 1997).
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 111
Social interaction and the resulting shared linguistic and meaning conventions
play, for social constructionists, a vital role in the construction of social reality and
of knowledge about it, which anyway are rendered to be the same thing. People
construct reality out of an ‘undifferentiated flux of fleeting sense impressions’
(Chia 2003: 111 quoted in Fleetwood 2005: 206) through linguistic-conceptual
practices and acts such as ‘differentiating, fixing, naming, labeling, classifying
and relating’ (Chia 2003: 111 quoted in Fleetwood 2005: 206). Following this line
of reasoning, it is relatively straightforward to understand the reasons why social
constructionism, post-structuralism, postmodernism and the like reject any notion
of truth, objectivity, causality and reality independence and embrace different
forms of relativism and conventionalism. Constructionism fully participates
with positivism (its alleged opponent) in what Hibberd (2001a, 2001b) calls
‘the continuity of error’, which is mainly a result of the neglect of ontological
assumptions and questions and the preoccupation with epistemology.
Social constructionism comes in different versions and persuasions. We may,
for example, differentiate between micro- and macro-social constructionism
(Burr 2003). The former ‘sees social construction taking place within everyday
discourse between people in interaction’ (Burr 2003: 21), while the latter – based
mainly on the work of Foucault – places emphasis on how power relations
determine various discursive practices or ways of constructing the world (Burr
2003, Moore 2007). Another division is between weak and strong, or strict, social
constructionism. Weak social constructionism may be viewed as a version that
highlights the crucial role that discourse plays in the formation, reproduction and
transformation of social relations and processes. This version views and analyses
discourse as an integral part of social reality that interacts with other non- or
extra-discursive elements, producing certain outcomes. It views discourse as
produced by and producing societal phenomena and processes and it is perfectly
compatible with critical realism (see Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999, Fairclough
2003). This version should necessarily be a part of any non-positivist, critical
and emancipatory social research practice. On the contrary, I consider strong or
strict social constructionism (see Carter 2000, Best 2007) as totally inadequate
for critical social research theorising and practice due to its extreme ‘discursive
reductionism’, culturalism, ontological muteness and self-contradictory relativism
(Spiro 2001).
As mentioned earlier, social constructionism considers language pivotal for
any account of social and cultural phenomena and processes, and this consideration
has also been called ‘the linguistic’ or ‘the cultural turn’. Social constructionism
establishes an analogy (or a metaphor) between the functioning of society and the
112 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
For example, the signifiers ‘help me!’ or ‘aidez-moi!’ are arbitrary in relation
to their common meanings in human communication … in one sense but not in
another! That is, they do not have to be exactly what they are; but they cannot
be just anything at all either. There are boundaries to the possibilities of the
nature of such signifiers in relation to other aspects of reality. Such words
must be relatively short for example. Is this a feature of parole rather than
langue perhaps? I think not. Language is structured, and its structural nature is
something different from the instances of actual language usage which rely upon
it. (Potter 2001: 186)
2001). Thus, ‘[T]he signification process takes place through networks of such
triangles, and what is a signifier or signified in one triangle may become the referent
of another. Meaning, on this account, is still constituted through difference, though
not only through difference’ (Sayer 2001: 37).
The exclusion of the referent from the signification process, by social
constructionists and post-structuralists, falsely obscures the role of the
‘intransitive dimension’ of reality resulting in another version of the ‘epistemic
fallacy’. Knowledge about the world and reality in general reside within the
transitive (linguistic and conceptual) realm, and the distinctiveness and powers
of the intransitive one are not taken into consideration. This leads to the implicit
adoption of a ‘flat’ notion of reality where its depth, stratification and emergence
are reduced to interactional meaning-making processes. It also leads to a total
neglect of the practical character of language, the practical nature of referring and
‘referential detachment’ that is a necessary precondition for any comprehensive
act of signification anyway (Sayer 2001: 37, Collier 1998). As Nellhaus (2001: 4)
stresses: ‘[S]emiosis is an act, a practical action in the real world.’ Furthermore,
the post-structuralist and constructionist signification scheme is ‘anthropocentric’
and corresponds to their over-socialised notion of human agency. In reality,
signification does not need linguistic capacities and acts in order to occur at all
and ‘does not require human consciousness’ (Nellhaus 2001: 7), since non-human
animals signify as well, possess knowledge and hold beliefs and some of them are
characterised by behavioural variation through learning (see Kornblith 2002). This
point is important as it indicates that signification is always towards something
external to it, which does not need to be only social but it can also be natural or
material. Thus, signification is a process that –because it is located in the real world
and constantly interacts with its features – is always characterised by possibilities
of semantic realism. ‘Semantic realism is, roughly the view that properties of
sentences like having meaning, or being true, are primarily objectively explained,
typically in terms of causal relations and interactions, or correspondences, with
an external world distinct from both thought and language’ (Gamble 2002: 244).
What this means is that there is the possibility of gaining more or less valid
knowledge of the real world, although this knowledge is always conceptually
mediated (Nellhaus 2001). This notion offers a solution to the false dichotomy
that social constructionism establishes between signification and reality – that is,
that the one and only alternative to naive realism (i.e to the position that there is
an unmediated access to the world) is conceptual and linguistic self-referentiality.
Now, apart from misinterpreting Saussure, constructionists base their notions
on language and signification on Wittgenstein’s ideas and especially to the idea
that meaning is wholly produced by use (Hibberd 2001b). According to this thesis,
a word, a sign or a concept gains its meaning through its use within the contexts
of a given linguistic community – that is, within a specific ‘language game’. This
thesis, of course, results in, or is related to, various kinds of relativism (linguistic,
conceptual, cultural) and conventionalism. The use theory of meaning is another
way to put forward the self-referential, closed notion of signification and discourse,
114 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
exists. If it does not make that claim, there is no reason why we need pay any
attention to it.11
(1) all observation and knowledge are theory mediated and that (2) a theory-
mediated objective knowledge is both possible and desirable. They replace a
simple correspondence theory of truth with a more dialectical causal theory of
reference in which linguistic structures both shape our perceptions and refer (in
more or less partial and accurate ways) to causal features of the real world. And
they endorse a conception of objectivity as an ideal of inquiry rather than as a
condition of absolute and achieved certainty. (Moya 2000b: 12)
12 Of course, these are not the only elements that social constructionism shares with
positivism. Others include irrealism, the epistemic fallacy, the emphasis on epistemology
and neglect of ontological questions, the preoccupation with language, conventionalism
and the notion of meaning as use (see Patomäki and Wight 2000, Hibberd 2001a, 2001b,
2005).
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 117
In the place of the loss of human agency of strong social constructionism and
post-structuralism – that is, of a non-stratified agency that is totally constructed
by ‘society’s conversation’ (Archer 2000) – realism posits a dynamic, stratified,
powerful and causally efficacious human actor who acquires her ‘sense of self’,
and her personal and social identity, through relationships with the totality of
world, including its the non-social aspects (Archer 2000, Creaven 2000; see also
Jenkins 2001). Archer (2000: 116–17), criticising Harré’s social constructionist
and postmodernist view of human agency, summarises the realist notion of it as
follows:
(i) The realist account starts in ‘privacy’, in human exchanges with the natural
world, rather than in the public domain of social relations.
(ii) The primacy of practice implies an anti-clockwise trajectory […], as well as
starting in a different place because we bring the effects of our natural encounters
to our social ones.
(iii) What the human self does encounter in the social domain is not simply
‘society’s conversation’, as a flat discursive medium, for in society the cultural
realm is deeply stratified (containing emergent ideational properties – CEPs).
Moreover, structural properties (SEPs) do not need to be discursive at all, in
order for their powers to be causally efficacious.
118 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
(iv) The human arc is also a trajectory during which stratified personal powers
emerge in every Quadrant, as a human being sequentially becomes a self, then a
primary agent and has the possibility of next developing into a corporate agent
an finally into a personalised actor.
(v) Personal identity and social identity are distinct on the realist account,
whereas there is only the social identity of persons in Harré’s version. (Archer
2000: 116–17)
that what people themselves think about their action is the true explanation
of their action, since their intention is not the unique and isolated cause/
motive of it’ (Callewaert 2006: 77).
–– Social constructionism is extremely weak in accounting for materiality, the
character of social relations and power (Nightingale and Cromby 1999).
Materiality, nature and artefacts possess causal powers of their own that
condition wilful constructions or act back on them. For example, Rowlands
(2005) refers to Latour and his ‘guns kill people’ slogan ‘to illustrate the
fact that gun, as object, acts by virtue of its material components that are
irreducible to the social qualities of the person holding the gun (Latour
1998: 176)’ (Rowlands 2005: 74–5). This is, of course, true for social
relations as well, which are always characterised by a material dimension
that is irreducible to discourse. Social relations, as material relations
between real people, have causal powers that are exerted on and influence
actors independently of the latter’s understanding of the former or of the
former’s intentions (see Martin 2009: 9–20). Furthermore, the variance of
the character of social relations of any kind (i.e. between individuals or
social groups within various social fields) is rather limited. This character,
which is objective and exists independently of human awareness and
identification, is related to different degrees of equality and inequality
between the different parts of the relation. Thus, ‘social relations vary in
two dimensions, “power” and “solidarity”, or social hierarchy and social
distance’ (Fairclough 2003: 75). In contrast to this dimension, discourses,
meanings and interpretations linked and associated with or related to
social relations may be infinite in number and variation. Yet, only some
of them, and usually exceptionally, are able to grasp, though partially and
with limitations, this character of social relations. Now, conflating this
intrinsic character of social relations with their discursive constructions, as
constructionism does, prevents adequate theorising and researching of both
social relations and various discourses and meanings that are linked with or
are part of them. Finally, issues related to power, power relations and power
hierarchies are treated by social constructionism in an unsatisfactory way
(Nightingale and Cromby 1999). In most instances these crucial issues are
rather neglected by constructionists because their examination entails some
kind of differentiation between the discursive and non- or extra-discursive
realm that strict constructionists are not ready to make or to acknowledge.
Nevertheless, ‘power’ features prominently in the Foucauldian version of
the constructionist ‘discourse’. But this notion of power, also known as
‘the capillary notion of power’ (Mather 2000: 91) – that is, a ‘tactical and
localized view of power’ (Reed 2000: 526) – results in the reinforcement of
the neglect of the structural dimensions of power and power relations along
with their role in the production and reproduction of relatively stable and
enduring social hierarchies, thereby obscuring their real ontological status
(Reed 2000).
120 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Regarding the second point, it should be noted that avoiding completely questions
of truth or falsity and plausibility or implausibility of research findings, theories,
discourses, or propositions is impossible and leads to inconsistencies and
contradictions. It leaves us with no criteria to adjudicate between different theories,
discourses or propositions, resulting to an ‘anything goes’ attitude, since any belief,
theory or proposition may be assessed as worth holding given that it is accepted by
a linguistic or cultural community (Hammersley 2009). Finally, regarding the third
point, the adoption of moral criteria to judge knowledge claims results in another
kind of relativism – moral relativism – which is equally problematic as epistemic
or cognitive varieties. Thus, Hammersley points out that:
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 121
amounts to a shift away from investigation of the features and causes of particular
events, actions, and institutions towards a focus on the methods or practices that
are held to generate whatever intelligible sense participants (and, for that matter,
researchers) make of them. Furthermore, these methods or practices are assumed
to be involved not just in the recognition of social phenomena but also in their
production, in ‘bringing off ’ events, actions, and institutions as of distinctive
kinds. (Hammersley 2008: 13).
Quite similar are the trends of constructionist discourse analysis as well. The most
influential examples of this kind of discourse analysis, which is mainly inspired
by the work of Foucault, give so much prominence to discourse and discursive
practices that it is as if they ‘absorb’ or ‘produce’ everything else. Thus, any
meaningful distinctions between discursive and non- or extra-discursive practices
and realities are denied and the whole social realm is reduced and confined to
discourse (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999). Of course, this kind of discursive
idealism and reductionism does not and cannot account for those non- or extra-
discursive realities, entities and processes that, through constant interaction with
discourse, are shaped by it and shape it as well. Those non- or extra-discursive
features of social reality are ‘social relations, power, material practices, beliefs/
values/desires, and institutions/rituals’ (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999: 28).
Ignoring these features results in intractable problems in social theorising and,
mostly qualitative, research practice. These are related to undermining ontological
questions – thus committing the epistemic fallacy – nominalism, self-refutation
and self-contradictory relativism, limiting the potential of social and cultural
critique, downplaying the role of human agency, and denying the existence and
role of ideologies as a distinct kind of discourse as well as localism in relation to
power and power relations (Reed 2000):
122 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Languages, as well as cultures, are, obviously, not natural things but they do
have some structure and some logic of their own. Recognizing that linguistic or
cultural traditions and continuities ‘exist’ should not be mistaken for committing
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 123
the sin of reifying cultures. Stating that only linguistic or cultural change is
real, that traditions or continuities are purely abstract notions, easily leads to
a complete neglect of the actual degrees of continuity and coherence. (Bader
2001: 255)
Regarding the reduction of culture to discourse Bader (2001) stresses that this
results in an almost complete neglect of the role of habitus and of the material
dimensions of culture – that is, ‘customs, rituals, traditional ways of doing,
institutions and virtues (‘material culture’)’ (Bader 2001: 257). Thus, as an
example:
The second example concerns a study that examines the emigration phenomenon
from South Africa and explicitly employs a social constructionist approach – in
my view of the strong kind (Brokensha 2003). The study is based on the written
narratives of two respondents (of Peter and Clare), the one already an emigrant
from the country and the other preparing to immigrate at the time of the research
(Brokensha 2003: 40). The research focuses almost exclusively on the discourses
and discursive practices of the research participants vis-à-vis their reasons for
emigrating from South Africa, in a clear postmodern manner and employing a
kind of Foucauldian discourse analysis. This case is typical of strong social
124 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
In my research I am not engaged in the search for the causes of emigration, nor
for a solution to the ‘problem’. My aim is to elucidate the range of discursive
events circulating in the South African narrative around emigration. I explore the
construction of the category of emigration and the power relations emanating from
the complex process of that construction. I explore the production, circulation and
authorisation of ‘truths’ regarding emigration. (Brokensha 2003: 40)
I would like to take you, the reader, and my two storytellers, Peter and Clare, on
a journey with me through the land of discourses and the various interpretations
I have constructed out of the texts. Please keep in mind that they are mere
interpretations and not ‘truth’ statements (58) [emphasis added].
The first discourse I would like to introduce you to is the discourse of crime […].
I started to wonder what stories are being told about crime in South Africa (58).
There is discourse around protecting children and I wonder if this forms Peter
and Clare’s construction of what it means to be a good parent (62).
Critical Realism and Qualitative Research 125
After reading Peter’s narrative I got a strong feeling that he does experience
being valued in South Africa. […] I wonder if Peter has this experience when he
writes about his struggle with his company and affirmative action (66).
At this point I would to introduce the discourse of religion that permeates through
Clare’s narrative. Clare is Jewish and tells certain stories of her experience of
being a Jew in South Africa (74).
This allows you the reader, to judge for yourself whether the interpretations
are warranted and gives the opportunity to construct alternative meanings or
interpretations (42).
Although the above quotations cannot indicate the whole reasoning of the
study, they point to a series of limitations that are endemic to strong social
constructionism. First, there is a constant and complete reduction of the totality of
social reality to discourses, stories, narratives, constructions and shared meanings
without any attempt to assess their adequacy (e.g. blaming affirmative action) by
relating them to certain, real, relatively stable and enduring social structures (for
example class structures, socio-political structures of domination, structures of
social discrimination along ‘ethnic’ or religious lines or intra- and inter-country
inequalities). It seems that for Brokensha (2003) ‘crime’ is a mere discursive
construction. Extra-discursive realities of social disorganisation and social
relations of domination and inequality, resulting in trends towards both higher
criminal activity and emigration, are ignored. Second, social agency is seriously
underplayed and undermined. Agents seem to be ‘informed’ by ‘circulating
discourses’ that completely shape their social experiences (Brokensha 2003). But
why are those discourses circulating in the first place? Why is there a circulation of
those specific discourses and not of others? In what ways do different discourses
relate to each other and to extra-discursive features such as ‘social relations’,
‘material activity’ and social agents’ ‘beliefs, values and desires’ (Chouliaraki and
Fairclough 1999: 61)? Working under strong constructionist premises those crucial
questions cannot be answered. The author leaves no room for social experience
itself, along with its specific social characteristics, to exert any independent
influence on actors’ understandings of social situations and phenomena. On the
contrary, according to the author, ‘the dominant cultural discourses…’ (Brokensha
2003: 33) ‘…determine how the individual gives meaning to experiences and their
identity’ (Brokensha 2003: 33). Third, although the author calls for judgements
on the ‘warranty’ of interpretations made in the study, she offers neither criteria
nor grounds for such judgements to be based on. If these are to be based on mere
convention, then there is no reason for us all to accept them as better than any other
alternative interpretations. This also applies to the strong social constructionist
or postmodernist project as a whole. This kind of reasoning entails the so-called
‘performative contradiction’ (Al-Amoundi 2007: 547), which is quite common in
certain versions of Foucauldian constructionist research, including Brokensha’s
126 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
To conclude this subsection and chapter, I should note that my preceding critique
of social constructionism, post-structuralism and postmodernism is necessarily
incomplete and partial, since capturing the whole range of constructionist, post-
structuralist and postmodernist thinking – in its multiplicity, complexity and
difference – would require a whole book (or probably many). Instead, I have
placed emphasis on some features of strong social constructionism with certain
affinities to post-structuralist and postmodernist thinking in order to highlight their
negative consequences for social research practice and to pave the way to my
analysis of critical realist qualitative methods in migration studies.
Chapter 4
Critical Realism, Social Research
Methodology and Qualitative Migration
Research
possible, and one’s choice of design and method…’ (Danermark et al. 2002: 150).
Thus, I reject the pragmatic eclecticism of various methods irrespective of explicit
meta-theoretical principles (Danermark et al. 2002), mainly because there is the
danger of conflict between different, and implicitly held, ontological assumptions;
this conflict usually results in limiting the explanatory power, truthfulness and
usefulness of research findings.
Furthermore, I strongly oppose the traditional connection between certain
methodological camps with certain epistemological and theoretical positions;
that is, the connection between quantitative methods and positivism, as well as
between qualitative methods and interpretivism, social constructionism and other
modes of idealism and relativism. It is this strong and long-lasting connection that
it is the cause of an unproductive opposition between quantitative and qualitative
methods; the ‘war’ between the two camps resulted in serious ‘casualties’ regarding
methodological and theoretical progress in social sciences, namely the lack of
cooperation between them or ontologically and epistemological inconsistent and
conflicting or eclectic and pragmatist combinations between quantitative and
qualitative methods.
The solution offered by critical realism is what is called ‘critical
methodological pluralism’ (Danermark et al. 2002: 150). This entails the
combination between quantitative and qualitative methods under the same
meta-theoretical framework, that of critical realism. It is a framework that
explicitly presupposes that ‘social science studies are conducted in open
systems, that reality consists of different strata with emergent powers, that
it has ontological depth, and that facts are theory-laden…’ (Danermark et al.
2002: 150). Critical realists maintain that there is nothing that inherently and
necessarily links quantitative methods to positivism and qualitative methods
to interpretivism and social constructionism and that, while it is impossible to
combine the positivist and the interpretivist/constructionist positions within
the same research endeavour, it is perfectly possible and more than desirable
to combine quantitative and qualitative methods. A necessary presupposition
for this combination is to reorient both quantitative and qualitative methods
towards a critical realist meta-theoretical framework. The most crucial
dimensions of this reorientation are related to examining the character of
quantitative and qualitative methods regarding the specific topic and object of
study, to shedding light on the role of theory in social science methodology and
highlighting the explanatory potential of abductive and retroductive reasoning
(Yeung 1997, Danermark et al. 2002, Sayer 1992, 2000).
Realist reorientation of both quantitative and qualitative methods within the
framework of ‘critical methodological pluralism’ entails the modification of the
overall purpose of social science and research practice. Despite the differences
between the objects of social and natural sciences, I advocate an explanatory
role of social sciences – that is, the possibility, desirability and usefulness of
the scientific study of the social domain. I take ‘scientific’ to mean causal and
explanatory but I differentiate sharply the meaning of realist explanatory research
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 129
from that of its positivist counterpart. The former is based on postulating causal
generative mechanisms operating in open systems whereas the latter seeks
law-like regularities which are taken to be causal relations, assuming closure.
Various versions of interpretivism, social constructionism and relativism dispense
with causality altogether because they share exactly the same definition of
causality with the positivist paradigm. Thus, it is no surprise that the linking of
quantitative methods with positivism and qualitative methods with interpretivism/
constructionism renders their combination either highly risky or impossible. For
‘critical methodological pluralism’, the purpose of social research and of both
quantitative and qualitative methods is to ‘[I]dentify generative mechanisms and
describe how they are manifested in real events and purposes’ (Danermark et
al. 2002: 165). Within this framework, the differences between quantitative and
qualitative methods are not ontological and epistemological but are related to
different characteristics and dimensions of research objects (e.g. measurable – non-
measurable dimensions and features) and different research questions. Andrew
Sayer (1992: 242) refers to the terms ‘intensive’ and ‘extensive’ research designs
as alternative to, but not perfectly overlapping with, qualitative and quantitative.
In his words:
This dilemma involves a choice between what Harré terms ‘extensive’ and
‘intensive’ research designs. Superficially, this distinction seems nothing more
than a question of scale or ‘depth versus breadth’. But the two types of design
ask different sorts of question, use different techniques and methods and define
their objects and boundaries differently. (Sayer 1992: 242)
It became customary for many realism-inspired books and academic papers about
social research methods to include Sayers’ (1992) tabled summary elaboration
about intensive and extensive social research. I think it is worth including this
elaboration (here give in the form of Table 4.1) here as well because it will help
introduce the discussion of a series of crucial issues.
130 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
INTENSIVE EXTENSIVE
Research How does a process work in a What are the regularities,
question particular case or small number of common patterns, distinguishing
cases? features of a population?
What produces a certain change? How widely are certain
What did the agents actually do? characteristics or processes
distributed or represented?
Relations Substantial relations of connections Formal relations of similarity
Types of Causal groups Taxonomic groups
groups studied
Type of Causal explanation of the Descriptive ‘representative
account production of certain objects or generalizations’, lacking in
produced events, though not necessarily explanatory penetration
representative
Typical Study of individual agents in Large-scale survey of
methods their causal contexts, interactive population or representative
interviews, ethnography. sample, formal questionnaires,
Qualitative analysis standardized interviews.
Statistical analysis.
Limitations Actual concrete patterns and Although representative of
contingent relations are unlikely a whole population, they are
to be representative, ‘average’ or unlikely to be generalizable to
generalizable. other populations at different
Necessary relations discovered times and places. Problem of
will exist wherever their relata ecological fallacy in making
are present, e.g. causal powers of inferences about individuals.
objects are generalizable to other Limited explanatory power.
contexts as they are necessary
features of these objects
Appropriate Corroboration Replication
tests
Source: Sayer 1992: 243 (Figure 13, Intensive and extensive research: a summary. ©
Routledge 1992, reproduced with permission).
I agree with most statements included in Table 4.1, but there are some that need
more elaboration. These are related to the potential of generalising qualitative
findings and the ability of qualitative methods to be used for the investigation of
macro-social phenomena, processes and factors. These issues will be dealt with
in the next subsection; for the time being some points about the quantitative–
qualitative divide should be made. The employment of quantitative methods is
indispensable in social research not because measurement of distinct entities
in the domain of the empirical level is the right – that is, the ‘scientific’ – way
to go on or because it is a way to trace causal relationships between variables.
These reasons are derived from positivist–empiricist notions of social research
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 131
Hence, quantitative methods are of great help for the establishment of what are
known as ‘demi-regularities’ (Danermark et al. 2002: 166) or ‘quasi-closures’
(van Heur 2008: 46) – that is, more or less stable empirical patterns within
specific time and space boundaries. These demi-regularities are manifestations
of specific generative causal mechanisms at the empirical level that need
explanation. They orientate social researchers to ‘go deeper’ and try to elucidate
the specific causal factors (that is, the interaction between different internal
and necessary relations of entities and their emergent results) that made them
possible. Employing quantitative methods in this way contributes significantly
to the overall purpose of critical realist social research, which is to address
causality and explain social reality.
Society, due to its stratified and emergent character and due to the action of
social agents, is characterised by qualitative changes, complexity and relationality.
Those features either cannot be fully grasped by ‘measuring’ them or are impossible
to be ‘measured’. The neglect of those ‘intensional’ features of social reality such
as social agents’ ‘beliefs, purpose and meaning’ (Scott 2005: 644) along with other
qualitative dimensions of social reality by quantitative methods results in poor
outcomes regarding social explanation. As Scott (2005: 644) rightly points out:
132 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
This ‘richness and depth’ that Scott (2005) talks about can be grasped qualitatively,
with the aid of the perspectives, interpretations, meanings and experiences of social
agents, the examination of characteristics of concrete social contexts, the contents
of social relations, concrete social practices and their relations to broader cultural
and structural settings and detailed descriptions and explanations of specific
social processes and situations. Qualitative methods inspired by critical realism
do not confine themselves to ‘understanding’ social phenomena internally – that
is, through the perspectives of social actors – but they rather seek to assess their
adequacy too (Manicas 2009). They seek to relate these perspectives to certain
features of the intransitive realm, agents’ experiences and practices, and to broader
cultural and structural contexts in order to causally explain social processes and
phenomena (see Maxwell 2004). Thus, critical realism places qualitative-intensive
methods of social research at the heart of social scientific endeavour towards
causally explaining reality. Theoretically informed, qualitative-intensive research
is of great value in orienting social researchers to ‘go deeper’ into social ontology,
to elucidate internal and necessary social relations and their interaction with other
contextual or contingent factors, and ‘to abstract the causal mechanisms of which
quantitative/statistical methods are oblivious’ (Yeung 1997: 57).
Let me now refer to two examples from migration studies, indicating the
differences between quantitative and qualitative methods and the value of the
latter regarding capturing depth processes and features along with its potential
to elucidate causal generative mechanisms, mostly unobservable at the empirical
level of events. The first example comes from a quantitative study concerning
Greece, which has estimated that the contribution of immigrants to Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) of the country was, at the minimum, between 2.3% and
2.8% for 2004 (Zografakis et al. 2008). The study contains careful estimations
of various factors such as, among others, the contribution of immigrant labour
to overall employment, income and productivity per sector of economic activity,
distribution of added value, income transfers and household consumption patterns.
Quantitative studies, such as this one, capture crucial measurable dimensions of
the migratory phenomenon and produce valuable knowledge which no qualitative
method would ever produce. Such research findings can be used in various
ways. For example, they can be used critically in order to support pro-immigrant
stances and discourses and to serve as evidence of immigrants’ significant and
positive contribution to the economic and labour market. Qualitative methods
could be employed for the in-depth investigation of non-measurable processes
and phenomena related to the participation of immigrants in the labour market
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 133
and the ‘host’ economy. For example, they could be employed to investigate the
features of social and economic relations between immigrants, ‘native’ employees
and employers in certain sectors, concrete labour market processes and conditions,
or the intersection between certain cultural factors with labour market and socio-
economic arrangements. Furthermore, qualitative methods would be of valuable
importance in questioning the proliferation of official and everyday discourses
of ‘rational management’ of immigrant labour in terms of cost and benefit and
elucidating their role in legitimising and reproducing power relations within the
economic sphere and elsewhere.
The second example concerns a study undertaken in western Greece in order to
investigate, among others, the stances and attitudes of the local population towards
immigrants residing and working in the area (see Iosifides et al. 2007a). The study
was mostly descriptive-quantitative and correlated individual stances and attitudes
towards immigrants with a series of variables such as age, gender, income level,
political preferences, educational level, area of residence, occupation and other. The
study produced a series of demi-regularities – for example, the positive correlation
between high educational level and favourable attitudes towards immigrants – and
we took them to be what they really are – that is, simple correlations between
empirical events and not causal explanations. Causally explaining stances and
attitudes would require a move beyond the quantitative ‘variable approach’ towards
the detailed and in-depth qualitative ‘case approach’ (Miles and Huberman 1994,
Ragin 2000). It would require carefully selecting several ‘cases’ – that is, real people
residing in the area – and examining in detail their interpretations, meanings and
beliefs regarding various phenomena related to contemporary migration in their
area of residence along with their experiences, socio-cultural contexts, practices
and actions. A realist approach would require moving beyond expressed stances
and lay interpretations and towards apprehending the complexities of social life
of agents and its embeddedness within certain ideational and material systems
and subsystems which condition their actions and practices. It would require the
investigation of the social practices of agents separate from their concepts of
those practices since ‘[T]he practice or referent is usually more important that
its concept’ (Sayer 2000: 93), and along with the unintended consequences of
those practices and their dependence either on prior practices or on networks
of coordinated practices (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999). Hence, such an
approach would require the employment of modes of inference able to guide the
researchers (quantitative and qualitative alike) beyond the surface level of the
empirical and the actual to the level of the real – that is, to the level of causal
generative mechanisms.
For critical realism, traditional modes of inference, such as deduction
and induction, are not sufficient to account for causal tendencies, powers and
mechanisms, which may be unobservable at the level of empirical events or
remain unexercised. These modes, especially induction, are associated mostly
with empiricist social research. ‘Induction gives no guidance as to how, from
something observable, we can reach knowledge of underlying structures and
134 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
It should be noted that critical realist social research utilise various forms of
reasoning and inference (induction, deduction, abduction) neither autonomously
nor as ends in themselves but in order for them to be used in retroductive thinking.
Thus, according to van Heur:
Now, several critical realist scholars have developed various models to conduct
realist, causal-explanatory, social research. Three of them are described and
analysed by Raduescu and Vessey (2008), notably the ‘morphogenetic cycle
model’ of Margaret Archer (1995), the ‘explanatory model of social science’ by
Berth Danermark and his colleagues (2002), and the realistic evaluation model by
Ray Pawson and Nick Tilley (1997). The morphogenetic model of social research
practice is based on the realist assumptions of separability between structural,
cultural and agential properties and powers and on the notions of stratification,
emergence and temporality (Archer 1998b: 203). Social explanation of certain
phenomena and processes ideally entail the reconstruction of morphogenetic
cycles of the type ‘structural or cultural conditioning/social interaction/structural
or cultural elaboration’ (see Archer 1998a: 202), employ the specific critical
realist meta-theoretical precepts of SEPs, CEPs and PEPs (Cruickshank 2003a)
and investigates how their interaction produces certain outcomes. Raduescu and
Vessey (2008: 12) summarise, in a comprehensive and useful way, the potential
practical steps of social research inspired by the morphogenetic model:
i. Identify the internal and necessary relations within and between social
structure; that is identify the structural emergent properties via the transcendental
argument (i.e., asking questions about what needs to be the case, what needs to
be present for X to be such it is, and not what people think, tell, or believe it is).
ii. Look for causal influences exerted by social structures on social interaction.
iii. Look for causal relationships between various types of agents at the level of
social interactions.
iv. Identify how social interaction elaborates upon the composition of social
structures by modifying the current internal and necessary structural relations
and introduce new ones in the case of morphogenesis. The congruence
between both sets of powers (structural and people’s causal powers) results in
transformation. Alternatively, if the social interaction reproduces the existing
136 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
internal and necessary structural relations then morphostasis applies. The two
sets of powers are incongruent; therefore change does not occur. (Raduescu and
Vessey 2008: 12)
The second model (see Raduescu and Vessey 2008: 20–22) developed by
Danermark et al. (see 2002: 109–110) comprises six stages, notably ‘description’,
‘analytical resolution’, ‘abduction/theoretical redescription’, ‘retroduction’,
‘comparison between different theories and abstractions’ and ‘concretization
and contextualization’. This model utilises the realist notion of moving between
abstraction and concretisation through what is coined as ‘iterative abstraction’
(see Sayer 1992, Yeung 1997). The first stage concerns the qualitative and/or
qualitative description of the concrete phenomena under study while the second
stage entails focusing on certain parts, ‘components, aspects or dimensions’
(Danermark et al. 2002: 109) of these phenomena (Danermark et al. 2002). The
third and fourth stages correspond to the operations of abduction and retroduction
analysed previously in this subsection. At Stage 5 ‘one elaborates and estimates
the relative explanatory power of the mechanisms and structures which have been
described by means of abduction and retroduction within the frame of stages 3
and 4’ (Danermark et al. 2002: 110), while the last stage entails a return to the
level of concrete phenomena and processes and involves the assessment of ‘how
different structures and mechanisms manifest themselves in concrete situations’
(Danermark et al. 2002: 110).
Finally, the realistic evaluation model developed by Pawson and Tilley (1997)
has been developed to guide programme evaluation work but it may also guide
critical realist research in general. The model aims ‘to present a research process
for explaining and evaluating social change’ (Raduescu and Vessey 2008: 33) and
employs the scheme ‘Context-Mechanism-Outcome’ (CMO) in order to reach
explanations of social processes and change (Pawson and Tilley 1997, Kazi 2003,
Raduescu and Vessey 2008).
Critical realist research uses theory and theoretical frameworks in quite
different ways from those of positivist or relativist methodologies. Rather
than viewing theories as ‘hypotheses of relations between observable event/
phenomena’ (Danermark et al. 2002: 116) (positivism) or as mere researcher’s
constructions (constructionism), critical realism views theoretical frameworks are
parts of the transitive realm that are always related in some way to the intransitive
one (Danermark et al. 2002, Judd 2003). Theoretical development entails a
dialogue between different non-incommensurable frameworks – that is, between
frameworks that share common referents; the overall purpose of this dialogue is
the achievement of agreement on the features of those referents that are more
practically adequate and truthful than notions previously held (Judd 2003). Hence,
in critical realism:
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 137
Realist research, apart from the critical and cautious use of theoretical strategies
such as grounded or middle-range theories (see Yeung 1997, Danermark et al.
2002), gives special attention to the value of general theories as ‘instruments to be
used in the interpretation and analysis of concrete social situations’ (Danermark
et al. 2002: 140). In this way, theories and theoretical concepts help researchers
not only to reach to satisfactory explanations of reality but also to trace and
investigate new features of social reality deemed to remain unexamined without
certain theoretical armory (Mouzelis 2000, Danermark et al. 2002, López 2003).
Furthermore, immanent critique of alternative theories – that is, critique ‘on the
basis of a theory’s own assumptions’ (Hartwig 2007: 254) – helps to enhance the
explanatory power of retroductive reasoning employed in realist research practice
(Danermark et al. 2002, López 2003). This enhancement is, of course, subject to
reflexivity and testing of realist theoretical concepts ‘in research practice, in social
theory and empirical studies’ (Danermark et al. 2002: 148).
In 1997 Yeung noted that ‘method in critical realism is underdeveloped and
misunderstood, resulting in a methodologically handicapped philosophy’ (56), and
in 2004 Carter and New pointed out that ‘realist approaches in social sciences are
a comparatively recent development’ (15). Nevertheless, the progress noticed in
critical realist research practice in the contemporary era is, at least, impressive.
Critical realism inspires empirical social research in a range of academic
disciplines and in interdisciplinary topics characterised by the use of a vast array
of different qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodologies. This explicit
utilisation of realist principles in contemporary empirical social research may be
partly ascertained by the contents of Table 4.2. The table contains only a portion
of specific examples of realist social research, both qualitative and quantitative,
including examples of realist migration research.
In the next subsection, I will turn my attention to the ways that critical realism
can transform and enhance the explanatory power and usefulness of qualitative
research methods.
Table 4.2 Examples of critical realist social research
Van Heur, B. 2008. Networks of Aesthetic This thesis is a political-economy study of the relations between aesthetic production networks,
Production and the Urban Political Economy. ‘capital accumulation and state regulation in urban environments’ (Van Heur 2008: 285). The
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Earth Sciences, study is based on an explicitly critical realist rationale, and employs a range of methods and
Free University of Berlin, Germany. strategies such as discourse analysis, semi-structured interviews and quantitative analysis of
spatially referenced data.
Yeung, H.W. 1997. Critical realism and realist This paper explores the potentialities of developing a critical realist research methodology in
research in human geography: a method or a social sciences and contains a specific research example where realist methodological rationale
philosophy in search of a method?, in Progress was applied. The specific research example concerned the investigation of the causal factors
in Human Geography, 21 (1): 51–74. behind spatial organisation of Honk Kong transactional corporations. Methodologically,
the study employed quantitative analysis for mainly descriptive purposes and qualitative
interviewing as a means for identifying underlying causal mechanisms.
Oelofse, C. 2003. A critical realist perspective The paper concerns the identification of causal mechanisms of urban environment risk at local
on urban environment at risk: a case study of an level and adopts an explicitly critical realist rationale for achieving this. The paper reports
informal settlement in South Africa, in Local findings from a case study
Environment, 8 (3): 261–75. in the informal settlement of Hout Bay, South Africa and, methodologically, is based on a
range of mainly qualitative methods such as participatory action research and in-depth and
semi-structured interviews. The basic causal mechanisms identified are ‘globalisation and
urbanisation, poverty and vulnerability, the social construction of environmental problems,
gender relations, the rise of civil society organisations, political governance and the spatial
distribution of risk’ (Oelofse 2003: 261).
Mitchell, L.R. 2007a. Discourse and the In this study, Mitchell employs a critical realism inspired discourse analysis to investigate the
Oppression of Nonhuman Animals: A Critical oppression of nonhuman animals in human society. The author identifies the discourses of
Realist Account. Ph.D. Thesis, Rhodes ‘production’, ‘science’ and ‘slavery’ as playing a major role in the oppression of nonhuman
University, South Africa. animals and the overall framework adopted is that of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The
study is based on the analysis of 22 articles referring to animals from the periodical Farmers
Weekly, from 26 December 2004 to 20 May 2005 (Mitchell 2007a: 52).
Clement, F.C. 2008. A Multi-level Analysis of This thesis concerns forest policies in northern Vietnam and is based on the examination of two
Forest Policies in Northern Vietnam: Uplands, cases of forest policy frameworks. The study utilises theories on land-use change, institutional
People, Institutions and Discourses. Ph.D. analysis and power relations, and places them within the ontological and metatheoretical
Thesis, School of Civil Engineering and framework of critical realism. Methodologically, it employs a mixture of qualitative
Geosciences, School of Geography, Politics (ethnographic fieldwork, observation, interviews, historical and archival research) and
and Sociology, Newcastle University, UK. quantitative methods (socio-economic statistics, forest-cover areas calculated from remotely
sensed images, biophysical data) (Clement 2008: 43).
Hayes, M.G. 2003. Investment and Finance This thesis concerns the investigation of causal mechanisms that link corporate finance
under Fundamental Uncertainty. Ph.D. Thesis, and industrial investment. The study adopts a critical realist approach for examining this
University of Sunderland, UK. phenomenon. What is highly innovative about it is that, apart from quantitative methods, which
are common in such studies, it employs qualitative methods as well. These are related to the
examination of annual reports of firms and the research on 35 case studies of individual firms.
Gilmour, L.E. 2008. Realism Approach to The basic research question of this study was ‘[H]ow do front-line health care managers
Theory and Implementation of Knowledge working in urban adult acute-care hospitals within the Calgary Health Region implement an
Translation: A Case of a Patient Safety evidence-based package of patient safety policies?’ (Gilmour 2008: iii). In order to answer this
Intervention within an Adult Acute Care question, the author employs the realist Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) approach (see
Setting. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Pawson and Tilley 1997). The study is based on a mixed-method approach utilising survey and
Community Health Sciences, University of case study research.
Calgary, Canada.
Han, G-S. and Davies, C. 2006. ‘Ethnicity, This study concerns medical practices of Korean-speaking doctors and health-care service
health and medical care: provision to Korean immigrants resided in Sydney, Australia in the mid-1990s. The study
towards a critical realist analysis of adopts a critical realist framework for the investigation of immigrants’ health conditions and
general practice in the Korean associated medical practices and is based, almost exclusively, on qualitative interviews with
Community in Sydney, in Ethnicity and Health, eight Korean-speaking General Practitioners (GPs) in Sydney and complementary to interviews
11 (4): 409–30. with ‘other informants, in the Korean community in Sydney’ (Han and Davies 2006: 412).
Table 4.2 continued
Livock, C. 2009. Alternative Schooling This thesis concerns a comparative investigation of three case studies of alternative schooling
Programs for at Risk Youth – Three Case programmes for youth at risk and its basic aim is to develop an explanatory critique of their
Studies. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Cultural and social outcomes. It is based on Danermark et al.’s (2002) model of critical realist methodology
Language Studies, Queensland University of and it employs a predominately, qualitative case study approach. The most widely used
Technology, Australia. methods of data collection are focus group and individual interviews. What makes this study
paradigmatic is the application of various qualitative methods within a highly systematic,
detailed and rigorous realist metatheoretical framework.
Han, G-S. and Humphreys, J.S. 2006. The authors of this study use a critical realism oriented life history, qualitative methodology
Integration and retention of international in order to investigate processes of integration and retention of international medical students
medical graduates in rural communities, a in rural Victoria, Australia. The study is based on 57 in-depth, life history interviews with
typological analysis, in Journal of Sociology, international medical students practicing in rural Victoria and the authors, through a typological
42 (2): 189–207. analysis, explore the causal factors and mechanisms that ‘facilitate or inhibit their integration
into rural communities and consequently affect their intention to stay in rural practice’ (Han
and Humphreys 2006: 189).
Sealey, A. 2009. Probabilities and surprises: A This study reports findings of an investigation of the relation between language and identity.
realist approach to identifying linguistic and The data are derived from 144 oral history interviews where participants ‘were asked to reflect
social patterns, with reference to an on their lives’ (Sealey 2009: 1). The author analyses the interview data using insights from
oral history corpus, in Applied Linguistics, realist social theory and complexity theory. She identifies complex causal processes that
doi:10.1093/applin/amp023: 1–21. explain linguistic and social patterns along with social action and behaviour.
Archer, M.S. 2007. Making Our Way Through This work of Margaret S. Archer along with her book on ‘internal conversation’ (Archer 2003)
the World. Human Reflexivity and Social enhances significantly our theoretical and methodological capacities for the application of
Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University biographical/life history qualitative methods in a realist manner. ‘Using interviewees’ life and
Press. work histories, she shows how ‘internal conversations’ guide the occupations that people seek,
keep or quit; their stances towards structural constraints and enablements; and their resulting
patterns of social mobility’ (Archer 2009: backcover).
McEvoy, P. and Richards, D. 2007. Gatekeeping This study concerns the generative causal mechanisms that influence gatekeeping decisions
access to community mental health teams, in of community mental health teams. The study adopts a critical realist rationale and is based
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44: solely on qualitative methods, namely 29 interviews with gatekeeping clinicians and service
387–95. managers in northern England. What makes this study worth noting is that the authors utilise
qualitative data in order to identify contextual factors, mechanisms and real relations that
influence decisions and agential interpretations related to mental health care gatekeeping
access.
De Vaujany, F-X. 2008. Capturing reflexivity This paper reports findings based on a meta-analysis of 120 semi-structured interviews in order
modes in IS: a critical realist approach, in to investigate modes of reflexivity in information systems organisations. It adopts a critical
Information and Organization, 18: 51–72 realist approach to reflexivity based on Margaret Archer’s internal conversation theory.
Right from the start, I should mention explicitly that the kind of qualitative
methods I advocate in this book is a scientific – that is, causal-explanatory – one.
With some exceptions – see, for example, Miles and Huberman 1994, Robson
2002, Maxwell 2004 – interpretivist or social constructionist thinking inspires
much of today’s qualitative research practice and the reasons of that are analysed
in more detail in Chapter 3. Nevertheless, there is a relatively recent and quite
clear trend to employ qualitative methods in realist social research, either
autonomously or in combination with quantitative methods (see Table 4.4). Thus,
one of the main tasks of this subsection (and of the whole book) is to strengthen
this trend. I strongly believe that the irrealist twist of qualitative research methods
under constructionist and interpretative notions has resulted in a crisis regarding
the application and wider appreciation of qualitative methods (see Hammersley
2008). As Hammersley points out:
In part this [the crisis of qualitative methods] derives from the fact that, in
some fields, after a period of dominance, or at least of benign tolerance, it has
recently come under increasing external pressure to demonstrate its value, and in
particular its practical value for policymakers and practitioners of various kinds.
Like other forms of publicly-funded activity, it is now being required to show
that it ‘adds value’, and there have been attempts to steer funds back towards
quantitative research, partly on the grounds that this alone can provide evidence
of ‘what works’ in terms of policy and practice. (Hammersley 2008: 1)
1 Take into full account the interpretations, meanings and perspectives of social
agents and try to comprehend the social phenomenon or process under study
‘internally’. Engage yourself with serious interpretative, ‘understanding’ work
and be reflexive of your own biases and prejudices (see Miles and Huberman
1994, Maxwell 1996, Hay 2000, Wengraf 2001, Rubin and Rubin 2005,
Seidman 2006, Willis 2007, Creswell 2007).
2 Always link public or agential discourses and discursive practices to extra-
or non-discursive material, social, relational or ideational realities and make
efforts to elucidate how they constitute or influence each other (see Chouliaraki
and Fairclough 1999, Fairclough 2003, Fleetwood 2005).
3 Make efforts to asses the adequacy of agents’ discourses, meanings and
interpretations (see Manicas 2009). This assessment is usually not possible
when relying solely on actors’ discourses and thus, additional sources of
information and data – either qualitative or quantitative or both – need to be
taken into account.
4 Focus on the referents of agents’ accounts, interpretations, meanings and
discourses. Focus on the practices and actions of social agents and separate
them from agential or public conceptualisations of them (see Sayer 2000).
5 Focus on agents’ intentionality and purposes and the unintended consequences
of their actions along with unacknowledged conditions of actions (see Archer
1995).
6 Focus on social agents’ experiences and try to elucidate their cognitive
component (see Moya and Hames-Garcia 2000).
7 Focus on social agents’ social location, social position and their available
recourses of any kind, which make certain actions possible (see Pawson and
Tilley 1997, Moya and Hames-Garcia 2000, Kazi 2003).
8 Focus on agents’ social relations and their embeddedness within various
networks of practices (see Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999, Fairclough 2003).
9 Always locate social agents’ experiences, identities, practices and actions
within structural and cultural contexts. Make efforts to link culture, structure
and agency and their emergent properties together without prioritising,
in principle, or a priori, any of those properties (see Archer 1995, 1996,
2003, 2000). Focus on the complexities of social relations, either structural
or cultural, and their causal emergent properties along with their interplay
with the emergent causal powers of people (Archer 1995). Try to locate the
‘qualitative’ element of social relations of any kind, that is the character and
nature of relations (internal and necessary or external and contingent) and
to establish its role in causally explaining social phenomena and processes
(Sayer 1992).
10 Be theoretically sensitive, engage in theoretical dialogue and immanent
critiques of alternative theoretical frameworks (see Danermark et al. 2002,
Hartwig 2007).
146 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
11 Do not confine research purposes to ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions only. Ask
‘why’ questions as well. Engage in causal-explanatory work and use qualitative
methods and data in order to elucidate causal generative mechanisms through
abductive and retroductive reasoning (see Miles and Huberman 1994,
Danermark et al. 2002).
12 Place special emphasis on social complexity and adopt systemic thinking.
Consider seriously processes such as social embeddedness and path
dependency (see Bunge 2003, Sawyer 2005, Bunge 2006, Walby 2009).
13 Be critical. Locate relations of power asymmetries, exploitation and domination
and develop explanatory critiques (see Sayer 2000, Hartwig 2007).
14 Engage in micro-, meso- and macro-analyses. Qualitative research is not
appropriate only for researching phenomena at the micro-level. Units of
analysis may be individual agents, households, social groups, networks of
social relations and practices, social fields, organisations or spatial units of
any scale (see Mouzelis 2000).
15 Do not be afraid to generalise (see Danermark et al. 2002, Easton 2010).
16 Use multiple sources of primary and secondary data (Maxwell 2004, Lipscomb
2008).
2000, Wengraf 2001) (see Guideline 4) of agential meanings and discourses and
their origins – that is, their placement within wider cultural and structural contexts,
networks of social practices and social relations (see Guidelines 2 and 7–9) –
along with the examination of the unintended consequences or unacknowledged
conditions of agential action (see Guideline 5). Thus, for example, the usual
blame on immigrants for unemployment or criminality that is common in social
agents’ meanings, interpretations and discourses about migration is an important
topic that realist qualitative research can investigate in a comprehensive way. The
investigation entails understanding of actors’ lived experiences, desires, motives
and reasonings along with causal explanations of the origins of actors’ discourses
and their wider role and functionings. In other words, it entails theorisation through
retroductive thinking that always goes beyond lay understandings, revealing their
inadequacies (or adequacies), distortions and errors.
To realist qualitative researchers, social actors’ meanings, interpretations,
understandings and discourses are always embedded within wider cultural-structural
contexts; they partly orientate social action but they are also strongly influenced
by non- or extra-discursive, material or socio-cultural factors (Fairclough et al.
2004) (see Guidelines 8 and 9). The existence of specific relations between actors’
understandings of social reality and referents of those understandings – which
exist independently of identification, or of knowledge of them (Fleetwood 2005)
– can orient realist qualitative researchers to theorisation of certain links between
agency, structure and culture. In other words, understanding and explaining agential
discourses and interpretations with the aid of the employment of realist qualitative
methods is an endeavour that always points beyond interpretations – that is, to
structural and cultural features and conditions that made them possible or that
made their impact important. For critical realism, agential causal powers are not
exhausted in their discursive dimension. One has to take into account other, equally
or in many instances more, important aspects of these powers, such as embodied,
natural and practical dimensions of the formation and evolution of subjectivity and
personal and social identity (Archer 2000). Thus, ‘semiosis presupposes embodied,
intentional, practically-skilled social actors, social relations, material objects, and
spatio-temporality’ (Fairclough et al. 2004: 28). Of course, realist qualitative
researchers are not interested solely in social actors’ meanings and interpretations,
in understanding and explaining them, but also in wider public discourses, cultural
features and ideas – that is, in the ideational environment which (along with the
structural one) conditions social action. As shown in Chapter 3, realist accounts of
culture, socio-cultural interaction and cultural change employ the same analytical
dualist rationale as in the case of structure–agency relations (see Mutch 2009), and
qualitative researchers can draw on this framework as a guide in order to enhance
causal cultural analysis and avoid conflationary and reductionist theorisations of
empirical findings.
Apart form actors’ meanings and public discourses, qualitative research –
which usually requires prolonged involvement with the lives, or aspects of the
lives, of social actors – is more adequate than its quantitative counterpart for
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 149
Let me give one simple example of one kind of social practice from migration
studies. This example concerns the social practice of using certain public areas in
urban centres (i.e. usually squares) as meeting places by immigrants of specific
‘ethnic’ backgrounds for primarily information exchange and recreation and
derives from research on immigration in Athens, Greece, in the mid-1990s (see
Iosifides and King 1998). This social practice of spatially based social networking
should be investigated qualitatively from different angles, using a range of
methods. Realist qualitative research may be utilised in order to shed light on the
character of immigrant social networks in these areas and the differences between
those networks and other types of non-spatially based immigrant networks. It may
also be utilised to explore the structure of such networks, the social hierarchies
developed within them along with their specific causal powers (i.e. orienting
newcomers to specific niches of the labour market or contributing in certain ways
to spatial organisation). Furthermore, realist qualitative research practice would
seek to explain the emergence of these areas as spaces of immigrant presence
and networking, taking into account the perspectives, motives and purposes of
the immigrants themselves, the structural and cultural environment within which
immigration takes place and the linkages between micro- processes of immigrant
incorporation and meso- or macro-processes of economic, labour market and
spatial restructuring and reorganisation.
It should be noted, that within such a framework, understanding the
perspectives and interpretations of immigrants themselves is not sufficient in order
to apprehend and explain the phenomenon under study. These perspectives need
– besides understanding – explanation as well, and the best way to achieve this is
placing them within the whole complexity of social practices, their conditionings
and consequences. Possible methods for such a complex investigation may be,
among others, observation and participant observation in the public areas, in-
depth interviews with immigrants and non-immigrants in these areas, use of
secondary, documentary and archival sources, content analysis of media coverage
of the phenomenon and interviews with real estate experts and officials in central
and local administrative or other agencies.
Now, as mentioned earlier, social relations are part of social practices but
because they are of crucial importance in the indication of causal mechanisms,
they deserve a brief separate examination (see Guideline 8). I use the term ‘social
relations’ to indicate not only relations between individual social agents (e.g.
social relationships) but also relations between social groups, between institutions
and relations between systemic entities and components. This usage derives from
the acknowledgement that human societies are inherently relational and systemic
(Bunge 2003, 2006) and consist of various entities that are linked together in
certain ways and that these linkages and their dynamics matter considerably
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 151
‘ethnic’ backgrounds sell various goods in the streets for as long as 12 or even 14
hours per day – a realist qualitative researcher may identify and investigate, in-
depth and in detail, the various systems of social relations those immigrants are
part of, their real character and their causal powers which exist independently of
their interpretation. A researcher of this kind might discover that social relations
between immigrants and their suppliers are highly asymmetrical and domineering
and result in a significantly low profit margin for the street vendors. Hence,
spending numerous hours in the streets is a result of causal powers exerted by
social relations between immigrant vendors and suppliers – in other words,
working long hours is the only ‘realistic’ option in order for immigrants street-
vendors to make ends meet.
Apart from interpretations, meanings, social practices and social relations,
qualitative researchers give special emphasis to social agents’ experiences and
identities (see Guidelines 7–9). These research topics are probably the most
heavily dominated by interpretative – and, more recently, by social constructionist,
post-structuralist and postmodernist – rationales. Qualitative researchers can
contribute significantly to the investigation of agential experience and identity by
abandoning the flawed assumptions of much post-structuralist and postmodernist
thinking such as: (1) the assumption that social relations are analogous to language
and therefore experience and identity are ‘indeterminate and hence epistemically
unreliable’ (Moya 2000a: 5); (2) the general either/or logic of post-structuralism
and postmodernism regarding issues such as constructedness and reality, truth
and objectivity, that indicates commonalities with positivist thinking and its
replacement with a both/and logic1 (Moya and Hames-Garcia 2000); and (3)
assumptions related to the notion of the self as a mere effect of discourse (Archer
2000, Creaven 2000, Moya and Hames-Garcia 2000).
These assumptions obscure the relations between experience and socio-
cultural identity with elements of the social world that exist independently of them
and exert causal influences on them; their ultimate result is an unproductive, and
essentially uncritical, self-contradictory relativism. It is the acknowledgement
of the existence of these relations, this reference of experiences and identities
to relative intransitive societal realities, that makes possible their thorough
examination in realist terms. Furthermore, the existence of these relations allows
realist qualitative researchers, through the in-depth investigation of agential
experiences and identities, to apprehend the complex and multiple ways that
culture, structure and agency interact. For realists, social experiences of people
are causally related to their social location (Moya 2000b) – that is, their position
within complex systems of social relations – and identities are ‘complex theories
about (and explanations of) the social world, and the only way to evaluate such
theories is to look at how well they work as explanations’ (Mohanty 2000: 64).
Thus, identities have a ‘cognitive component’ (Moya 2000b: 83), ‘“refer” outward
to the world…’ (Moya 2000b: 84), and the adequacy of this reference can be
assessed and evaluated. As Moya stresses:
Now, this realist theory can be of great value for qualitative researchers who
wish to understand agents’ social experiences and identities and simultaneously
explain their formation and their relation to other intransitive societal realities.
One of the best methodologies to achieve this is, in my view, realist biographical
research (see, for example, Han and Humphreys 2006). Placing this at the centre
of qualitative inquiry about identity formation and dynamics, along with the use
of other, multiple, primary or secondary, sources of information and data, can be
proved extremely fruitful for breaking away from notions based on the allegedly
‘arbitrariness’ and ‘self-referentiality’ of experiences and identities and for gaining
adequate knowledge regarding the linkages between actors’ interpretations of their
experiences and identities and wider structural and cultural realities. In migration
studies, the biographical approach may be employed in researching a variety
of different phenomena and processes such as, among others, decision-making,
motivation, identity dynamics, social networking, social incorporation processes,
social exclusion or social mobility (Iosifides and Sporton 2009). Iosifides and
Sporton (2009: 103) give an example of how the employment of realist qualitative
methods in general, and realist biographical research in particular, can contribute
to more adequate understandings of social processes related to migration, and how
they can conduce to explaining them. This example
is related to the different meanings, that some migrants within certain contexts,
attach to ‘friendship’ and in particular to ‘friendship with natives’. For them,
‘friendship with natives’ means ‘superficial friendly contact’ and not ‘more
154 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Everything influences everything else, in the here and now. Many elements are
implicated in any given action, and each element interacts with all of the others
in ways that change them all while simultaneously resulting in something that,
we, as outside observers, label as outcomes and effects. But the interaction has
no directionality, no need to produce that particular outcome. (Lincoln and
Guba 1985: 151 quoted by Maxwell 2004: 245)
other kinds of explanatory schemes that depart from those of positivism and are
significantly closer to the realist notions of social causality (see Bunge 2003, 2006
and especially Walby 2009 and Hammersley 2008). In this respect, qualitative
methods have an important and indispensable role to play in causally explaining
the social world, and, indeed, what I strongly support in this book is that the main
task of qualitative methods has to be just that.
Critical realism places increased emphasis on the inherent strengths and
advantages that qualitative methods have in engaging with causal explanation and
indicating the functions of various causal generative mechanisms that produce
outcomes, events and phenomena (see Guidelines 11 and 12) (see Sayer 1992,
2000, Miles and Huberman 1994, Maxwell 1996, 2004, Yeung 1997 and Table
4.2). These strengths and advantages are related to the emphasis that qualitative
methods give to context, process, temporality and complexity (Miles and
Huberman 1994, Maxwell 1996, 2004) along with their disposition in researching
concrete, real situations, real social relations of any kind and causal social groups.
Thus, the realist conception of social causality – as characterised by the separation
of necessary from contingent social relations and the employment of the notions
of social emergence, context, conditions, powers and liabilities of social objects
and entities due to their structure, and mechanisms (Easton 2010) – is perfectly
compatible with qualitative research methods. More than this, realist researchers
increasingly view qualitative methods as more appropriate for causally explaining
social reality than quantitative ones (see Sayer 1992, 2000, Miles and Huberman
1994, Yeung 1997 and Table 4.2). Hence, as Miles and Huberman point out:
contribute significantly even to disciplines that, for the time being, are mainly
quantitative-oriented, such as economics. Thus, the in-depth investigation of
immigrants’ economic practices, their economic relations in ‘host’ countries,
and the conditions and terms of their participation in the labour market and
the economic sphere in general can result in the identification of structural and
cultural constraints of immigrants’ equitable economic incorporation. Explanatory
critiques of unequal regimes of economic incorporation of immigrants in the
‘host’ countries, through realist qualitative inquiry, can overcome the danger of
reductionism (either structural or individualistic) and complement constructively
quantitative studies in the field (see Bommes and Colb 2006). Another example
indicating the potential of explanatory critique through realist qualitative research
is immigrants’ political participation in the ‘host’ countries (Bauböck et al. 2006).
Based on a variety of sources such as official or unofficial documents, archival
collections, media reports and immigrants discourses, experiences, practices and
relations within the political domain and broader socio-cultural contexts, realist
qualitative researchers can contribute to explaining the formation, reproduction
and consequences of constraining ‘political opportunity structures’ for immigrants
(Bauböck et al. 2006: 66). As Bauböck et al. (2006) clearly shows, the topic is
rather complex because a series of structural, cultural and agent-related factors
are in interplay and have certain outcomes. Thus, the thorough examination of the
interplay between, say, dominant values of nationhood, migration inclusion (or
exclusion) policy regimes, institutional and social discrimination patterns, legal
status and national or transnational citizenship regimes and immigrants’ individual
or collective action and choices (Bauböck et al. 2006) may indicate the ‘internal
logic’ of exclusionary social arrangements (Squire 2009) along with the social
interests that lie behind it or the purposes it serves.
The preceding analysis of the potentials of a critical realist approach to
qualitative research is inevitably partial and somehow generic, but my main
purpose was to highlight some ways of thinking about qualitative methods and
data that are in contrast with the established interpretative or constructionist
rationales. These ways of thinking about and doing qualitative research become
more apparent in the following subsections which concern qualitative migration
research. In the remainder of this subsection, I present two examples of explicitly
realist qualitative research outside migration studies, while the next subsection
includes three specific examples of explicitly realist qualitative migration research.
The first example concerns a study by Sims-Schouten et al. (2007) on the
relations between motherhood, childcare and female employment, and employs
an explicit realist discourse analysis approach. This example is important for a
series of reasons namely because it breaks away from the ‘tradition’ of relativism
in contemporary discourse analysis and because it can serve as an exemplar for
the employment of realist discourse analysis in other issues, including migration.
Sims-Schouten et al.. (2007: 102) stress that the confinement of social reality to
discourse and the associated conflation of discursive and material, non-discursive
practices by relativists results in serious failings, which are related to the inability
160 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
to account for the reasons of usage of certain constructions by social agents and
not others, the neglect of non-discursive, non-linguistic social experiences and
the downplay of the ways that material, non-discursive practices impact on the
discursive ones. Realist discourse analysis can highlight the ways that discursive
and non-discursive practices are interrelated, resulting in certain social outcomes.
This approach grants a separate ontological status to material practices which
possess causal powers of their own that are irreducible to those of discourse. Sims-
Schouten et al. (2007: 103) cite several studies by realist scholars who identify non-
discursive, material factors such as ‘missing limbs’, ‘the physical nature of objects
in the world’, ‘the power of institutions’, ‘direct physical coercion’, ‘the material
organization of space’, ‘the habitual and physical orientation of the individual to
discourse’ and ‘relatively enduring structures that may be biochemical, economic
or social’. In respect to the specific study of concern, the authors identify, as
potential material, non-discursive factors such as ‘a parent or child’s health, access
to amenities, or current government policy towards childcare provision’ (Sims-
Schouten et al. 2007: 103).
The study was based on 40 in-depth semi-structured interviews with
‘married mothers with at least one child who was two years old or younger were
interviewed using in-depth semi-structured interviews. There were 20 participants
who were Dutch and 20 who were English. The participants came from two
similar sized rural towns, which were approximately 15 miles away from urban
areas’ (Sims-Schouten et al. 2007: 110). Furthermore, a literature review was
conducted for the identification of possible impacts of non-discursive factors,
such as ‘embodiment, institutions and materiality’ (Sims-Schouten et al. 2007:
108), on women’s experiences of motherhood, childcare and employment. Finally,
additional complementary research was carried out in order for the participants’
social and physical conditions of existence and action to be investigated. The
systematic application of this kind of discourse analysis that prioritises the
relations between the discursive and the material non-discursive realm has
produced a series of meaningful findings. These are related mainly to the analysis
of the relations between discourse and materiality in the case of availability of
informal and formal care facilities, the analysis of the relations between discourse
and institutional power regarding employment opportunities for women and the
role that financial reasons play in women’s choices and actions. However, there
is a point in this study that is contested from the critical realist point of view
advocated in this book. This point is related to the taking into account of non- or
extra-discursive factors only when participants refer to them. The authors assert
that: ‘by only incorporating extra-discursive features into the analysis when the
participants oriented to them, our approach provided a systematic method of
addressing the concerns of researchers (e.g. Schegloff, 1997) who have argued
that the analysis of participants’ talk should include only aspects to which the
participants themselves orient’ (Sims-Schouten et al. 2007: 110). This is a serious
concession to constructionist and, more specifically, to ‘conversation analysis’
orientations (see Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999: 7–8). In my view, the operation
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 161
Risk can be better understood using a critical realist model that relates social
structures and human action (causal mechanisms) and local and temporal
162 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
In this section, I briefly discuss three specific studies that employ a critical realist
approach to migration research. I also focus on the ways qualitative methods, data
and analysis are used within the realist rationale that underpins all studies. The main
purpose of this section is to reflect on some central issues about realist qualitative
research practice, discussed in Section 4.1, with illustrations of concrete empirical
examples from migration studies.
The first example concerns a study included in a book authored by Bob Carter
(2000), Realism and Racism: Concepts of Race in Sociological Research. The study
seeks to explain the transition from unrestricted immigration to the formulation
and implementation of immigration controls, regarding ‘inflows’ from the colonies
into the UK, between 1941 and 1981. More specifically, the study concerns: ‘the
development of race ideas (the race making process); the employment of these by
social actors in the pursuit of immigration restriction and struggles over definitions
of citizenship and national identity; and how these struggles have shaped the
politics of racism and antiracism’ (Carter 2000: 97). What makes this study
paradigmatic for the purposes of this book is the explicit and detailed employment
of the realist morphogenetic approach, developed by Margaret Archer (1995, 1996)
(see Section 3.1), along with its overall methodological orientation. Following
Archer’s morphogenetic scheme, Carter (2000) divides his analysis of this
transition into three stages: the first stage is about the identification of structural
and cultural conditions of agential action; the second is about social and socio-
cultural interaction which resulted to the transition from ‘unrestricted entry to
controls’ (Carter 2000: 112); and the third concerns social and cultural elaboration
– that is, the examination of ‘the effects of introducing controls’ (Carter 2000:
132). The main structural conditions at the beginning of the morphogenetic cycle,
were according to Carter (2000), the specific form of class relations in the post-war
capitalist economy of the UK, and more importantly, the need for rapid economic
growth and therefore of an ‘adequate supply of labour’ (Carter 2000: 106). Due to
prior social interaction resulting in certain political decisions such as ‘the Labour
government’s decision to raise the school leaving age to 15…’ (Carter 2000: 106),
labour shortages became the most crucial emergent structural condition in the
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 163
narrative with the realist morphogenetic approach due to the emphasis they give
to temporality and temporal sequence. This is also evident from the emphasis
that Archer (1995) puts on the provision of ‘analytical histories of emergence’
(Carter 2000: 96) as the main purpose of the realist morphogenetic model of causal
explanation. The second reason is related to the realist notion according to which
‘the effects of reflexivity and consciousness (and of what social actors and agents
do) occur within the causally open system of the real world. The narrative form is
most appropriate for exploring these ontological features of agency’ (Carter 2000:
108). Furthermore, this reason is crucial for realist qualitative research methods
in general, because by examining intentions, desires and doings of social agents
we can come to know the structural and cultural contexts within which they act
along with their constraining or enabling causal powers. As Carter points out:
‘By assessing actor’s projects and tracing empirically their efforts to accomplish
them we can pick out retroductively the relevant structural and cultural conditions,
those structured features of social reality that frustrate or further people’s efforts
either to keep things as they are or to change them in some way or another’ (Carter
2002: 99). Returning to the advantages of employing a narrative approach under
realist premises, Carter (2000: 108–9) refers to Porpora who highlights them in
a comprehensive way. These advantages are related to the enhanced contextual
understanding of social action, to the compatibility of the approach to a causal-
explanatory theoretical language, the potentialities of empirical grounding, and
therefore, contra relativism, the non-arbitrariness of narratives and to the ability of
narratives to capture ‘the stratified nature of social reality…’ (Carter 2002: 109).
The second example of realist qualitative migration research concerns a study
by Han and Davies (2006) on medical practices of Korean-speaking doctors and
health-care service provision to Korean immigrants resided in Sydney, Australia,
in the mid-1990s. The study is mainly based on qualitative interviews with eight
Korean-speaking General Practitioners (GPs) in Sydney and complementary
interviews with ‘other informants, in the Korean community in Sydney’ (Han
and Davies 2006: 412). The reason for selecting this example as a case of realist
qualitative research on migration-related processes and phenomena is the clarity
of the ways that the critical realist framework is employed in researching processes
related to immigrants’ health and GPs’ practices. Thus, the authors criticise
the overemphasis that other studies on immigrants’ health put on the cultural
dimensions of the related phenomena and the observable surface aspects of them
(Han and Davies 2006). In contrast to this overemphasis, the authors stress that:
the market economy, social relations and social reality […]. (Han and Davies
2006: 410)
Within this framework, the authors use qualitative methods and data in order
to link health outcomes and observable processes and events to other ‘deeper’,
mostly unobservable factors that are usually ignored or underplayed both by
interpretivist and constructionist researchers and by biomedical practice. These
factors are mainly related to differences within the Korean immigrant community
in Sydney regarding social position and conditions, structural conditions that
result in strong linkages between ‘work, stress and illness among Korean men in
Sydney’ (Han and Davies 2006: 416) and in the consequences of marketisation
and professionalisation of GP and health-care provision in general for medical
services offered by Korean-speaking GPs to the Korean immigrant community in
Sydney. The study indicates how qualitative methods and data may be utilised in a
manner that corrects one-sided, individualist, structuralist or culturalist approaches
to immigrants’ health-related processes and phenomena (Han and Davies 2006).
The authors conclude the study by stressing that:
When Korean patients demand ‘Korean care’ and Korean doctors are
accommodating it in Australia to some degree, medical care provision becomes
complex. That is, the provision of, and access to health care in an ethnic
community are both enabled and restrained by the given socioeconomic climate
to which members of the migrant community are exposed. As a consequence,
we are observing a unique aspect of the phenomenon of medical care provision
as well as similarities within the broader Australian community. A critical realist
perspective is an alternative to the approach that is preoccupied by either ‘agent-
related’ or ‘structure-related’ factors, and consequently offers a fuller picture of
reality. (Han and Davies 2006: 427)
41–63). The author adopts a mixed-method strategy, but in the context of this
book I refer mainly to the qualitative part of the study. In accordance with
various methodological elaborations of critical realist scholars (Sayer 1992,
2000, Danermark et al. 2002), Hedberg views qualitative methods as a means
of identification of causal mechanisms that lie at the level of the real. These
methods – when employed in a realist manner and focused on material practices
and necessary relations between agents, groups and systemic components – can
point to the ways that relatively unobservable causal mechanisms operate and
produce certain outcomes. As the author rightly points out:
When a researcher collects data, it is never a neutral process but one that is
already ‘(pre-)conceptualized’ […]. Nonetheless, the concepts refer to an object
that is real, constituted by necessary relations, and they involve important
dimensions of material practices […], such as social institutions and power
structures. It is the task of the researcher to come as close to the real dimensions
as possible, by way of conceptualisation and practice. (Hedberg 2004: 43)
House 2010: 22). Hence, the crucial realist ontological premises – notably reality
stratification, emergence in open systems and the culture–structure–agency links
– act as guiding precepts (Cruickshank 2003a, 2003b) of substantive theoretical
and methodological strategies and choices. For qualitative methods, this means
the abandonment of implicit ontological and epistemological assumptions that
connect them predominately with micro-level analyses, descriptive endeavours,
interpretivism and relativism and their employment for investigating stratified
social complexity and causality. Of course, the preceding remarks have direct and
significant consequences for the kind of ‘research questions’ that realist qualitative
researchers ask. In general, Maxwell (1996: 4) explains what ‘research questions’
are as follows: ‘[W]hat specifically, do you want to understand by doing this study?
What do you not know about the phenomena you are studying that you want to
learn? What questions will your research attempt to answer, and how these questions
related to one another?’ Furthermore, it should be stressed that qualitative research
questions should be ‘qualitative’ – that is, should aim to address phenomena and
processes in which measurement is not the central preoccupation and purpose.
As Bradshaw and Stratford (2000: 40) point out, qualitative (intensive) methods
‘require that we ask how processes work in a particular case (Platt 1988). We
need to establish what actors do in a case, why they behave as they do, and what
produces change both in actors and in the contexts in which they are located.’
Qualitative research questions, which of course may be modified in the course
of the research process, aim to address processes and phenomena described in
Section 4.1 and in Table 4.2, that is, to investigate social actors’ meanings and
interpretations, public discourses, social experiences, practices and relations.
Very schematically, research questions in qualitative research may aim
to describe phenomena, events or situations (‘what’ questions), understand
social processes (‘how’ questions) and/or to explain events or outcomes (‘why’
questions). For example, a research question about the kind of economic activities
that international migrants residing in a specific area are engaged with is a ‘what’
question, a research question about the most usual ways that these immigrants
get their jobs is a ‘how’ question and a research question about the causes of
economic and labour market specialisation of certain immigrant groups within
specific socio-economic contexts is a ‘why’ question. Realist qualitative research
may engage with all the above types of questions and research purposes but it
certainly prioritises explanatory, causal ones. This does not mean that ‘what’ or
‘how’ questions are neglected; far from that, since these types of research questions
are fully integrated into wider causal – explanatory – endeavours; the primary
purpose of realist qualitative research design is to undertake ‘structural or causal
analysis’ (see Bradshaw and Stratford 2000: 39, Box 3.1) of social phenomena
and processes.
Directly linked to the preceding point is the distinction that Maxwell (1996) and
Wengraf (2001) make between ‘instrumentalist’ and ‘realist research questions’.
Instrumentalist questions aim to investigate observable or measurable phenomena
(Maxwell 1996: 56), confining social reality to these levels or dimensions. This is
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 169
Realists, in contrast, do not assume that research questions and conclusions about
feelings, beliefs, intentions, prior behavior, effects and so on need to be reduced
to, or reframed as, questions and conclusions about the actual data that one uses.
Instead, they treat their data as fallible evidence about these phenomena, to be
used critically to develop and test ideas about the existence and nature of the
phenomena […]. (Maxwell 1996: 56–57)
What is distinctive about constructionism, in the broad sense of that term, is that
it takes the fact that social phenomena are culturally constructed and draws from
it the conclusion that these phenomena can only be understood by describing the
processes by which they are culturally constituted as the things they are. In other
words, a re-definition of the goal of inquiry is required. The focus becomes, not
the phenomena themselves, and certainly not what might have caused them or
what effects they produce, but rather the discursive processes by which they are
constituted and defined by culture members. (Hammersley 2008: 173)
170 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
used in a self-sufficient manner (see Danermark et al. 2002: 130–34 and especially
135), it can contribute significantly to the main purposes of realist research – that
is, the identification of causal generative mechanisms through abduction and
retroduction. Thus, as Yeung asserts:
What should be borne in mind from the preceding analysis and examples is that
realist qualitative research on migration is theoretically driven and theoretically
oriented. The systematic collection of qualitative data of any kind is guided by
theoretical questions and preoccupations and results in the refinement of theories
that hopefully approximate social reality better in comparison to alternative
approaches.
Theoretical concerns, the character of the specific research topic and the
research questions posed determine which qualitative methods are more appropriate
for the selection of and application to any research case. The heterogeneity and
character of research problems and topics along with practical considerations are
an important influence on the selection of the research method or methods, and
these issues are discussed in more detail in the next section.
Finally, an integral component of any qualitative research design is the strategy
employed for the selection of participants, cases or units of analysis – that is,
‘qualitative sampling’ (Iosifides 2008). In most instances, qualitative researchers
investigate just a few cases or even a single case or select a limited number
of participants for investigating social phenomena. This allows the research
to focus on depth rather than on breadth; that is, it gives emphasis on detail,
multidimensionality and context (Miles and Huberman 1994, Ragin 2000). The
most common type of qualitative sampling is the so-called ‘purposive sampling’
(Miles and Huberman 1994: 27, Bradshaw and Stratford 2000) in contrast to the
representative sampling advocated mainly by quantitative methods:
That tendency [of sampling in a purposive way] is partly because the initial
definition of the universe is more limited (e.g., arrest-making in an urban
precinct), and partly because social processes have a logic and a coherence that
random sampling can reduce to uninterpretable sawdust. Furthermore, with
small number of cases, random sampling can deal you a decidedly biased hand.
(Miles and Huberman 1994: 27)
Miles and Huberman (1994: 28, Figure 2.6) summarises the various sampling
strategies employed in qualitative research. This summary includes strategies
176 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Within this context I tried to reduce the ‘biases’ of the [snowballing] technique
and to increase ‘representativity’ through various ways. One way was to
ask individual migrants to guide me to other migrants who had different
characteristics than theirs (for example ‘long-stayers versus newcomers, workers
with different employment type etc.). Another way was to disperse the initial
contact points over as wide a geographical area as possible and broadening the
sources of initial contacts in order to cover as much as possible of the population
diversity. (Iosifides 2003: 438)
Finally and unlike quantitative methods where the research process tends to be
more linear, qualitative ones are more of a cyclical type. Sampling is often a
process that occurs simultaneously with data collection and is driven by theoretical
considerations. This kind of ‘theoretical sampling’ does not characterise GT alone
(see Glaser and Strauss 1967, Glaser 1992). In a modified fashion, it can prove
extremely useful for realist qualitative research as well. The interaction among
prior topic-specific theories, generic frameworks and theoretical concepts and
abstractions based on concrete data can lead realist qualitative researchers to
select cases and participants in order to test hypotheses or to investigate further
antecedent conditions and causal mechanisms that are abstracted from other
cases. An example of a GT-inspired, theoretical sampling strategy is a study by
Talwar (2007) on the relations between immigration and the American fast-food
industry. The study concerned processes and phenomena related to the formation
of immigrant enclaves or ‘ethnic’ economies, the role of big companies within
them, along with the role and position of immigrant labour. Research was based
on 52 in-depth qualitative interviews with participants, occupying positions across
the hierarchy within the industry – ‘crewmembers, managers, and owners’ (Talwar
2007: 161) – and the advantages of theoretical sampling adopted in this study are
described as follows:
178 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
In this section, I discuss some aspects of various qualitative methods and data
analysis strategies that are applied to migration studies. This discussion is not
detailed and exhaustive, as this would probably require a book or two for each
method or strategy. Instead, the discussion is highly focused on some principles
that can guide the application of each method or strategy within a realist framework
and provides hypothetical and, where appropriate, real examples from migration
studies. The qualitative methods and strategies discussed in this section are
qualitative interviewing, ethnography and participant observation, biographical
research, critical discourse analysis and case study research along with strategies
for analysing qualitative data. Of course there is a plethora of other methods and
strategies for engaging in qualitative research such as, among others, Action
Research (AR), Participatory Action Research (PAR), focus groups, qualitative
content analysis, evaluation research, visual methods, and Internet-related
qualitative research. Nevertheless, the basic arguments made for the design and
application of qualitative methods and strategies within the realist meta-theoretical
principles contained in this section apply to them as well.
constructionism. The main line of argument supports that knowledge derived from
interviews has no relevance beyond the ‘communicative interaction’ between
the researcher and the interviewee; in other words, it does not and cannot refer
to extra-interview realities, either internal and subjective or to phenomena and
processes occurring in an independently existing social realm (Hammersley
2008). This results due to the allegedly ‘performative character of interview talk’
(Hammersley 2008: 90) and ‘reactivity’ – that is, the strong influence of interview
context and that of researchers upon the interview content (Hammersley 2008: 90).
This of course, as Hammersley (2008) rightly asserts, is a form of epistemological
scepticism that it is impossible to maintain because it is self-refuting. In his own
words:
As has been recognised for over two millennia, we cannot claim that it is
impossible to know anything without simultaneously implying that we can
know at least one thing, namely that no knowledge is possible. Moreover,
it is impossible to engage in any form of action, to live one’s life or even to
do empirical research, if one treats epistemological skepticism as valid […].
(Hammersley 2008: 96)
These sorts of complex questions about identity and subjectivity call for critical
in-depth interviews, centered on the stories of migrants themselves. Migrant
stories can reveal the empirical disjuncture between expectations of migration,
produced through dominant and pervasive discourses of modernization, and
the actual experiences of migrants. Their stories illustrate that access to labor
markets, state assistance or social networks, are not merely unique individual
experiences but, rather, are systematically shaped by social relations of gender,
class, ethnicity and migrant status [emphasis added]. Migrant stories provide a
rich account of the social and cultural costs of neoliberal development, revealing
how peoples’ experiences are framed by systematic processes of privilege
and discrimination. Migrant stories are also informative theoretically, as their
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 183
by systemic properties. Systemic thinking is another feature that makes this study
compatible with realism and its value much broader and more general. Third,
the study accounts for the complexity of social reality – that is, its multi-layered
character – and investigates immigrants’ incorporation through the examination
of four interacting levels: ‘governmental policy and welfare’, civil society, public
opinion and culture’, ‘socio-economic structures and employment’ and ‘socio-
spatial dynamics and place’ (Hatziprokopiou 2006: 64). Finally, the study adopts
a multi-methodological approach. The author combines various quantitative
and qualitative methods, such as systematic observation, analysis of daily press
content, a quantitative survey of 208 Albanian and Bulgarian immigrants and 49
qualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with immigrants residing and
working in Thessaloniki, Greece.
The qualitative methods and more specifically interviews are strategically
combined with quantitative data and theoretical concepts in order to facilitate
causal explanations. In the author’s words:
the qualitative material drawn out of the interviews has been used in order to
frame or re-frame hypotheses, to explore relationships, to construct and/or
support arguments and to further interpret the raw numeric evidence coming out
of the rest of the survey. Therefore, no special attention is given to the discourse
or the wording/phrasing of the answers; what was primarily he focus of the
interview analysis was the content of the answers as such, regarding ‘objective’
conditions and ‘subjective’ understandings of the interviewees’ migration
experiences. (Hatziprokopiou 2006: 79–80)
The preceding quotation points to three extremely crucial points regarding the
utilisation of qualitative interviewing and interview data within the critical realist
perspective. It points, first, to the dialectical relationship between conceptual
abstraction and the practices of qualitative interviewing and data analysis; second,
to the usage of qualitative methods as means for interpreting quantitative data (that
is, for facilitating the identification of causal generative mechanisms at work);
and third, to the ability of qualitative interviews to refer to external and internal
realities (that is, to realities beyond the interview situation). Through qualitative
interviewing, Hatziprokopiou (2006: 335–40, Appendix B2) explores issues,
processes and phenomena such as migration dynamics, labour market, housing and
institutional social exclusion and discrimination, formal and informal networks
of support, racism and identity, media and cultural inclusion and exclusion and
immigrants’ future plans.
probably the methodological strategy that best entails directness, intense and
extensive engagement with the social lives of research participants. Ethnography
and participant observation have been defined in various ways (see Morse and
Richards 2002, Hay 2000, Herbert 2000, Robson 2002, Lüders 2004), but their
most central features lie in the prolonged and intense engagement and immersion
of researcher(s) within social situations, groups, processes and relations, the active
interaction between the researcher and research participants in various ways and
the researcher’s participation in ‘naturally situated’ social activities and practices,
in various degrees. Although ethnographic studies are usually and traditionally
associated with investigating cultural practices, meanings and constructions of
participants within specific social contexts, here I use the terms ‘ethnography’
and ‘participant observation’ interchangeably without reducing the scope of
ethnographic research to investigating ‘culture’ alone. Another reason for this
choice is that usually ethnographic studies entail a strong element of participant
observation despite the fact that ‘no method or data collection is ruled out in
principle’ (Robson 2002: 188). Ethnography–participant observation may be
viewed as an ‘umbrella method’ in which various techniques of collecting data
and gathering information are employed (Iosifides 2008). These include, among
others, observation (systematic or not), informal conversations, individual or
group in-depth interviews, participation in everyday social activities and practices,
commissioning questionnaires or collecting and analysing written or other
documents and artefacts. Above all, the strength of participant observation studies
lie in experiences and insights derived from ‘being there’, participating (to various
degrees) in people’s social life, social situations and social processes.
What is interesting for the purposes of this book is the potential utility of
ethnography–participant observation as a method for realist qualitative research in
general and, more specifically, for realist qualitative research on migration-related
phenomena and processes. The inherent features of ethnography–participant
observation – notably directness and intensity of the research process – along
with their potential to produce rich, detailed and nuanced data about a vast array
of phenomena – social meanings and perspectives, social relations, practices,
experiences, contextual influences and so on – make ethnography and participant
observation valuable ‘tools’ for realist qualitative researchers. Indeed, as Robson
(2002: 188) points out ‘[C]lassically, ethnography was seen as a way of getting
close to the reality [emphasis added] of social phenomena in a way which is not
feasible with experimental and survey strategies. The Chicago sociologist Herbert
Blumer talks about using ethnography to “lift the veils” and to “dig deeper”,
illustrating his realist assumptions [emphasis added] […]’. Indeed, there is a rich
tradition of naturalist and realist ethnography, and as Savage stresses:
Much of the ethnography carried out by anthropologists […] has been naturalist
ethnography, which is underpinned by an ontological assumption that people
can only be known through observing them in their ‘natural’ or everyday
world. Realist ethnography is in many ways similar, but is perhaps more clearly
186 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
premised on the belief that there is a single reality that can be discovered and
described, and in which community, coherence and structure are key features.
(Savage 2006: 386)
Moreover, and closely related to the remarks in the preceding quotation, Hammersley
(2008: 131) points out that ‘ethnography had usually sought to provide factual
representations of cultures, institutions, or patterns of social interaction; and as
part of this, to document the perspectives of the people involved’. Nevertheless,
the proliferation of constructionist, post-structuralist and postmodernist modes
of thinking in social sciences and qualitative inquiry resulted in a relativist and
scepticist twist that affected significantly (and negatively) both ethnographic
research practice and researchers’ account of data and insights produced by it.
From a relativist point of view, ethnography abandoned any ambition to represent
reality beyond what participants (and the researcher) take it to be, prioritised the
so-called ‘emic’ over ‘etic’ perspective (see Hunt 2007), turned to description,
rejected the possibility to causally explain social phenomena and processes,
embraced fully the doctrines of discursive and linguistic reductionism, adopted
a mode of ‘paralysis’-induced reflexivity (May 2004: 173) and made efforts to
imitate modes of reasoning derived from literature and art (see Yoshida 2007,
Hammersley 2008). The inescapable problems and flaws of such relativism and
scepticism have already been highlighted mainly in Subsection 3.2.3. Above all,
these are related to the self-refuting, contradictory and unsustained character of
relativism and scepticism, to their reliance on ‘false premises’ (Hammersley 2008:
135) and to the adoption of an unconstructive ‘either/or’ logic (see Moya and
Hames-Garcia 2000). Thus, as Hammersley rightly points out:
Critical realism offers a viable solution to the problems caused by the domination
of relativist doctrines in much contemporary ethnographic, qualitative research.
From a critical realist meta-theoretical point of view, ethnographic and participant
observation methodologies can be powerful means for investigating social
complexity, taking into full account ontological depth and stratification of the social
world and can contribute significantly to causal explanations of social processes
and phenomena. Critical realist ethnography integrates understanding of meanings
and agential perspectives with accounts of multiple influences that social forms,
entities or objects – which exist independently of agential identification – exert
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 187
This entails a breaking away from practices of local, ‘bounded’ and confined
ethnography and engagement with multi-sited ethnographic research (Fitzgerald
2006). ‘Ethnographers don’t stick their toe in the water only to pull it out a second
later. They spend extended periods of time following their subjects around, living
their lives, learning their ways and wants’ (Burawoy 2000: 27). The third ‘refers to
extending out from process to macro forces…’ (Burawoy 2000: 27). This extension
aims to incorporate wider geographical and historical contexts into the analysis of
social processes and the role of broader social forces in shaping local phenomena.
As Burawoy (2000: 27) stresses ‘the discovery of extralocal determination is an
essential moment of the extended case method’. Finally, the fourth extension is
that of theory (Burawoy 2000: 27). The scope of the ECM is to develop existing
theory through the identification of observed ‘anomalies’. ‘What makes the field
“interesting” is its violation of some expectation, and an expectation is nothing
other than some theory waiting to be explicated’ (Burawoy 2000: 28).
Now, the ECM is characterised by some central premises that makes it
highly compatible with the critical realist rationale.3 First, the ECM opposes
both relativism and positivist-empiricist universalism (Burawoy 1991: 276).
Second, it is theory-driven and theory-oriented. It seeks to formulate theoretical
generalisations ‘by constituting the social situation as anomalous with regard to
some preexisting theory (that is, an existing body of generalizations), which is then
reconstructed’ (Burawoy 1991: 280). Third, it is explanatory. It advocates a notion
of causality that departs from the regularity notion of it and is implicitly realist.
Thus, according to Burawoy (1991: 281), ‘[C]ausality then becomes multiplex,
involving an “individual” (i.e. undividable) connectedness of elements, tying
the social situation to its context of determination’. Fourth, it accounts for social
complexity and the role of power in social relations. Finally, it avoids conflating
micro- and macro-levels. ‘It takes the social situation as the point of empirical
examination and works with given general concepts and laws about states,
economies, legal orders, and the like to understand how those micro situations are
shaped by wider structures’ (Burawoy 1991: 282).
Nation and state are still called upon today to resolve the contradictions of
capitalist production [emphasis added], but the particulars of their arrangement
have changed. One of the most important changes has been a repositioning,
or rearticulation, of the nation as resistant to the transnationalizing state. This
resistance, however, is paradoxical in the sense that its expression, rather than
threatening the transnational project of the state, in fact strengthens it [emphasis
added]. (Lawrence 2007: 174)
observation (Miller 2008: 61). Nevertheless, the most central (and common)
strategy for conducting qualitative biographical research is the ‘biographical
narrative interview’ (Apitzsch and Siouti 2007, Tsiolis 2006). As Iosifides and
Sporton point out, the biographical narrative interview
life story and biographical research should be carried out not just to document
how people’s lives evolve in the subjective sense, but rather that biographical
interviews should be used in order to explain life trajectories [emphasis added]
as they take place in modern societies accounting for underlying social structures
and present day societal restructuring and change. (Steensen [date unknown]: 11)
Now, although there are relatively few biographical studies inspired by explicit
critical realist principles so far, the potential for wider application of realist
premises to qualitative biographical research, as already noted earlier, is great.
One study that utilises biographical research methods within the critical realist
framework is that by Han and Humphreys (2006) on ‘integration and retention of
international medical students in rural communities’ (Han and Humphreys 2006:
189) in Australia. The study was based in 57 biographical, life-history interviews
with International Medical Graduates (IMGs) practising in rural areas of Victoria,
Australia. Thirty-seven of these skilled, professional migrants were men and 20
female, while their areas of origin included mainly Asia, the Middle East, Europe/
America, the UK and Africa (Han and Humphreys 2006: 191–2). The objective
of the study was formulated according to a critical realist rationale and the main
research question was: ‘what fundamentally constitutes the characteristics of
the relations between the IMGs and rural communities, and what properties
must exist for different IMGs to demonstrate varying degrees of integration,
both at the personal and community levels?’ (Han and Humphreys 2006: 192).
Thus, the authors aimed to investigate the real, causal generative mechanisms of
the differentiation between more and less integrated professional migrants in rural
communities under study. They investigated a series of personal, professional and
family issues of IMGs along with their interaction with and relations to the rural
communities within which they practice and they formulated a typology of four
‘kinds’ of IMGs according to degree of their integration into the communities.
These kinds were ‘satellite operators’, ‘fence-sitters’, ‘the ambivalent’ and ‘the
integrated’ (Han and Humphreys 2006: 193). The first two are the least integrated
into the rural communities, while the last two are the most. The authors identified
a series of causal, generative mechanisms, either at the level of social structures or
at the level of agency that their interaction results in varying degrees of integration
and retention into rural communities. These mechanisms are related to shortages
of professionals in rural areas, competition for doctors among different countries,
the facilitating role of globalisation processes for international migration, the
specialised migration policies of the Australian state and past experiences of IMGs,
along with their values, desires, decisions and degree of awareness of regulations
regarding practising in rural areas (Han and Humphreys 2006). Thus, as the authors
point out, ‘the agency-structure interplay (varying according to place, time,
professional and personal needs) strongly influences where individual IMGs
live or practise […]’ (Han and Humphreys 2006: 201). The value of such a study
derives from demonstrating the advantages of the adoption of a realist approach to
biographical research and, more specifically, to biographical migration research.
These advantages are mainly related to the fact that the identification of specific
generative mechanisms and their workings within certain social contexts could
have potentially significant policy implications. Moreover, and going back to the
insights of Archer’s framework discussed previously, constructing typologies of
agential social orientation through biographical research results in accounting fully
for the ontological depth of social reality – that is, for the complex, multi-level and
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 197
imagine that someone told an optician that he experienced pains above the
eyes form wearing the spectacles she has prescribed, but the optician insisted
on treating what he said as a conventional portrayal of himself as a victim of
life’s woes and/or demanding a refund. If people were routinely to interpret one
another’s utterances in these ways, social life would be impossible. Nor is there
any point in restricting researchers to this approach. (Hammersley 2008: 95)
here is that this kind of discursive reductionism and relativism backfires on its
advocates and seriously undermines efforts for comprehensive research practice.
This occurs due to the fact that this line of reasoning is self-refuting and entails
an infinite regress that cancels any meaningful argument, including those of social
constructionists (see Hammersley 2008, Hibberd 2005). As Hammersley (2008:
118) rightly points out:
social discourses on the Internet leads to social change and has wider implications
remains to be seen, although the proliferation of blogs and forums affiliated with
political parties and religious institutions seems to indicate that the Internet has the
potential to affect social action’.
Case study is the research strategy mostly associated with the departure from
implicitly or explicitly positivist, ‘variable-oriented’ quantitative research (see
Ragin 2000). The general opposition between ‘case’ and ‘variable’-oriented social
research along with the adoption by the former of a different ‘logic’ of causality
and generalisation makes qualitative case study research highly compatible with
the principles of critical realism (see Easton 2010).5 Indeed, the very recent
publication of the Sage Handbook of Case-based Methods, edited by David Byrne
and Charles C. Ragin (2009), explicitly adopts a critical/complex realist approach
and contains an extended range of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method, case
study approaches. Blatter (2008: 68) defines case study as ‘a research approach in
which one or a few instances of a phenomenon are studied in depth’, while Robson
(2002: 178) stresses that ‘[C]ase study is a strategy for doing research which
involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon
within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence’. According to Easton
(2010: 119), case study research is defined ‘as a research method that involves
investigating one or small number of social entities or situations about which data
are collected using multiple sources of data and developing a holistic description
through an iterative process’ [emphasis added]. The concrete characteristics of
case study research, notably its orientation towards the in-depth, mutli-aspect and
holistic investigation of one or a small number of instances of wider phenomena
and processes results in the near inevitability of employing qualitative-intensive
methods, although mixed-method approaches are not rare (see Ragin 2000 and
especially Byrne and Ragin 2009).
Conducting case study research within the critical realist meta-theoretical
framework presupposes the adoption of ontological assumptions that render the
so-called ‘case-object’ (Harvey 2009) as relatively independent of researchers’
(and social agents’) conceptions of it. It presupposes an account of depth and
For one, there are typically so many cases that there is no way for the researcher
to know if they are all really comparable and thus belong together in the same
analysis. Also, it is difficult to determine how something ‘comes about’ by
comparing cases with different levels of the outcome. […]. It is also pointless
to isolate the ‘independent’ effect of any causal condition when several factors
usually must be combined for a particular outcome to occur. (Ragin 2000: 34)
Realist case study research views cases as ‘configurations’ (Ragin 2000: 39) – that
is, as ‘systems’ of interacting components, and causality as heterogeneous and
‘conjunctural’ (Ragin 2000: 40). Hence, ‘[I]n case oriented social science, attention
typically is directed toward understanding how the different causal conditions
combine in each case to produce the outcome in question. A common finding is
that different conditions combine in different and some times contradictory ways to
produce the same outcome’ (Ragin 2000: 40). The aim of realist case study research
to investigate in depth the causal complexity of phenomena is strongly problem-
and theory-driven (Easton 2010) and theory-oriented. Thus, the identification
of complex, causal generative mechanisms in one or in a small number of cases
of a social phenomenon or process always has wider implications, which are
implications beyond the concrete case or cases. In contrast to the statistical notion
of generalisation, ‘case studies, like experiments, are generalisable to theoretical
propositions and not to populations or universes. In this sense, the case study, like
the experiment, does not represent a “sample”, and the investigator’s goal is to
expand and generalise theories (analytical generalisation) and not to enumerate
frequencies (statistical generalisation)’ (Yin 1989: 21 quoted in Easton 2010: 126).
204 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Topic Research questions Type of case and possible research methods Overall purpose
Differential – What forms differential In-depth and holistic investigation of one or two Identification of the causal generative
treatment of treatment of immigrants in public hospitals that immigrants are using. mechanisms of differential treatment
immigrants in public hospitals takes? of immigrants in public hospitals by
public hospitals In-depth interviewing with immigrants and examining the interplay between hospital
– What are the causes and non-immigrants, management, administrative organisational structures, agential action
consequences of differential and medical staff. Participant observation and cultural norms.
treatment of immigrants in of treatment of immigrants and of various
public hospitals? occasions of interaction between immigrants,
non-immigrants and hospital staff. The conduct
of specialised focus groups would possibly be of
great value. Examination of official records and
use of various other sources of data on the socio-
economic and policy environment that public
hospitals operate.
Relations between What factors contribute In-depth and holistic investigation of two Elucidation of the complex causal factors
immigrants and to the drawing the line neighborhoods for comparative reasons; the that result in local divisions along ‘ethnic’
non-immigrants between non-immigrants one characterised by ‘good’ and the other by lines.
at local and immigrants at ‘bad’ relations between non-immigrants and
(neighbourhood) neighbourhood level? immigrants. Identification of why social conflict in local
level areas take (or does not take) an ‘ethnic’
form.
Table 4.4 continued
Structure How do immigrant Biographical studies with neighborhood residents Identification of (internal and/or external)
and action of organisations operate (both non-immigrants and immigrants), in-depth causal mechanisms that make an immigrant
immigrant and what conditions their interviews with neighborhood residents (both organisation ‘successful’.
organisations function and the outcomes non-immigrants and immigrants) on social
of their action? relations in the area and focused interviews about Identification of wider structural or
specific incidents of local conflict Use of various other constraints and enablements of
other sources of data on the history and socio- organisational action.
economic situation of local areas.
The case study research was based on the analysis of primary and secondary
materials and on qualitative, semi-structured interviews mainly with local
scholars, municipal officials at professional and political levels, representatives
of civic organisations and migrant activists (Alexander 2007: 20). In-depth case
study research confirmed to some extent the vital role of perceptions about ‘host–
stranger relations’ in shaping policy responses to labour migration but also led to
a revision of the original typology by incorporating within it another type/phase of
local policy response; intercultural policy type/phase (in the case of Amsterdam)
(Alexander 2007: 211). Due to space constraints, a detailed discussion of the
methodological and theoretical implications of this study is not possible here but
some crucial points – highly relevant to realist qualitative research – should be
made. First, Alexander (2007) investigates the roots of the formation of ‘host-
stranger relations’ in each individual case study. In realist terms, ‘host–stranger
relations’ may be viewed as emergent properties of prior social interaction that
exert causal influences in the way that real social relations between immigrant
and local, non-immigrant social groups are structured and in the way that local
authorities respond to migration-related phenomena and processes. Second, and
again in realist terms, ‘host–stranger relations’ may be viewed as a generative
mechanisms of local policy responses which are relatively unobservable at the
empirical level and underlying. Indeed, as the author himself explicitly points out,
‘host–stranger relations’ is a ‘hidden dimension’ which ‘is often concealed within
official discourses on service provision, urban renewal etc.’ (Alexander 2007:
206). The identification of this ‘hidden dimension’, and of its influential role in
local policy responses, would be impossible without the combination of detailed,
depth qualitative research on actual local policies – in different domains such as
the legal-political, the socio-economic, the cultural-religious and the spatial (see
Alexander 2007: 211–13) – towards labour migrants in each city-case with a clearly
formulated theoretical-explanatory framework. Relying on lay discourses and
descriptions alone would be inadequate for reaching comprehensive explanations.
Instead, when lay discourses are examined along with actual practices of social
agents and are re-described with the help of specific theoretical concepts, then
accomplishing such a task becomes easier. Finally, Alexander’s study teaches
us that qualitative case research on migration can be not only explanatory but
also generalisation-oriented as well. As the author stresses, ‘[S]uch a framework
should allow us to generalize beyond any particular city at any particular time,
while remaining grounded in empirical findings’ (Alexander 2007: 15). To
conclude, Alexander’s study is an excellent demonstration of how qualitative case
research about migration-related phenomena can enhance our knowledge and
deep understanding of social reality and its complexities. Moreover, the specific
characteristics and implications of this enhancement – notably causal explanation,
comparability and generalisation – that this study advocates and effectively
demonstrates are of self-evident value to every realist qualitative researcher.
208 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
The coding of data, for example (data reduction), leads to new ideas on what
should go into a matrix (data display). Entering the data requires further data
reduction. As the matrix fills up, preliminary conclusions are drawn, but they
lead to the decision, for example, to add another column to the matrix to test the
conclusion. (Miles and Huberman 1994: 12)
taken at face value – are related to each other and conclusions are drawn from the
intensity of their correlation. Thus, the empirical level is prioritised and become
privileged while theory is allegedly derived from data which are largely empirical
and observable. The other kind of QDA – interpretivist or relativist of various
versions – entails an interpretation of interpretations and meanings of participants
or the ways that various discursive practices constitute or construct social objects
that are taken to be real. This kind of QDA, then, does not view data as tools for
unlocking underlying and often unobservable, relatively enduring and objective
realities, but as the ‘reality’ or part of the ‘reality’ itself. And this is simply because
for interpretivists and relativists there is no other reality except for the internally
meaningful realities of individuals and social groups and the constructed worlds
that linguistic/discursive practices create. Neglecting intransitivity, interpretivists
and social constructionists alike treat qualitative data as pointers to phenomena
related to ‘subjectivity’, ‘lived experience’ or the effects of ‘discursive practices’.
In contrast to empiricist and interpretivist/relativist styles of analysing
qualitative data, the underlying rationale of RQDA is to organise and manage
the data in such a manner that underlying, generative causal mechanisms are
identified and tested. This entails the full utilisation of a series of basic realist
notions – notably reality stratification, social emergence and complex causality
in open systems – in the process of organising, managing, coding,6 categorising,
abstracting, conceptualising and theorising (see Morse and Richards 2002, chapters
6 and 7) from qualitative data. It also entails the evolving formulation of coding
and categorising schemes that are theory-informed in two highly interrelated
ways: through abstractions of necessary trans-factual conditions – that is, internal
and necessary relations among social objects and generative causal mechanisms –
derived from qualitative data and through concepts derived from existing literature
(see Danermark et al. 2002: 136 and Chapters 3 and 5). Qualitative data about
agential and wider meanings, understandings, discourses, practices, actions and
social relations can serve as powerful tools for the identification of the nature,
character and essence – a series of predominately qualitative dimensions – of
social objects and of the causal powers and liabilities that these objects possess.
This is a vital step towards explaining certain social phenomena and outcomes
6 Coding in QDA is the ‘base’ of analysis, at least for QDA styles that entail some
form of data categorisation, thematisation and segmentation. ‘Codes are tags or labels for
assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a
study. Codes usually are attached to “chunks” of varying size – words, phrases, sentences,
or whole paragraphs – connected or unconnected to a specific setting. They can take the
form of a straightforward category label or a more complex one (e.g. a metaphor)’ (Miles
and Huberman 1994: 56). According to Morse and Richards: ‘There are many ways of
coding and many purposes for coding activities across the different qualitative methods.
They all share the goal of getting from unstructured and messy data to ideas about what is
going on in the data. All coding techniques have the purpose of allowing the researcher to
simplify and focus on some specific characteristics of the data. And all of them assist the
researcher in abstracting, or ‘thinking up” from the data’ (Morse and Richards 2002: 111).
210 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
The problem however, in leaving the analysis at this level, which while it could
be said to represent a reality from a phenomenological perspective because it
is rooted in the actual discourses / ‘practical logic’ of the respondents, is from
a depth realist perspective, merely examining the ‘domain of the actual’. An
actualist analysis cannot establish the hidden dynamics of the multirelational
stratified nature of shared discourse. (Crinson 2001: 11)
necessary steps. In Crinson’s model – and according with basic realist premises –
these steps are ‘theorisation’ and ‘retroduction’. ‘Theorisation’ entails the further
categorisation of qualitative data through ‘theoretically deduced categories drawn
from the literature (moving from the abstract to the concrete) which might offer
a structural context for the particular discourses’ (Crinson 2001: 11), whereas
‘retroduction’ includes the processes of identification of generative, underlying
causal mechanisms. Crinson (2001) describes this ‘phase’ of QDA as follows:
This involves the process of inference that critical realists have described
as retroduction, in which the conditions for the social phenomena under
investigation are explained through the postulation of a set of generative
mechanisms. In the process of abstracting from the concrete object then back
to the postulation of a concrete conceptualisation it is essential to distinguish
between those social relationships that are necessary rather than contingent for
this social phenomena to occur i.e. those which are internally related. Clearly it
is important to specify those contingencies that bring about or indeed, counteract
the action of the identified generative mechanisms. Certainly in the case of the
discourses of social agents, it is necessary to be sensitive to developments within
the ideological environment which maybe determinant in the practices of those
agents under investigation. (Crinson 2001: 11)
(i) Structural and cultural properties objectively shape the situations that
agents confront involuntarily, and possess generative powers of constraint and
enablement in relation to them.
(ii) Agent’s own configurations of concerns, as subjectively defined in relation to
the three orders of natural reality – nature, practice and society.
(iii) Courses of action are produced through the reflexive deliberations of agents
who subjectively determine their practical projects in relation to their objective
circumstances. (Archer 2007c: 28)
7 This scheme has already been mentioned in Section 4.4.3 on biographical research but
it is mentioned again because it is considered necessary to discuss its implications for QDA.
212 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Realist researchers may categorise, code and analyse qualitative data under five
broad axes:
Of course, the employment of such a scheme for data categorisation and analysis
presupposes the collection of rich, detailed and multi-sourced information, a strong
theoretical orientation and a constant practice of abstraction and testing these
abstractions against empirical data. The whole process entails the intermingling
of ‘phases’ of data collection and analysis that is necessary for engaging with
repeated retroductive exercises.
Today, QDA is strongly supported by specialised software of a diverse kind
regarding capabilities and functions, which is generically known as CAQDAS.
To realist qualitative researchers, CAQDAS can be of great value for various
reasons. First, CAQDAS can serve as an enhancer of the systematic character of
qualitative research that realists usually advocate. Second, CAQDAS can assist,
very effectively, the management, organisation and analysis of heterogeneous data
at multiple levels – either of abstraction, source of data or ontological domains.
Finally, specialised computer software can increase the degree of transparency
of the exact processes of data analysis and of reaching certain explanations. For
realists, who prioritise explanatory qualitative research producing valid findings
regarding real-world processes and mechanisms, this is more than vital.
As an example of specific rationale underpinning QDA in migration studies,
I refer to a study by Weiss (2006) on processes of transnational class formation
identified through the experiences and practices of highly skilled migrants. The
study is based on 18 qualitative interviews with highly skilled migrants (information
technology specialists), either German expatriates or migrants from a series of
counties such as ‘India, Algeria, Bulgaria, Brazil, China, Congo, Czech Republic,
Tunisia, and Ukraine’ (Weiss 2006: paragraph 19) who work and reside in Germany.
What makes this study worth being included here is that its overall rationale and
the manner of conducting the qualitative interviews and the analysis of data derived
from them is more or less consistent with realist premises. Thus, the study breaks
away from the more conventional, ‘culturalist’ analysis of migratory phenomena
within the transnational arena and gives emphasis to the structural environment of
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 213
migratory movements, to the role of social positions of migrants and to the material
aspects of migrants’ actions and social practices. Furthermore, qualitative research
in this study is characterised by a strong comparative dimension and the effort to
link structural characteristics with agential action and factual/objective factors with
migrants’ rationales and understandings. In the author’s words:
All interviews covered the following topics: qualification and position in the
labour market; educational and migration history; social networks; lifestyle
preferences; legal and financial situation; experiences with differential treatment;
and, hopes for the future. The interviews contain explicit and comparable
information documenting interviewees’ social position, as well as individual
narrations from which habitus and practices of distinction can be reconstructed
[…]. The interviews were supplemented by a short questionnaire containing
questions around socioeconomic status and other factual information. (Weiss
2006: paragraph 22)
The main rationale of analysing the qualitative data was to interrelate three
different types of data: data about factual information on migrants’ recourses
and social positions; data about migrants’ assessments of their trajectories,
experiences and actions, and data about migrants’ habitual attitudes and
dispositions (Weiss 2006).
Looking for the relations (contradictory or not) among these three types of data
Weiss (2006) was able to achieve reconstructions of the processes of transnational
class formation by exploring meanings and practices of highly skilled migrants.
Moreover, the author was able to account for the role that factors and mechanisms,
such as habitus and resource distribution – often underlying and not easily
identified ‘from “front stage” information’ (Weiss 2006: paragraph 41) – play in
this formation. Finally, research design and data analysis strategies in this study
allow for theory to be developed and for insights to be generalised and transferred
beyond the specific research context and selected cases. In the author’s words: ‘the
study’s methodological approach diverges from typical qualitative approaches
to migration; whilst it may overlook cultural specificities, it is able to engage in
theory building and enhance our structural understanding of the social, economic
and political dimensions underpinning highly skilled migration and transnational
class formation’ (Weiss 2006: paragraph 46). Regarding the main findings of the
study, Weiss summarises them as follows:
The results show that despite the differences in national origin of the highly
skilled migrants, they operate within global labour markets and inhabit similar
economic and social spaces within the city. However, the paper also argues that
different types of highly skilled migrants in different types of political-economic
contexts, whilst inhabiting similar economic positions and similar social space,
move along different and unequal paths. This divergence, we suggest, can be
traced to broader structural processes of global inequality. (Weiss 2006: Abstract)
The relevance of ethical stances and choices is extremely significant for every
methodological strategy, either qualitative or quantitative, but this subsection
concerns some central aspects regarding the role of ethics in realist, qualitative
migration research. Research ethics may be conceptualised as ‘the conduct of
researchers and their responsibilities and obligations to those involved in the
research, including sponsors, the general public and, most importantly, the subjects
of research’ (O’Connell, Davidson and Layder 1994: 55 quoted by Dowling 2000:
25). Others (ESRC: 20 quoted in Düvell et al. 2008: 4) define research ethics as
‘moral principles guiding research, from its inception through to completion and
publication of results and beyond – for example, the curation of data and physical
samples after the research has been published’. In qualitative research that usually
entails researchers’ intensive and/or prolonged involvement with people’s lives
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 215
and often an in-depth investigation of ‘sensitive’ issues and processes, the role of
research ethics is central as ethical stances and choices may affect significantly
the whole research process, from research design to field research, data analysis
and uses of research findings. Thus, ‘[E]thics in qualitative research, currently
often associated only with the relationship of researchers to those they study, is
an integral aspect of all decision making in research, from problem formulation
to presentation of results’ (Preissle 2008: 276). Traditionally, the commonest
ethical principles adopted when qualitative social research is conducted are
related to ‘informed consent’, ‘anonymity and confidentiality’, ‘harm or damage
avoidance’ (Hopf 2004: 337), ‘reflexivity’ and the role that ‘power relations’
between the researcher(s) and research participants play in the whole research
process (Dowling 2000, Miles and Huberman 1994). Informed consent entails
researchers’ honesty and good faith; it is related to the full disclosure of research
purposes to the prospective research participants and often the guarantee of the
proper use of research findings and/or participants’ access to them. Anonymity and
confidentiality are related to guarantees that the identities of research participants
will remain concealed – unless there is a prior agreement to the contrary – and to
researchers’ efforts to achieve a rapport with participants. The latter presupposes
an ethical stance characterised by genuine concern about participants’ social
situations, perspectives and actions; however, this does not mean that researchers
necessarily accept participants’ beliefs, interpretations and perspectives. It
rather means that they are incorporated in the final explanatory scheme and the
synthesis of ‘insider accounts’ with explanatory endeavours that may transcend
them or place them within theoretical accounts about wider societal processes.
Harm or damage avoidance is a general principle that applies both during the
actual process of conducting research and after its completion. The principle
dictates that researchers have to make intense efforts to reduce the possibility
of harm or damage of any kind (material, psychological, social) for themselves
and for participants. Finally, power inequalities and asymmetries (Dowling
2000) among researchers and participants always have to be acknowledged and
taken into account when researchers employ qualitative methods, because they
may affect profoundly research relationships, data collection and data analysis.
Power relations in qualitative migration research usually favour the researcher(s)
– for example, in the cases of participants being undocumented immigrants, or
regularised labour migrants – but in some instances power relations may favour the
participants – for example when research requires close contact with state officials
or inter-governmental agency executives. An ethical stance presupposes the close
examination of the implications of power differentials by researcher(s) along
with systematic efforts for their ‘neutralisation’ or mitigation. Power relations are
always a probable source of multiple distortions of research process and even if
their total elimination is impossible, their acknowledgement and a constant effort
to understand their influence and impact increases the possibility of getting more
truthful and valid research findings. The best way to achieve this is by employing
what is called ‘critical reflexivity’ (Dowling 2000: 28). Critical reflexivity is
216 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Thus, realist qualitative research needs criteria to assess the epistemic validity and
truthfulness of its findings or, in other words, specific ways to evaluate the adequacy
of explanations of the workings, effects and consequences of intransitive aspects
of social reality. It also needs rigorous strategies to mitigate various validity threats
that characterise particularly the qualitative research practice. The realist stance
on research quality criteria departs significantly from relativist (interpretivist,
constructionist or post-structuralist) approaches in that it recognises the
existence of a mind/language/discourse/interpretation independent social reality
characterised by causal powers of its own. This acknowledgement, along with the
adoption of a depth and stratified ontological approach, allows realist qualitative
researchers to demonstrate that their explanations are practically adequate because
they are true (i.e. because they capture certain aspects of real social processes and
causal mechanisms) and not vice versa, as pragmatic relativists advocate. Realist
qualitative research remains within the scientific camp, contributes significantly
to causal explanations of social reality and advocates rigorous and systematic
application of research procedures. On the contrary, relativist qualitative research,
of any version and denomination, progressively and explicitly views itself as
non-scientific but rather as part of the humanities and as a kind of activity that
is artful or resembles art and literature (see Hammersley 2008). Of course, this
stance precludes the adoption of any kind of epistemic criteria for evaluating the
quality of qualitative research and relating theoretical and conceptual frameworks
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 221
with empirical evidence (see Hammersley 2008: 140). Instead of using epistemic
criteria to assess the quality of qualitative research findings, relativist qualitative
researchers advocate the utilisation of non-epistemic ones. Thus,
Many interpretivist researchers take the position that there is no ‘fact of the
matter’ […] and suggest by extension that it is not really possible to specify
criteria for good qualitative work – and that the effort to do so is somehow
expert-centered and exclusionary to the contingent, contextual, personally
interpretive nature of any qualitative study. (Miles and Huberman 1994: 277)
Within the premises of relativist thinking, various scholars formulated sets of non-
epistemic criteria to evaluate qualitative research. Murphy et al. refer to some of
such formulations:
[Guba and Lincoln] proposed five alternative criteria for assessing the goodness
of evaluation research, which they believed to be compatible with relativism.
They defined these as criteria of authenticity, which they discussed particularly
in the context of evaluations. They are summarised below.
Relativist criteria to assess the quality of qualitative research suffer from the
same contradictions regarding consistency, intelligibility, meaningfulness and
self-refuting premises as strict relativist thinking in general. Let me give just
one example: the criterion of fairness. According to this, ‘researchers must be
able to demonstrate that they have represented the range of different realities
in a balanced way’ (Murphy et al. 1998: 172). Of course, this demonstration
presupposes that relativists should, implicitly, exempt some facts from the reach
of their own premises, notably the fact that there are different realities that have
to be represented in a balanced way. However, from a relativist point of view,
the existence of different realities is itself relative to linguistic or discursive
constructions of the researcher(s) and thus they cannot serve as a basis for their
balanced representation. This is because researchers’ representations constitute
or construct the existence of different realities, which are rendered, by relativists,
as inseparable from these representations. Hence, fairness becomes itself another
discursive or linguistic construct and the result is to have multiple and infinite
conceptions of fairness but certainly not a criterion that may be applied to the
assessment of the quality of qualitative research. These insurmountable problems
are extended to the whole range of relativist criteria. For example, Hammersley
(2008: 118) wonders ‘on what grounds can it be assumed that ethical and aesthetic
criteria are any less “constructed” than epistemic ones?’ In addition, Porter (2007:
79), referring to suggestions of replacing epistemic with aesthetic and rhetorical
criteria for assessing qualitative research findings, asserts that:
The confidence criterion to which Porter (2007) refers in the preceding quotation
– that is, the degree of practical adequacy of qualitative research findings –
results in revealing problems and inconsistencies of relativist, interpretivist and
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 223
generally non-epistemic criteria for judging the value of qualitative findings. Only
with the realist notion of differentiation between the transitive and intransitive
dimensions of social reality is it possible to formulate criteria for judging the
quality of qualitative research and simultaneously to avoid contradictions and
inconsistencies. Thus, according to Porter (2007: 84), ‘to maintain coherence, we
are forced back to acceptance of a realist position that some perspectives capture
actions and events better than others and that robust criteria are required to judge
between them’. In line with realist rationale, the same author offers a summary of
general criteria to assess the overall quality of qualitative research (taken from
Pawson et al. 2003) as follows:
While there is no ‘golden key’ to judging validity or rigour, robust procedures have
been developed to help knowledge based practitioners ascertain whether or not a
knowledge claim can provide them with sufficient confidence to base their practice
upon it. For example, Pawson et al. (2003) have developed a set of criteria under
the acronym of TAPUPAS that has the merit of not restricting itself to validity, but
including other pertinent issues relating to rigour such as ethics and accessibility:
The preceding general criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research
may become more ‘specialised’ and more concrete. Thus, Miles and Huberman
(1994: 277–80) offer a set of highly detailed quality criteria that may be used to
assess the ‘objectivity / confirmability’, ‘reliability / dependability / auditability’,
‘internal validity / credibility / authenticity’, ‘external validity / transferability
/ fittingness’, and ‘utilization / application / action orientation’ of qualitative
research findings. These criteria are formulated with a terminology (objectivity,
internal and external validity, reliability) that is common to quantitative research
as well. However, when quantitative methods themselves are disconnected from
positivism and qualitative ones from relativism and anti-realism, and when they
are both placed within a critical realist framework, this is not a problem. Thus, as
Murphy et al. (1998: 174) assert: ‘[M]any of the reservations about conventional
approaches to judging research and the alternative criteria proposed for qualitative
research […] arise from a commitment to an anti-realist position’. Moving further,
Maxwell (1996: 87) understands the concept of ‘validity’ of qualitative research
findings as the ‘commonsense way to refer to the correctness or credibility of a
description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation or other sort of account’ and
224 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
identifies two major validity threats, notably researcher bias and reactivity (see
Maxwell 1996: 90–91). While fully acknowledging these threats, realist qualitative
researchers exaggerate neither these threats nor their consequences to the extent
that relativists do.8 They rather try to elucidate the ways that these threats affect
the quality of research findings (Maxwell 1996: 91) and to mitigate them through
a series of strategies. Maxwell (1996: 92–6) refers to some of these strategies,
notably to the employment of the ‘modus operandi approach’, to ‘searching for
discrepant evidence and negative cases’, ‘triangulation’, ‘feedback’, ‘member
checks’, ‘rich data’, ‘quasi-statistics’ and ‘comparison’ (see also Miles and
Huberman 1994: 262–77). Healy and Perry (2000) propose six ‘comprehensive
criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the
realism paradigm’ (Healy and Perry 2000: 118). These criteria are ‘ontological
appropriateness’, ‘contingent validity’, ‘multiple perceptions of participants and
of peer researchers’, ‘methodological trustworthiness’, ‘analytic generalisation’
and ‘construct validity’ (Healy and Perry 2000: 122, Table 2). These criteria are
considered specific for qualitative research conducted explicitly under the realist
meta-theoretical premises of ontological depth, social complexity and generative
causality in open systems. The criteria help realist researchers to assess the quality
of their research findings according to explicit realist principles – that is, whether
findings capture the ontological depth of phenomena and processes, identify
proper causal generative mechanisms that produce certain outcomes, contribute to
broader theoretical understanding and contain abstractions of certain internal and
necessary relations between social objects and transfactual conditions that operate
beyond the specific research setting. From a similar, explicitly realist perspective,
Yeung (1997: 60) summarises a series of criteria for assessing explanations and
theoretical formulations and abstractions derived from realist social research, as
follows:
8 Thus, to realists, the social situatedness of knowledge need not lead to the
abandonment of assessing their validity and adequacy. As Sayer (2000: 55) puts it,
‘knowledge is indeed situated but whether the social influences present in a particular kind
of science lead to more or less practically adequate results and have good or bad effects is
an a posteriori question, and the answers are not determined by the social position of those
who answer it’.
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 225
5. Most competent members can be persuaded to adopt it since no other equally good
alternative explanations can be thought of.
6. Its dialogical engagement with one’s subject and intersubjectivity between subjects
and objects: feedback from human agency.
7. Its ability to make one’s analysis as precise as ‘the nature of the subject permits’
(Aristotle, quoted in Bhaskar, 1986: 168).
8. A successful prediction has a role to play, but it should never be the main/sole
criterion.
9. The formulation of successful policy to emancipate human agency from exploitative
‘real’ structures: e.g., changing the structures for housing allocation in Bedford
(Sarre, 1987). (Yeung 1997: 60)
The basic ‘guideline’ for assessing the results of realist qualitative research is the
full utilisation of central realist principles themselves. Thus, adjudicating between
alternative causal explanations of social phenomena and processes is always
possible (though not easy) (Sayer 1992) because each explanation presupposes
different conditions for its operation that can be tested. Manicas (2009: 13) asserts
that ‘among competing explanatory mechanisms, there are different consequences
and these are testable’. Tests can be conducted with the aid of ‘independent
evidence’ (Sayer 1992: 218–19) pointing to the existence and operation of
retroduced conditions of each prospective mechanism. Of course, this presupposes
the engagement in multi-sourced, detailed and often multi-method social research
and the explicit recognition that social reality is organised in multiple levels with
distinct causal powers of their own. The latter entails the acceptance of the realist
thesis according to which theoretical concepts, abstractions and explanations
refer to or are about realities or aspects of realities that exist relatively or totally
independent of them. Similarly, the assessment of the adequacy of different
agential interpretations and meanings becomes possible when realist principles
are adopted. Thus:
So far, the discussion in this subsection has been quite general and without explicit
reference to qualitative research on migration. As an example of validation
processes in qualitative research on migration I refer to a study by Han and
Ballis (2007) on alternative medical practices within the community of South
226 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Korean immigrants in Sydney, Australia. The main reason I refer to this study
is that it is explicitly inspired by critical realism and is based on predominately
qualitative research methods of data generation, theoretical development and
social explanation. The study is based on 120 qualitative interviews ‘with a range
of participants, including 8 biomedical doctors, 1 pharmacist, 2 physiotherapists,
8 traditional health professionals (herbalists and acupuncturists), health food shop
owners, Korean community leaders and Korean migrant men representing a range
of socio-economic backgrounds and migration patterns – 17 amnesty; 14 skilled
and 9 business migrants’ (Han and Ballis 2007: 4). The main validation processes
that the authors employ in this study – that is, the processes of ensuring that the
causal mechanisms rendered responsible for producing certain empirical events
are indeed operating in reality – may be summarised as follows.
First, the authors engage with a comprehensive critique of alternative
approaches to accounting for ethnomedical practices, notably with interpretivist,
postmodernist and post-structuralist explanations. The main limitations of these
approaches, identified by the authors, lie in the neglect of contextual factors and
their inability to effectively connect structure and agency due to the emphasis
they put on the individual and micro-level (Han and Ballis 2007). Moreover,
the deficiencies of structural explanations are pointed out as well. Thus, ‘[D]
eficiency has also been prevalent with studies which adopted “macro” or crude
“structuralist” perspectives including some brands of Marxism. While the political
economy perspective has clarified the relevance of political economic processes,
their implications for the individual experience of illness and health are yet to
be fully explored […]’ (Han and Ballis 2007: 12). In this way, the exposure of
the limitations in the explanatory power of alternative approaches becomes the
vehicle for the formulation of a realist explanation that is able to account more
effectively for events, processes and phenomena at the empirical level.
Second, the authors formulated a sample that is characterised by high diversity
and allows for meaningful comparative analysis of data. This comparative analysis
together with the constant cross-checking of information derived from different
sources has enhanced the validity of findings. In the authors’ words:
The comparison of the perspectives provided by the users […] and providers
of health care […] has been an important source of cross-checking the data so
that the validity has been increased […]. The cross-checking has also served as
a stimulus for examining, for example, discrepancies between the views from
the users […] and providers are observed rather than merely being regarded as
‘distorted’ or inaccurate […]. (Han and Ballis 2007: 5)
Finally, by relating qualitative data with data derived from various other sources
and utilising them with the help of diverse theoretical elaborations, the authors
were able to answer the following explicit realist questions regarding the causal
mechanisms behind empirical events, processes and phenomena: ‘what constitutes
the characteristics of the relations between complementary health practitioners
Realist Qualitative Migration Research 227
and their patients in the Korean community?; what properties must exist for the
use and provision of complementary therapy among Korean immigrants, both at
the levels of the Korean community and broader Australian community?’ (Han
and Ballis 2007: 5). Using all the above strategies, Han and Ballis (2007) produced
findings that, although fallible in principle, are characterised by greater explanatory
power than those of alternative ‘culturalist’ or interpretative approaches. Thus,
our confidence that the postulated – often unobservable and underlying – causal
mechanisms behind empirical patterns of ethnomedical practices are indeed
responsible for shaping these patterns is enhanced. Han and Ballis summarise
these mechanisms as follows:
New social conditions influence the choice of health care methods, including
herbal/alternative medicine, health foods and what are often called New Age
therapies. The transformations in the labour market and the global effects of the
restructuring of work have led to increases in job insecurity, work-related stress
and pressure on household budgets. These have also contributed to broader
cultural changes, transformations in subjectivity and a pervasive attitude of
needing to ‘look after oneself’ […]. Further, transnational mobility of the general
population and health professionals, the global supply of herbal or health food
remedies, and readily available information through the internet have clearly
accelerated the process in which alternative medicine has been commodified
and become a significant player of global casino capitalism. (Han and Ballis
2007: 11–12)
mechanisms that produce events (Danermark et al. 2002). The fruitful combination
of quantitative and qualitative methods in realist social research presupposes
their application in contrast with the traditional ways underpinned by positivist or
relativist principles. Thus, the purpose of their combination in realist research is the
facilitation of retroductive inference of underlying causal mechanisms. Extensive
methods, characterised by powerful descriptive and comparative elements, may be
used to identifying ‘demi-regularities’, and intensive methods may be utilised in
explaining these ‘demi-regularities’ – that is, in conceptualising generative causal
mechanisms that produce them. Although both extensive and intensive methods are
considered necessary in realist research, retroductive reasoning is facilitated mainly
through the latter (Danermark et al. 2002).
In migration studies, the need for the development and application of multi-
method approaches was recognised quite early (see White 1980, Findlay and Li
1999), mainly because of the complexity and multidimensionality of migration-
related phenomena and processes. Today, there is a clear tendency towards mixed-
method migration research, although contradictions and conflicts among different
– mostly implicit – ontological and epistemological assumptions are not completely
unavoidable. There is always the danger of combining different methods in an
‘additive’ rather than integrative manner and without dealing with contradictions
caused by implicit or explicit ontological and epistemological assumptions of
different methodological paradigms. For example, Taloyan (2008) conducted a
multi-method study on the effects of migration process and experiences to the
self-reported health and quality of life of Kurdish immigrants in Sweden. The
author conducted five separate studies (three with quantitative methods and two
with qualitative methods), while explicitly accepting the traditional connection
of quantitative methods with positivism and qualitative with ‘constructivism’
(Taloyan 2008: 12). In this way, she actually blends not only different methods
but different, highly contradictory and conflicting epistemological assumptions.
An example of mixed-method migration research, highly compatible with
realist principles, is a study conducted by Bloemraad (2007) on immigrant
political participation and naturalisation processes in the cases of Portuguese and
Vietnamese immigrants to the USA and Canada. The author engaged in a mixed-
method comparative study with the aim of identifying the causal mechanisms that
result in differentiation of immigrant political participation in the two countries
(higher in Canada, lower in the USA). What makes this study worth mentioning
here is the employment of a significantly constructive reasoning for mixing
different methods that is, more or less, in accordance with the realist point of
view. Thus, although the author employed quantitative methods in order to ‘set the
stage’ and ‘sophisticated statistical modeling to eliminate alternative hypotheses,
such as the notion that U.S.–Canada citizenship differences stem from immigrants’
attributes rather than features of the receiving societies’ (Bloemraad 2007: 43), she
explicitly links causal explanation with qualitative, depth methods. In her own
words:
230 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
statistics described the generalized nature of the problem and helped cast
doubt on alternative hypotheses. Qualitative interviews and documentary data
uncovered the mechanisms linking the structuring forces of governmental policy
to the individual actions and decisions of immigrants and refugees. Without one
or the other, the story would have been incomplete. (Bloemraad 2007: 47)
Chapter 5
Conclusions: Critical Realism, Qualitative
Migration Research and Politics Making
Throughout this book I have advanced the thesis for the development of a
different kind of qualitative methodological practice that is in accordance with
critical realist principles. Hopefully I have also demonstrated – through real and
hypothetical examples derived mainly from migration studies – that this kind of
practice is already with us and on the rise, despite the fact that much of qualitative
research is still inspired by relativist and idealist commitments. Qualitative
methods within the critical realist framework aim at investigating the qualitative
(i.e. non-measurable and non-quantified) aspects of social objects –that is to say,
their relational make-up and the kind, nature, character and causal consequences
of their relations with other social objects. Qualitative methods entail talking
to people, observing phenomena and processes, learning from multiple sources
of data and participating in social situations. Through all these activities realist
qualitative researchers investigate social processes and the causal mechanisms
that produce them. Their core task is to identify the qualities – that is, the character
and nature – of social entities and objects by virtue of which they can act in certain
ways or can exert certain causal influences on their constituents and on other
entities and objects. An equally important task of realist qualitative researchers is
to account for the results of the interplay among various entities and their causal
powers and thus explain social phenomena.
According to Porter (2007: 80) ‘there are two main ways of defining
“qualitative”. One relates simply to method – qualitative research uses verbal and
textual data, while quantitative research relates to numerical data. The other appeals
to qualitative research’s grounding in particular ontological, epistemological and
methodological assumptions…’. As it is evident from the whole discussion and
analysis contained in this book, I fully endorse the former definition and strongly
oppose the latter. Different methods – qualitative, quantitative or mixed – are
appropriate according to the character of the social aspect under investigation
or according to the problem at hand; yet, they are not inherently connected with
specific meta-theoretical commitments. Hence, qualitative methods are more
appropriate for answering questions about what kind a given social object is,
what its basic constituents are and what their interrelation is, what the causal
consequences of these relations are and so on. These are essentially qualitative
questions that can be addressed better when qualitative methods are employed.
The inherent advantages of such methods to answering questions such as the
above are enhanced significantly when the ontological and epistemological
232 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
premises of critical realism are adopted. Within such premises qualitative methods
become powerful means for the depth investigation of the ways that the distinct
– and irreducible to each other – causal powers of people, social structures and
cultural forms interact and produce certain phenomena and outcomes. Moreover,
within such premises, qualitative methods break with the sole preoccupation with
meaning; they also turn their attention to practices, courses of action and social
relations of all kind and at various levels. As Archer (2000: 310) puts it ‘[R]ealism
is thus “concerned with actions which are practical, not just symbolic: with making
(poesis), not just doing (praxis), or rather with doing which is not, or not only
saying”’. Realist qualitative research is the adequate way for the identification of
mind or consciousness-independent – that is, objective – causal mechanisms since
‘qualitative analysis of objects is required to disclose mechanisms’ (Sayer 1992:
179). Hence, because critical realist social research places causality-as-mechanism
– that is, as the interaction and the relational outcome of different causal powers
of social objects – and not causality-as-regularity at the centre of social inquiry,
qualitative methods are indispensable for their identification and investigation.
Thus, as Shapiro and Wendt point out:
instead of starting with qualitative data and then trying to develop a theory to
interpret the ‘facts’, we need to start with a theory, of SEPs, CEPs and, of course,
PEPs. We need to start with such a theory because we have no theory-neutral
access to the world and so we need to make explicit the metalevel assumptions
that inform our approach. We need to understand where ‘we are coming from’ to
make sense of how the conclusions we draw from empirical research are framed
within particular ontological assumptions about how social reality is constituted.
(Cruickshank 2003c: 5)
Conclusions 233
The preceding rationales and arguments are developed throughout the present
book which is characterised by a strong meta-theoretical flavour. This is because
I support the thesis according to which the linkages between ontological and
epistemological premises with methodological choices and practices are absolutely
central for social research and inquiry.
These linkages along with their importance and consequences are explored
more concretely, taking issue from qualitative research practice in migration
studies. The deficiencies of interpretivist and relativist qualitative migration
research are exposed and the advantages of the realist approach are highlighted.
This highlighting of the strengths of realist qualitative migration research is carried
out through accounting for the factual complexity of migration-related processes
(see Section 2.1), the theoretical efforts to explain them (see Sections 2.2 and
2.4), the ontological and epistemological presuppositions of migration research
in general and qualitative migration research in particular (see Section 2.3 and
Chapter 3), the different qualitative methodological and data analysis strategies
employed in migration research (see Sections 4.1 to 4.4) and issues related to
qualitative research ethics, rigour and multi-method approaches (see Sections 4.5
to 4.7). Throughout the book, a plethora of real and hypothetical examples from
migration studies are discussed with the aim of showing the value that the critical
realist approach brings in qualitative migration research along with the limitations
of alternative perspectives, namely interpretivism, social constructionism and
post-structuralism.
It is not my purpose here to repeat the advantages of a realist perspective in
qualitative migration research but rather to elaborate briefly on some of their
most crucial aspects. First, migration, as all social phenomena, is characterised
by ontological depth and it is only when this depth is acknowledged and
investigated in a comprehensive way that knowledge of phenomena becomes
valuable and useful. Processes and phenomena of geographic mobility that
are labeled, classified and treated as ‘migratory’ are the result of the interplay
between real causal powers and real complex social relations. Realist qualitative
methods focus exactly on the investigation of these complex social relations that
are responsible for the observable migration-related patterns and phenomena.
Second, realist qualitative migration research is oriented towards the identification
of generative causal mechanisms of migration-related phenomena and away
from reducing them to the discursive level or to the level of observable events,
for it acknowledges that social – material and ideational – relations are bearers
of causal powers irrespective of human identification and irrespective of the
actuality of their manifestation. Third, realist qualitative migration research
connects epistemic with moral responsibilities and conceptualises this connection
as necessary and non-contradictory. Explaining the ways that structural and
cultural relations of domination and asymmetry are produced and reproduced –
thus, placing migrants within unfavourable relational arrangements – is closely
related to the fact that certain social relations are inherently immoral and have
to be transformed. This stance dispenses with cultural relativist doctrines which
234 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
data derived through the interviews within the predominant, broad socio-cultural
features and processes which characterise contemporary British society, namely
‘glocalisation’, the ‘reinvigoration of class relations at the expense of command
relations’, ‘post welfare statism’, the ‘politics of personal responsibility’, the
‘destandardization of work’, the ‘culture-ideology of consumerism’, the ‘post-
modern culture’, the ‘problematic of family (dis)enchantment’ and the ‘new
dynamic for identity formation’ (Scambler 2007: 1085, Figure 3). Within this
broad socio-cultural environment, Scambler (2007) examines the causal powers
of specific structural relations (i.e. generative mechanisms) that condition the
agential action of migrant sex workers from Eastern Europe and the former
USSR in London. These structural relations are ‘class’, ‘command’, ‘gender’,
‘ethnic’ and ‘stigma’ and are linked to certain logics, namely the ‘regime of
capital accumulation’, ‘mode of regulation’, ‘patriarchy’ ‘tribalism’ and ‘shame’,
respectively (Scambler 2007: 1086, Figure 4). Moreover, the author accounts for
the multiple interrelations among these structural relations and how they causally
affect stigmatisation of migrant sex workers.
Through the qualitative interviews, Scambler (2007) gained knowledge of
the experiences, practices and life conditions of research participants and placed
them within a specific, explanatory theoretical scheme. This scheme is termed by
Scambler (2007: 1086) ‘logics, relations and figurations’ and according to it: ‘[T]
he concept of logic captures the coherence, thrust and causal potential of social
structures as generative mechanisms (Scambler, 2002). Each logic is associated
with a set of relations that can be studied indirectly through its effects on events
across any number of figurations’. Of course, it is impossible to reproduce the
whole analysis here as this is beyond the purpose of referring to this example.
Instead, three brief comments about the findings of the study are worth quoting:
…there is an enduring tension between structure and agency. Archer (1995) has
shown how an individual’s initially ‘involuntary placement’ in society brings in
its wake ‘vested interests’ which the mediating mechanism of ‘opportunity costs’
helps translate into consciousness or conduct. Reasons for actions, structurally
filtered, often become rationalizations appropriate to an individual’s vested
interests. (Scambler 2007: 1092)
Conclusions 237
…it is evident that the law and policing of sex work can be neither understood
nor humane and effective unless attention is paid to the industry’s structural
underpinnings… (Scambler 2007: 1093)
Now, Scrambler’s study is, in my view, another paradigmatic case of the kind of
qualitative migration research practice that this book proposes and advances; a
kind of realist qualitative migration research which is simultaneously explanatory,
critical, emancipatory and socio-politically relevant.
This page has been left blank intentionally
Bibliography
Archer, M.S. 2003. Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M.S. 2007a. Making Our Way Through the World. Human Reflexivity and
Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M.S. 2007b. Morphogenesis/morphostasis, in Dictionary of Critical
Realism, edited by M. Hartwig, Abingdon, Routledge, 319.
Archer, M.S. 2007c. The ontological status of subjectivity: the missing link
between structure and agency, in Contributions to Social Ontology, edited by
C. Lawson, J. Latsis and N. Martins, Abingdon: Routledge, 17–31.
Avdela, E., Athanasiou, A., Kouzis, G., Laliotou, I., Papathanasi, V., Hatzaroula,
P., Psarra, A. 2009. Precarious Work, “Female Work”. Intervention for
Konstantina Kouneva. Athens: Nefeli-Historein (in Greek).
Bade, K.J. 2003. Migration in European History. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Bader, V. 2001. Culture and identity. Contesting Constructivism, in Ethnicities, 1
(2): 251–285.
Baerveldt, C. and Voestermans, P. 2005. Culture, emotion and the normative
structure of reality, in Theory and Psychology, 15 (4): 449–473.
Bagaric, M. and Morss, J. 2005. State sovereignty and migration control: the
ultimate act of discrimination?, in Journal of Migration and Refugee Studies,
1 (1): 25–50.
Baghramian, M. 2004. Relativism. Abingdon: Routledge.
Baines, D. 1991. Emigration from Europe 1815–1930. Basingstoke, Hampshire
and London: Macmillan Press.
Banfield, G. 2004. What’s really wrong with ethnography?, in International
Education Journal, 4 (4): 53–63.
Baran, P. 1957. The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review
Press.
Bauböck, R., Kraler, A., Martiniello, M. and Perchinig, B. 2006. Migrants’
citizenship: legal status, rights and political participation, in The Dynamics of
International Migration and Settlement in Europe. A State of the Art, edited
by R. Penninx, M. Berger, K. Kraal. IMISCOE Joint Studies, Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, 65–98.
Bedau, A.M. and Humphreys, P. 2008. Eds. Emergence. Contemporary Readings
in Philosophy and Science. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press.
Bedau, M.A. 2008. Downward causation and autonomy of weal emergence, in
Emergence. Contemporary Readings in Philosophy and Science, edited by
A.M. Bedau and P. Humphreys, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, 155–188.
Berg, B.L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Fourth
Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Berg, B.L. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Pearson
International Edition. Boston: Pearson.
Bibliography 241
Creswell, J.W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing among
Five Approaches. Second Edition. London: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. and Garrett, A.L. 2008. The “movement” of mixed methods
research and the role of educators, in South African Journal of Education, 28:
321–333.
Crinson, I. 2001. A realist approach to the analysis of focus group data. IACR
Conference. Available at http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/archive/
iacr_conference_2001/icrinson_raafgd.pdf [accessed: 29 August 2010].
Cromby, J. 2004. Between constructionism and neuroscience. The societal co-
constitution of embodied subjectivity, in Theory and Psychology, 14 (6): 797–821.
Crouch, M. and McKenzie, H. 2006. The logic of small samples in interview-
based qualitative research, in Social Science Information, 45(4): 483–499.
Crowther, M.A. 1981. The workhouse System 1834–1929: The History of an
English Social Institution. London: Batsford Academic and Educational.
Cruickshank, J. 2003a. Realism and Sociology. Anti-foundationalism, Ontology
and Social Research. Abingdon: Routledge (Routledge Studies in Critical
Realism).
Cruickshank, J. 2003b. Underlabouring and unemployment: notes for developing
a critical realist approach to the agency of the chronically unemployed, in
Critical Realism, The Difference it Makes, edited by J. Cruickshank, Abingdon:
Routledge, 111–127.
Cruickshank, J. 2003c. Introduction, in Critical Realism, The Difference it Makes,
edited by J. Cruickshank, Abingdon: Routledge, 1–14.
Danermark, B., Ekström, Jakobsen, L., Karlsson, J.C. 2002. Explaining Society.
Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.
De Clercq, D. and Voronov, M. 2009. Toward a practice perspective of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus, in International Small
Business Journal, 27 (4): 395–419.
De Vaujany, F-X. 2008. Capturing reflexivity modes in IS: a critical realist
approach, in Information and Organization, 18: 51–72.
Del-Teso-Craviotto, M. 2009. Racism and xenophobia in immigrants’ discourse:
the case of Argentines in Spain, in Discourse and Society, 20 (5): 571–592.
Demerztis, N. 1996. The Discourse of Nationalism. Athens: Sakkoulas (in Greek).
Doak, J. and Karadimitriou, N. 2007. (Re)development, complexity and networks:
A framework for research, in Urban Studies, 44 (2): 209–229.
Dowling, R. 2000. Power, subjectivity and ethics in qualitative research, in
Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, edited by I. Hay. South
Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 23–36.
Downward, P. 2007. Quantitative method, in Dictionary of Critical Realism,
edited by M. Hartwig, Abingdon, Routledge: 311–312.
Doxiadis, K. 2008. Discourse Analysis. Socio-Philosophical Foundation. Athens:
Plethron (in Greek).
Düvell, F., Triandtafyllidou, A. and Vollmer, B. 2008. Ethical Issues in Irregular
Migration Research. Deliverable D2, Work Package 2 of the research project
Bibliography 245
Han, G-S. and Davies, C. 2006. Ethnicity, health and medical care: towards a
critical realist analysis of general practice in the Korean Community in Sydney,
in Ethnicity and Health, 11 (4): 409–430.
Han, G-S. and Humphreys, J.S. 2006. Integration and retention of international
medical graduates in rural communities, a typological analysis, in Journal of
Sociology, 42 (2): 189–207.
Hart, A., New, C., Freeman, M. 2004. Health visitors and ‘disadvantaged’ parent-
clients, designing realist research in Making Realism Work, Realist Social
Theory and Empirical Research edited by B. Carter and C. New, London and
New York: Routledge, 151–170.
Hartwig, M. 2007. Ed. Dictionary of Critical Realism, Abingdon, Routledge.
Harvey, D.L. 2009. Complexity and case, in The Sage Handbook of Case-Based
Methods, edited by D. Byrne and C.C. Ragin, London: Sage, 15–38.
Hassan, S., Pavón, J., Arroyo, M., León, C. 2007. Agent Based Simulation
Framework for Quantitative and Qualitative Social Research: Statistics and
Natural Language Generation, in Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the
European Social Simulation Association (ESSA), edited by F. Amblard,
Toulouse, France, 697–707.
Hatziprokopiou, P.A. 2006. Globalisation, Migration and Socio-Economic
Change in Contemporary Greece. Processes of Social Incorporation of Balkan
Immigrants in Thessaloniki. IMISCOE Dissertations. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Hay, I. 2000. Ed. Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. South
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Hayes, M.G. 2003. Investment and Finance under Fundamental Uncertainty. PhD
Thesis, University of Sunderland, UK.
Healy, M. and Perry, C. 2000. Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and
reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm, in Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, 3 (3): 118–126.
Hedberg, C. 2004. The Finland-Swedish Wheel of Migration. Identity, Networks
and Migration 1976–2000. PhD. Thesis, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Heisler, B.S. 2008. The sociology of immigration. From assimilation to segmented
assimilation, from the American experience to the global arena, in Migration
Theory. Talking Across Disciplines, Second Edition, edited by C.B. Brettell
and J.B. Hollifield, New York: Routledge, 83–111.
Herbert, S. 2000. For ethnography, in Progress in Human Geography, 24 (4):
550–568.
Hibberd, F.J. 2001a. Gergen’s social constructionism, logical positivism and the
continuity of error, in Theory and Psychology, 11 (3): 297–321.
Hibberd, F.J. 2001b. Gergen’s social constructionism, logical positivism and the
continuity of error, Part 2: Meaning-as-Use, in Theory and Psychology, 11 (3):
323–346.
Hibberd, F.J. 2005. Unfolding Social Constructionism. New York: Springer.
Bibliography 249
Hollifield, J.F. 2008. The politics of international migration. How can we ‘bring
the state back in’?, in Migration Theory. Talking Across Disciplines, Second
Edition, edited by C.B. Brettell and J.B. Hollifield, New York: Routledge,
183–237.
Holstein, J.A. and Miller, G. 2007. Eds. Reconsidering Social Constructionism.
Debates in Social Problem Theory. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction.
Hopf, C. 2004. Research ethics and qualitative research, in A Companion to
Qualitative Research, edited by U. Flick, E. von Kardoff and I. Steinke.
London: Sage, 334–339.
Houston, S. 2001. Beyond social constructionism: critical realism and social work,
in British Journal of Social Work, 31: 845–861.
Hunt, R.C. 2007. Beyond Relativism. Rethinking Comparability in Cultural
Anthropology. Plymouth: AltaMira Press.
International Migration Institute (IMI) 2006. Towards a New Agenda for
International Migration Research. Oxford: James Martin 21st Century School,
University of Oxford.
IOM (International Organization for Migration) 1995. Overview of International
Migration. Migration Management Training Programme. IOM.
Iosifides T. and King R. 1996. Recent immigration to Southern Europe: the socio
-economic and labour market context, in Journal of Area Studies, Southern
Europe in Transition, 9: 70–94.
Iosifides, T. 1997a. Recent Foreign Immigration and the Labour Market in Athens.
Unpublished D.Phil. Thesis. Brighton: University of Sussex.
Iosifides T. 1997b. Immigrants in the Athens labour market: a comparative survey
of Albanians, Egyptians and Filipinos, in Southern Europe and the New
Immigrations, edited by R. King and R. Black, Brighton, Sussex Academic
Press, 26–50.
Iosifides, T. 2003. Qualitative migration research: some new reflections six years
later, in The Qualitative Report, 8 (3): 435–446. Available at http://www.nova.
edu/ssss/QR//QR8-3/iosifides.pdf [accessed: 10 October 2009].
Iosifides, T. 2004. Relativist notions in the social sciences: consequences and
critique, in Theseis, 86: 57–67 (in Greek).
Iosifides, T. 2006. Qualitative methodological approaches in migration research:
challenges, questions and problems, in Approaching the Other: Ideology,
Methodology and Research Practice, edited by G. Kyriakakis and M.
Mihailidou. Athens: Metehmio, 175–196 (in Greek).
Iosifides, T. 2007. Introduction. Sociological knowledge in the contemporary
world, in Sociology. The Core, by M. Hughes and C.J. Croehler, Athens,
Kritiki: 27–31 (in Greek).
Iosifides, T. 2008. Qualitative Methods in the Social Sciences. Athens: Kritiki
(in Greek).
Iosifides, T. 2009. Social capital and immigrant integration: immigrants from
Albania and ethnic Greeks from the former USSR, in Matters of Immigrant
Social Integration edited by A. Kontis. Athens: Papazisis, 255–382 (in Greek).
250 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Iosifides, T. and King, R. 1996. Recent immigration to Southern Europe: the socio-
economic and labour market contexts, in Journal of Area Studies, 9: 70–94.
Iosifides, T. and King, R. 1998. Socio-spatial dynamics and exclusion of three
immigrant groups in the Athens conurbation, in South European Society and
Politics, 3 (3): 205–229.
Iosifides, T. and Politidis, T. 2005a. Conducting qualitative research on
desertification in western Lesvos, Greece, in The Qualitative Report, 10 (1):
143–162. Available at: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR//QR10-1/iosifides.pdf
[accessed: 10 October 2009].
Iosifides, T. and Politidis, T. 2005b. Socio-economic dynamics, local development
and desertification in Western Lesvos, Greece, in Local Environment: The
International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 10 (5): 487–499.
Iosifides, T. and Sporton, D. 2009. Editorial: biographical methods in migration
research, in Migration Letters, An International Journal of Migration
Studies, Special Issue: Biographical Methods in Migration Research, 6
(2): 101–108.
Iosifides, T., Kizos, T., Papageorgiou, H., Papageorgiou, D., Malliotaki, A.,
Petracou, E. 2007a. Public attitudes towards immigrants in western Greece
Region, in Social Science Tribune, 49: 37–62 (in Greek).
Iosifides, T., Lavrentiadou, M., Petracou, E. and Kontis, A. 2007b. Forms of Social
Capital and the Incorporation of Albanian Immigrants in Greece, in Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33:8, 1343 – 1361.
Jackson, N. and Carter, P. 2000. Rethinking Organizational Behaviour. London:
Financial Times – Prentice Hall.
Jandl, M., Vogel, D. Iglicka, K. 2008. Report on Methodological Issues. Deliverable
D3 prepared for Work Package 2 of the research project CLANDESTINO
Undocumented Migration: Counting the Uncountable. Data and Trends Across
Europe, funded under the 6th Framework Programme of the European Union.
Jefferson, T. 2007. Grounded theory and the study of retirement savings: A
case study of broadening methods applied to economic research projects.
Association for Heterodox Economics 9th Annual Conference 2007, University
of West England, Bristol, UK, 13–15 July.
Jenkins, A.H. 2001. Individuality in cultural context. The case for psychological
agency, in Theory and Psychology, 11 (3): 347–362.
Jones, B.G. 2003. Explaining global poverty. A realist critique of the orthodox
approach, in Critical Realism, The Difference it Makes, edited by J.
Cruickshank, Abingdon: Routledge, 221–239.
Jordan, B. and Düvell, F. 2002. Irregular Migration. The Dillemas of Transnational
Mobility. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Joseph, J. and Roberts, J.M. 2004a. Eds. Realism Discourse and Deconstruction.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Joseph, J. and Roberts, J.M. 2004b. Introduction. Realism, discourse and
deconstruction, in Realism Discourse and Deconstruction, edited by J. Joseph,
and J.M. Roberts, Abingdon: Routledge, 1–19.
Bibliography 251
Social Analysis and Reporting Division (SARD) 2001. Social Capital, A Review
of the Literature. UK: Office for National Statistics.
Spiro, M.E. 1996. Postmodernist anthropology: subjectivity, and science: a
modernist critique, in Comparative Studies in Society and History, 38 (4):
759–780.
Spiro, M.E. 2001. Cultural determinism, cultural relativism and the comparative
study of psychopathology, in Ethos, 29 (2): 218–234.
Squire, V. 2009. The Exclusionary Politics of Asylum. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Steensen, J. Date Unknown. Biographical interviews in a critical realist perspective,
Department of Education, Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University,
Denmark. Available at: http://uit.no/getfile.php?PageId=8315&FileId=31
[accessed 3 March 2010].
Steinke, I. 2004. Quality criteria for qualitative research, in A Companion to
Qualitative Research, edited by U. Flick, E. von Kardoff and I. Steinke.
London: Sage, 184–190.
Symons, J. 2002. Emergence and reflexive downwards causation, in Principia, 6:
183–202.
Tacq, J. 2010. Causality in qualitative and quantitative research, in Quality and
Quantity, (DOI 10.1007/s11135-009-9293-0, published online 5 January
2010).
Taloyan, M. 2008. Health, Migration and Quality of Life among Kurdish
Immigrants in Sweden. PhD Thesis. Stockholm, Sweden: Department of
Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Center for Family and Community
Medicine, Carolisnka Institutet.
Talwar, J.P. 2007. Immigrants and “American” franchises: research challenges in
new lines of inquiry, in Researching Migration. Stories from the Field, edited
by L. DeSipio, M.G. y Griego and S. Kossoudji, New York: The Social Science
Research Council, 157–177.
Taylor, R.I. 2003. Agent-Based Modelling Incorporating Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods: A Case Study Investigating the Impact of E-commerce
upon the Value Chain. Ph.D. Thesis, Centre for Policy Modelling, The Business
School, Manchester Metropolitan University.
260 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
Todaro, M.P. 1969. A model of labour migration and urban unemployment in less
developed countries. American Economic Review, 59(1): 138–48.
Todaro, M.P. 1976. Internal Migration in Developing Countries. Geneva: ILO.
Topali, P. 2008. Silent Relations, Intercultural Contacts. The Case of Filipina
Domestic Employees in Athens. Athens: Alexandria (in Greek).
Tsimouris, G. 2009. Imaginative geographies and transnational migrant
communities: new phenomenon or old in conditions of late capitalism?, in
Transformations of Space. Social and Cultural Dimensions, edited by M.
Spyridakis, Athens: Nisos, 202–226 (in Greek).
Tsiolis, G. 2006. Life Histories and Biographical Narratives. The Biographical
Approach in Sociological Qualitative Research. Athens: Kritiki (in Greek).
United Nations (UN). 2004. World Economic and Social Survey 2004
International Migration. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New
York: United Nations.
Uzelac, G. 2002. The morphogenesis of nation, in Making Sense of Collectivity.
Ethnicity, Nationalism and Globalization, edited by S. Malešević and M.
Haugaard, London: Pluto Press, 138–166.
Van Heur, B. 2008. Networks of Aesthetic Production and the Urban Political
Economy. PhD Thesis, Department of Earth Sciences, Free University of
Berlin, Germany.
Van Leeuwen, T. and Wodak, R. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: a
discourse-historical analysis, in Discourse Studies, 1 (1): 83–118.
Ventura, L. 1994. Migration and Nation. Transformations in Collectivities and
Social Positions. Athens: EMNE-Mnimon (in Greek).
Ventura, L. 2004. Nationalism, racism and migration in contemporary Greece,
in Greece of Migration, edited by M. Pavlou and D. Christopoulos. Athens:
Kritiki, 174–204 (in Greek).
Ventura, L. 2006. Europe and migrations in the 20th century in Immigration
and Immigrant Integration into Greek Society, edited by H. Bagavos and D.
Papadopoulou. Athens: Gutenberg, 83–126 (in Greek).
Vighi, F. and Feldner, H. 2007. Ideology critique or discourse analysis? Žižek
against Foucault, in European Journal of Political Theory, 6 (2): 141–159.
Voronof, M. and Singer, J.A. 2002.The myth of individualism–collectivism: a
critical review, in The Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (4): 461–480.
Wainwright, S.P. 2000. For Bourdieu in realist social science. Cambridge Realist
Workshop, 10th Anniversary Reunion Conference, Cambridge, May.
Walby, S. 2007. Complexity theory, systems theory, and multiple intersecting
social inequalities, in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37 (4): 449–470.
Walby, S. 2009. Globalization and Inequalities. Complexity and Contested
Modernities. London: Sage.
Wallerstein, I. 1979. The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Warde, A. 2005. Consumption and theories of practice, in Journal of Consumer
Culture, 5 (2): 131–153.
Bibliography 261
Warin, J., Solomon, Y. and Lewis, C. 2006. Swapping stories: comparing plots:
triangulating individual narratives within families, in International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 10 (2): 121–134.
Weiss, A. 2006. Comparative research on highly skilled migrants. Can qualitative
interviews be used in order to reconstruct a class position? [46 paragraphs].
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7
(3), Art. 2, Available at: http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs060326
[accessed: 10 September 2010].
Wengraf, T. 2001. Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage.
Weninger, C. 2008. Critical discourse analysis, in The Sage Encyclopedia of
Qualitative Research Methods, edited by L.M. Given, Thousand Oaks: Sage,
145–147.
Westerhuis, D. 2007. Social constructionism (or constructivism) in Dictionary of
Critical Realism, edited by M. Hartwig, Abingdon, Routledge: 419–420.
White, S.E. 1980. A philosophical dichotomy in migration research, in Professional
Geographer, 32 (1): 6–13.
Whittington, R. 2006. Completing the practice turn in strategy research, in
Organization Studies, 27 (5): 613–634.
Wight, C. 2004. Limited incorporation or sleeping with the enemy. Reading
Derrida as a critical realist, in Realism Discourse and Deconstruction, edited
by J. Joseph, and J.M. Roberts, Abingdon: Routledge, 201–216.
Wilkerson, W.S. 2000. Is there something you need to tell me? Coming out
and the ambiguity of experience, in Reclaiming Identity. Realist Theory and
Predicament of Postmodernism, edited by P.M.L. Moya and M.R. Hames-
García, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 251–278.
Willis, J.W. 2007. Foundations of Qualitative Research. Interpretive and Critical
Approaches. London: Sage.
Willmott, R. 2003. New Labour, school effectiveness and ideological commitment,
in Critical Realism. The Difference it Makes, edited by J. Cruickshank,
Abingdon: Routledge, 128–148.
Witt, C. 2008. Aristotelian powers, in Revitalizing Causality, Realism about
Causality in Philosophy and Social Science, edited by R. Groff, Abington,
Oxon, Routledge: 129–138.
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. 2001. Eds. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.
London: Sage.
Wood, C. 1982. Equilibrium and historical-structural perspectives on migration, in
International Migration Review, 16(2): 298–319.
Wood, E.M. 1997. What is the “postmodern” agenda?, in In Defence of History,
Marxism and the Postmodern Agenda, edited by E.M. Wood and J.B. Foster,
New York: Monthly Review Press, 1–16.
Yang, L. and Gilbert, N. 2007. Getting away from numbers: using qualitative
observation for agent-based modelling, in Proceedings of the 4th Conference
of the European Social Simulation Association (ESSA), edited by F. Amblard,
Toulouse, France, 205–215.
262 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies
discourse 41, 46, 50–52, 58–60, 95, 104, Huberman, A.M. 35, 133, 144–146,
109, 111, 113, 115–116, 118–119, 154–156, 175–177, 208–209, 215,
121–125, 138, 140, 149, 152, 159 221, 223–224
double hermeneutics 57 hylo-realism 47
Elder-Vass, D. 68, 70, 212 idealism 43, 45–47, 88, 91, 103, 115, 121,
elisionism 34, 77, 79, 81, 108 124, 128, 198
emergentist Marxism 47 identity 1–2, 38, 42, 73, 87, 105–109,
empirical realism 46, 51, 59, 97 117–118, 122–123, 125, 138–139,
epistemic fallacy 33, 48, 55, 92, 95, 99, 143, 148, 152–153, 157, 162–163,
102, 104, 113, 116, 121, 124 165, 167, 182–184, 191, 218,
epistemology 18, 32–33, 35, 47, 55, 96, Iosifides, T. 11, 15, 19–21, 26–27, 37, 52,
111, 116, 222, 228 56, 62, 67, 100, 110, 133, 139,
evidence-based research 35, 141 149–150, 153–54, 156, 167, 173,
experience 92–93, 102–103, 106, 108–109, 175, 177, 180, 185, 192, 218
117, 125, 147, 152, 157, 170–171,
181, 183, 209, 217–218, 226 King, R. 5–6, 8–11, 14–15, 17, 67, 150
Fairclough, N. 44, 111, 119, 121, 124, 133, language 51, 58–60, 73, 86–87, 99, 104,
145, 197–202 107, 110–116, 120, 142, 146, 149,
Faist, T. 11. 14, 18, 22 152, 164, 186, 197, 199–200, 218,
Favell, A. 38 220
Fleetwood, S. 47, 54–55, 111, 114–115, Lawrence, C.M. 190–191
145–146, 148 linguistic fallacy 99, 104
lived experience 37, 102–103, 109, 147,
genetic fallacy 55–56 209
Glick Schiller, N. 234
Manicas, P. 46, 65, 98–100, 132, 145, 147,
Haas, de H. 20–22, 28 157, 225
Hames-García, M.R 42, 115–116, 145, MASs 75
152, 186 Maxwell, J.A. 31, 42, 132, 144–146, 149,
Hammersley, M. 120–121, 144, 147, 155, 154–156, 168–169, 171, 223–224
157, 169, 181, 186–187, 197–198, meaning 50–51, 55, 58, 74, 79, 92, 96–99,
220–221 102–105, 111–113, 115–116, 125,
Hartwig, M. 32, 34, 45–48, 51, 53–56, 63, 67, 128, 131, 146–147, 154, 157, 179,
86, 95, 97–101, 137, 144–146, 154 187, 189, 193, 195, 209, 225, 232
Hatziprokopiou, P.A. 40, 183–184 migration 32–43
Hedberg, C. 134, 139, 165–167 central themes 39–43
Hibberd, F.J. 54, 91–92, 109–111, 113, epistemological issues 33–39
115–116, 197, 190 methodological approaches 33–39
history of migratory movements 5–18 Miles, M.B. 35, 133, 144–146, 154–156,
after World War II 9–12 175–177, 208–209, 215, 221,
before World War II 8–9 223–224
contemporary trends 12–18 Mouzelis, N. 34, 79, 81–182, 90, 104–105,
industrialisation 6–8 137, 146, 158
pre-modern 5–6 Moya, P.M.L. 42, 74, 108, 115–116, 145,
152–153, 186
Index 265
necessity 46, 47, 63, 95, 157, 210 phenomenology 97, 101–104, 109, 192
Nellhaus, T. 99, 113 quality and rigour 219–227
New, C. 137–138, 158 realist 162–167
Norris, C. 103 social constructionism 109–126
quantitative methods 27–28, 31–39, 47,
Papastergiadis, N. 16, 21 75–76, 90, 94, 129, 131, 133,
Patomäki, H. 54–55, 95, 116 227–230
Pawson, R. 61, 63, 96–97, 135–136, 141,
145, 179–180, 223 Ragin, C.C. 37, 133, 155–156, 175,
performativity of language 122, 181, 197 202–203
Porpora, D. 33, 40, 78–80, 82, 100, 151, realist social research 127–143
164 examples of 138–143, 144–162
Portes, A. 25, 28, 30 guidelines for conducting realist
positivism 91–95 qualitative research 145–146
postmodernism 81, 91, 108–111, 115–116, mixed 227–230
118, 120, 126, 149, 152 quantitative 129, 131, 133
post-structuralism 45, 81, 91, 102, qualitative 127–162
108–111, 115–117, 120–121, 126, reductionism 33, 42, 45, 72–74, 77–79, 81,
149, 152, 154, 233 87–88, 91, 100, 104, 111, 115, 122,
practice 36, 58–60, 67, 72, 86–87, 115, 124, 131, 149, 157, 159, 170, 174,
117, 133, 147, 149–151, 157, 166, 186, 192, 198, 219
200–201, 204, 211, 219, 223 referentiality of language 112
regularities 27, 33, 54–55, 62–63, 79,
qualitative methods/qualitative methods on 93–94, 129–131, 232
migration 178–214 relativism 46–47, 54–56, 88, 111, 113–114,
action and participatory research 105, 117, 120–121, 124, 128–129, 144,
140, 161, 178 147, 152, 159, 164, 168–169, 181,
biographical research 191–197 186, 188, 192, 194, 197–198, 200,
case study 202–207 216, 221, 223, 235
CDA 197–202 Robson, C. 144, 185
ECM 187–188
ethnography-participant observation Samers, M. 234
184–191 Sassen, S. 15–16
evaluation 178 Sawyer, K.R. 27–28, 47, 51, 68–71, 146, 154
focus groups 178 Sayer, A. 30, 32–33, 46–50, 52, 54, 56–59,
internet-based methods 201–202 61–66, 69, 81, 94, 98–101, 112–113,
interviewing 178–184 115, 117–118, 128–130, 133, 136,
QDA 208–214 145–147, 151, 155, 164, 166, 187,
visual methods 178 193, 219–220, 224–225, 232
qualitative research/qualitative migration Scambler, G. 235–237
research 127–227 Sealey, A. 142
ethics 214–219 self-refentiality 51, 112–113, 153
ethnomethodology 97, 101, 104, 121, symbolic interactionism 97, 101, 104–105,
192 192
examples of realist qualitative system 10, 28–29, 65, 70–73, 76, 78, 82, 164
migration research 144–162
interpretivism 95–109 theories of migration 18–32
migration research design 167–178 micro-level 18–20
266 Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies