Contemporary and 'messy' rural in-migration processes: Comparing counterurban and lateral rural migration.

This paper questions the ongoing dominant coverage given to counterurbanisation in the rural population literature. It is argued that this provides only a partial account of the true diversity of contemporary migration processes operating in rural areas and has the potential to fuse together different in-migration processes. Specifically, lateral rural migration has been under-researched to date. Using empirical data from a survey of 260 migrant households to 3 UK case study areas (in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), the significance of lateral rural migration is revealed and compared with counterurban migration and migrants. The last change of address shows that 59% relocated from an urban area (participating in a counterurban flow) whilst 41% moved from another rural location (lateral rural flow). The boundary between migration processes can, however, be blurred: Some moves are an example of both counterurbanisation and lateral rural flows. Incorporating lifetime migration histories data demonstrates the contemporary complexity and messiness of rural in-migration processes. For example, 26% of these migrant households only ever undertook a lateral rural move during their lifetime. For others, the direction of migration has changed numerous times and intertwined with each move are aspects of life course, return, and inter-regional migration. Comparing the survey characteristics and motivations of counterurban and lateral rural migrants, alongside interview material, highlights important similarities and differences. The paper concludes by calling on rural population geographers to more fully engage with the complexity, totality, and indeed messiness of contemporary rural in-migration processes.

How to return to “normal” after a cardiac event: State of the Art Lecture

Electronic report

Migrant identities in a new immigrant destination: revealing the limitations of the ‘hard working’ migrant identity

Migrant labour has transformed local economies in many places, often helping to reverse long-term decline. The emergence of new immigrant destinations (NID) globally brings mixed opportunities for the individuals involved. This article uses empirical evidence, focusing on the workplace, to show the performance, construction and significance of migrant identity. By using social identity theory to examine what it means to be a ‘migrant’, it follows from Goffman’s overarching concern with social interactions and his promotion of microanalysis as analytical lenses.
The article reveals the ambiguity of the label ‘migrant’. It shows how the external application or internal enactment of migrant identities bestow particular status that represents an asset or an obstacle to integration. It can mean ‘hard working’, ‘less deserving’ and ‘exploitable’ and it also denotes ‘lazy’ and individuals. While some individuals assume the hard working migrant and ‘exploitable’ identity in certain circumstances because of the benefits that it brings, this status can also cause high levels of dissatisfaction and distress among migrants. The research shows how the creation of a migrant identity limits the structures and networks from which migrants may draw resources and in so doing curtails the possibilities for social change due to migration.

‘New’ migrant identities: unravelling opportunities and restrictions

Labour and capital mobility from globalisation has given rise to significant increases in the reliance of migrant labour in established gateways, but also in new migration destinations. Many aspects of migrant incorporation in new migration destinations have received some attention, not least regarding employer and employee relations. Less attention has been focused on the construction of migrant as a marker of identification, although identities, particularly regarding gender and ethnicity, in the workplace have received considerable attention. This article aims to illuminate knowledge on how migration produces social change thereby responding to a call from Batnitzky et al. (2009, p. 1290) for additional attention on what ‘the practical and symbolic effects of migration are as people move across different structures and institutions of social control….’ Mindful of Goffman’s (1969, 1983) emphasis on individual interactions and experiences, it examines what it means to be a migrant in terms of everyday encounters and experiences. It investigates the array and interplay of internal and external processes that create migrant identities and the implications of this for social integration.

The paper argues that one of the paradoxes of globalisation, and of the associated increased levels of migrant labour, is the construction of the migrant identity that ultimately impedes social integration. It shows how the application of migrant identity (internally and externally) bestows a particular status that affects (options for) individual behaviour and subsequent actions and outcomes. The paper argues that while migrants value the migrant identity status because of the benefits that it brings, this status can also cause high levels of dissatisfaction among migrants and it can exclude migrants from wider benefits of full citizenship. Migrants have individual identification processes, but external forces, including social structures and institutions, also affect migrant identity. These forces help to shape individual expectations and standards, contributing to identity interruption and dissonance.

The paper is structured as follows: it uses social identity theory as a means of understanding what it is to be a ‘migrant’ in a new destination, while simultaneously recognising the inevitability of this generic label - migrants are an extremely heterogeneous group, made up of individuals with different experiences, values and so forth. The analysis considers the significance of context and of social interactions, thus paying attention to how identity is constructed and performed by the individual and also assigned by others. Empirical evidence is used to examine how having a migrant status affects individual prospects. The paper evaluates the extent to which patterns and processes of migration present an opportunity for social change, positive or negative.