“We’re not that much different from you!”: navigating positions of betweenness to explore solidarity, care and vulnerability in refugee and forced migration research

ABSTRACT

This paper argues that through reflexive examination of positions of betweenness in research relationships, insights are gathered that help to understand and address the often-contested research spaces in refugee and forced migration research. Following the completion of a research project with Syrian male refugees in the Netherlands, I investigate how multiple identities and shifting social positions impact research relationships, ethical considerations and knowledge production. Over time, the Syrian men and I occupy various positions due to the intersections of gender, generation, religion, ethnicity and migration status, shifting emphasis between similarities and differences. I show that a focus on positions of betweenness within these relationships may lead to sites of trust and solidarity, mutual acts of support and care, and insights into mutual vulnerability. As a result, the paper first highlights positions of betweenness as a strategy to develop ethical research practices by speaking to wider contexts of social and cultural inequalities and to momentarily transfer some of the power in the research process to participants. Second, the paper demonstrates that novel insights into the dynamic and messy nature of refugees’ everyday lives are gained as insights into betweenness allow both the ‘normal’ and the ‘vulnerable’ to surface.

Resumen

Este artículo argumenta que, a través del examen reflexivo de las posiciones de intermediación en las relaciones de investigación, se reúnen percepciones que ayudan a comprender y abordar los espacios de investigación a menudo cuestionados en la investigación sobre refugiados y migración forzada. Tras la finalización de un proyecto de investigación con hombres refugiados sirios en los Países Bajos, investigo cómo las identidades múltiples y las posiciones sociales cambiantes afectan las relaciones de investigación, las consideraciones éticas y la producción de conocimiento. Con el tiempo, los hombres sirios y yo ocupamos varias posiciones debido a las intersecciones de género, generación, religión, etnia y estatus migratorio, cambiando el énfasis entre similitudes y diferencias. Muestro que un enfoque en las posiciones de intermediación dentro de estas relaciones puede conducir a sitios de confianza y solidaridad, actos mutuos de apoyo y cuidado, y conocimientos sobre la vulnerabilidad mutua. Como resultado, el documento primero destaca las posiciones de intermediación como una estrategia para desarrollar prácticas de investigación ética al hablar de contextos más amplios de desigualdades sociales y culturales y para transferir momentáneamente parte del poder en el proceso de investigación a los participantes. En segundo lugar, el documento demuestra que se obtienen nuevas percepciones sobre la naturaleza dinámica y desordenada de la vida cotidiana de los refugiados a medida que las percepciones sobre la intermediación permiten que resurjan a la superficie tanto lo ‘normal’ como lo ‘vulnerable’.

Résumé

Cet article soutient que, par le biais d’un examen réfléchi des positions d’intermédiarité dans les relations de recherche, on peut rassembler des perspectives qui permettent de comprendre et d’aborder les espaces d’étude souvent controversés concernant les réfugiés et la migration forcée. À la suite d’un projet de recherche sur des hommes qui sont des réfugiés syriens aux Pays-Bas, j’examine les effets que de multiples identités et des positions sociales changeantes peuvent avoir sur les relations de recherche, les aspects d’ordre éthique et la production du savoir. Au fil du temps, les Syriens et moi occupons diverses positions qui découlent des recoupements des genres, des générations, des religions, des ethnies et des statuts migratoires, déplaçant le centre de gravité entre les similarités et les différences. Je démontre qu’une focalization sur les positions d’intermédiarité au sein de ces relations peut mener à des sites de confiance et de solidarité, à des actes de soutien et de care réciproques, et à des perspectives de vulnérabilité mutuelle. Ainsi, l’article souligne tout d’abord les positions d’intermédiarité comme stratégie de déploiement des pratiques de recherche éthiques en adressant des contextes plus généraux d’inégalités culturelles et sociales et pour transférer temporairement aux participants.une partie du pouvoir contenu dans le processus de recherche. Ensuite, il démontre qu’on peut développer de nouvelles connaissances sur l’aspect chaotique et dynamique du quotidien des réfugiés car les perspectives sur l’intermédiarité permettent à la fois au « normal » et au « vulnérable » de se manifester.

KEYWORDS:

• Positionality
• reflexivity
• situated knowledge
• reciprocity
• research relationships
• Syrian refugees

Palabras clave:

• posicionalidad
• reflexividad
• conocimiento situado
• Reciprocidad
• Relaciones de Investigación
• Refugiados Sirios

Mots clefs:

• Positionnement
• réflexivité
• savoir situé
• réciprocité
• relation de recherche
• réfugiés syriens

1. Introduction

Identifying and understanding positions of betweenness within research relationships offers key insights that can help to transform contested research spaces in refugee research into sites of solidary, acts of care and vulnerability. This paper seeks to address a gap in the literature dealing with people in sites of forced migration and research approaches to develop locally grounded understandings of everyday lives in displacement. The paper responds to recent calls by researchers in refugee and forced migration studies to balance the focus on refugees’ vulnerabilities on the one hand, and the ‘normality’ in refugees’ lives on the other, in order to scrutinize the boundaries the refugee category produces (e.g. Bakewell, 2008; Crawley & Skleparis, 2018; Dahinden, 2016). I argue that a focus on betweenness in research relationships leads to more ethically responsible research practices as well as qualitative insights into the partially vulnerable lives of refugees.

People with refugee backgrounds frequently experience research relationships as a one-way and thus extractive relationship (Clark-Kazak, 2017). Despite an increasing interest among scholars to explore the lived experiences of refugees, the everyday spaces in which power is negotiated during the research process remain underexposed (Müller-Funk, 2020; Saltsman & Jacobsen, 2021). The challenges in research with vulnerable people are embedded in the structural realities of fieldwork (Nagar, 2014), but potential harm is not bound to only one single source as both researcher and researched have to relate to cultural, emotional and socio-political hegemonic relationships. Refugee and forced migration research, however, tends not to include refugees’ subjectivities or their worldviews (Saltsman & Jacobsen, 2021). Yet, ‘to advocate on behalf of the world’s displaced’, Jacobsen and Landau (2003, p. 202) state that studies on forced migration need to be more transparent and explicit about the way data are collected and analysed (see also Dahinden, 2016), and how everyday lives are represented (Ehrkamp, 2017).

To advance critical understandings of refugees’ lived experiences and to convey the complexity, diversity and dynamism of refugees’ lives (Clark-Kazak, 2017), then, it is increasingly important for researchers to consider which stories to report, and which not (Ehrkamp, 2017). Given the nature of qualitative research, it is reasonable to expect that the researcher’s social positions, values and ideologies affect the relationship with the participants and the research area, and thereby influence the way data are identified and reported on. Researchers therefore have a responsibility to embed their research within broader structures and relationships of inequality in order to consider different layers in the production of knowledge (see also van Hoven et al., 2011). The paper therefore critically positions and examines the researcher’s social location to identify persisting asymmetrical relationships and normalization discourses that tend to render forced migrants as fundamentally ‘different’. Although I am aware my reflexive practice cannot remove these social inequalities (England, 1994; Nagar, 2019), they do provide insight into processes that shape the social world and everyday life actions, including those who work in research (Darling, 2014; van Hoven et al., 2011).

I start by introducing the theoretical background where I position the paper within feminist debates on positionality, reflexivity and situated knowledge. I proceed by conceptualizing intercultural fieldwork as a complex and messy endeavour, and discuss how researchers working on migration tend to explain positionalities as well as the ethical and epistemological challenges migration research might produce. Moving closer to the findings, I continue with a description of the socio-political and educational context in which the study was developed and give a short overview of how the research was conducted. I then identify relevant positions of betweenness that arose in the context of this research to identify avenues for recognition and solidarity. I go on to highlight how betweenness was employed to stimulate mutual acts of care of catharsis. Last, I illustrate how positions of betweenness led to unsettling experiences of partial vulnerability of the researcher and researched. I conclude that evaluating research relationships through positions of betweenness turns the lens towards the researcher’s positionality as a form of power, which may aid researchers to develop ethical research practices in refugee and forced migration studies through relational learning.

2. Theorizing research as a situated and partial endeavour

To develop these arguments, the paper is inspired by opportunities for knowledge production due to a necessarily limited and partial positionality (Haraway, 1988). It embraces the feminist tradition that no single research method yields knowledge that is complete, unfiltered and unbiased, and no single researcher can escape one’s subjectivities as knowledge is situated, partial and ongoing (England, 1994; Haraway, 1988; Rose, 1997). Rather, understanding knowledge as situated recognizes and appreciates multiple knowledges vis-à-vis conventional ideas of objective scholarship by highlighting ‘the contingent, hierarchical, contextual, experiential and relational nature of knowledge production’ (Caretta, 2015 see also Haraway, 1988). Hence, knowledge is a product of ‘mutually immanent social relations among researcher and researched, who collaborate and settle for a mutually agreed upon knowledge’ (Caretta, 2015, p. 490).

Field research in forced migration involves particular challenges and ethical considerations due to situated and ambiguous issues of power (e.g. Clark-Kazak, 2017; Müller-Funk, 2020; Saltsman & Jacobsen, 2021). Since situated knowledge is produced ‘on the ground’ in and through relationships with people, institutional contexts and various socio-spatial structures of power (van Hoven et al., 2011), researchers in the field may be unconscious of the particular hierarchies related to space and time. It is argued that research relationships are situated in theoretical, academic and global settings ‘in which power is both visible and invisible’, and potentially harmful and oppressive research practices might remain undiscovered due to normalizing structures and actions (Ackerly & True, 2008, p. 693). To critically position oneself and one’s social location in such situations becomes essential to fight the perpetuation of social inequalities in refugee research.

Indeed, to consider how one is socially positioned is often considered in feminist qualitative research practices a precondition or control mechanism to uphold the quality of research as well as to maintain ethically sound and responsible research projects (Ackerly & True, 2008; Berger, 2015; Pillow, 2003). Positionality then becomes a strategy to not only recognize one’s own position, but also to contextualize the position of ‘those with whom we wish to stand and speak’ (Nagar, 2014, p. 97). This requires critical reflection as, following Haraway (1988, p. 584), ‘the “equality” of positioning is a denial of responsibility and critical inquiry’. Scholars point out that to critically position oneself, the act of reflexivity is arguably essential in the endeavour to work ‘towards a critical politics of power/knowledge production’ (Pillow, 2003; Rose, 1997, p. 318).

Reflexivity should develop into an interrogation of the self in order to become ‘an act of critical intervention, fostering a fundamental attitude of vigilance rather than denial’ (Hooks, 1990, p. 55). Deliberate accounts of reflexivity thus help to grasp the contextual nature of knowledge production, which engenders the transparency and trustworthiness of research. Moreover, following Nagar (2014), conscious reflexive practice may build towards ‘situated solidarities’ (see Nagar & Geiger, 2007), a conscious approach of sharing authority, vulnerability and responsibility aiming for co-produced understandings, meanings and interpretations despite different social locations in research relationships.

To establish ethical and comfortable research spaces, it is further important to consider the multiple ways in which research participants make sense of the research relationships. The researcher’s position remains ‘a significant aspect of the ways in which researchers are read and interpreted by research participants’ (Hopkins, 2007, p. 387). Potentially relevant positionalities that shape research relationships can include identity categories such as gender, race, class, age, sexual orientation, disability, immigration status, linguistic traditions and religion (e.g. Berger, 2015; Carling et al., 2014; Hopkins, 2007; Massey et al., 1993; Miled, 2019; Ryan et al., 2011; Sharp, 2005; Tarrant, 2014). Researchers have further pointed out that it is important to reflect on and be sensitive to personalities, bodies, emotions, anxiety, political and ideological viewpoints, institutional privilege, formal politics, previous research training and experiences of research encounters (e.g. Askins & Blazek, 2017; Darling, 2014; Fawcett & Hearn, 2004; Moser, 2008; Pillow, 2003; Rose, 1997; Van Ramshorst, 2020).

Several scholars, however, question whether self-reflexivity as a strategy is enough if one seeks to expose moments of vulnerability and solidarity in research relationships (Nagar, 2014, 2019; Rose, 1997; Kobayashi, 2003;). To prevent reflexivity from becoming a self-centred practice, it is argued that reflexivity should be experienced as ‘uncomfortable’ (Pillow, 2003) in order to not ‘only brush the surface’ (Kohl & McCutcheon, 2015, p. 747). Dempsey (2018), for example, seeks to engage with positions of power in research and stimulates participants to interview the interviewer. Others engage in collective, reflexive practice to reveal possible unexamined biases, for example, informally through ‘kitchen table reflexivity’ (Kohl & McCutcheon, 2015) or in a more deliberated form using ‘positionality meetings’ (Kapinga et al., 2020).

3. Exploring research relationships in migration research

To situate themselves in the ‘field’, migration researchers have conceptualized several forms of research relationships, each equipped with analytical and ethical opportunities and challenges. Traditional insider and outsider positions have been critiqued for being too static and rigid, or are said to rely too much on listing similarities and differences (Carling et al., 2014; Kohl & McCutcheon, 2015; Ryan et al., 2011; Ryan, 2015). Studies have also questioned the assumption that insider positions yield ‘better’ knowledge compared to outsider positions. Ganga and Scott (2006), for example, argue that a supposed cultural insider position of an imagined community might increase awareness among participants and researchers of subtle differences and unequal power relations in relation to other dimensions. Sharma (2018) and Darling (2014) problematize the complexities of returning in a different capacity to a field site. Although Sharma and Darling did not perceive a transformation, the way their identities were perceived influenced the research relationship significantly. Last, Merriam et al. (2001) question to what extent one can actually consider oneself insider or outsider given that we can never really know our relative position.

These insights suggest that researchers are generally not connected to the participants through only one social relation (Fawcett & Hearn, 2004). Hence, scholars highlight the value of the subjectivities that arise from unstable and fluid research relationships (Berger, 2015; Caretta, 2015). Hopkins (2007) and Tarrant (2014), following Nast’s (1994) notion of betweenness, argue for example that to productively engage with difference and similarity, researchers have to be aware and utilize positions of betweenness to inscribe meaning to the situated research encounter. Hopkins (2007) draws upon shared experiences or attributes, such as sharing a Scottish accent or having attended the same secondary school, in an effort to build rapport with young Muslim men in Scotland despite other categorical differences. In a similar vein, Carling et al. (2014) encourage migration researchers to identify context-specific markers of difference in order to utilize ‘third positions’ that arise in particular circumstances. For instance, their study identifies research encounters in which neither the researcher nor the participant is a member of the majority population, and thereby demonstrate how other shared identity markers, such as a common language or (physical) appearance, influence what specific data are produced.

What remains relatively underexposed in these discussions on research encounters is that the research relationship, as an encounter of difference itself, is subject to ongoing change (Hopkins, 2007; Nagar, 2014). Due to their unpredictability, encounters can either increase familiarity between the researcher and the researched or reinforce existing biases, stereotypes or prejudices (see Wilson, 2013). Bias, stereotypes and prejudice, as Valentine (2010) maintains, should be understood as social and material processes rooted in local conditions. They are part of people’s everyday and emotional practices to make sense of the world, in particular when feeling insecure and scared in sites of refugee settlement. Despite the mundane settings in which bias and prejudice are negotiated and performed, they may uphold problematic structural relations of dominance between groups or simplistic understandings of how everyday life is organized. Not attending to how one is situated may lead to harm or seeing participants as cultural objects. One thus risks marginalizing those being researched even further (Hooks, 1990).

Hence, individuals, including researchers, display a tendency to see ‘other’ groups as less variable than their own, and thereby risk observing, remembering or reporting on attitudes and actions that confirm a group stereotype (Valentine, 2010; Wilson, 2013). This is relevant in the context of refugee research, where the categories of which we speak frequently create boundaries and tend to essentialize the migration experience as an all-explanatory feature (e.g. Bakewell, 2008; Dahinden, 2016). So too can normalization discourses in immigrant-receiving countries such as the Netherlands be identified, in which migration-related differences are highlighted and migrants are rendered as fundamentally different compared to non-migrants (Dahinden, 2016; Ghorashi, 2020). Such processes may lead to seeing participants’ groups as homogeneous, marking certain behaviours and actions that deviate from dominant group conventions as fundamentally different. Although not a universal feature of university education, reflexive practice and academic training programmes should prepare researchers to be aware of potential biases and/or prejudices. However, reflexive practice and academic training programmes frequently fail to recognize the subjectivities embedded within social and academic backgrounds (Darling, 2014; van Hoven et al., 2011). Reflexivity can thus inform the researcher about asymmetrical or exploitative relationships, but, ultimately, reflexive practice cannot remove them (England, 1994; Nagar, 2014).

4. Situating the research project

The political climate and dominant discourses in the Netherlands on migration and refugee reception follow patterns similar to other European countries. In recent years, the Netherlands has witnessed a rise in anti-migration and anti-Islam parties, which influences socio-political debates regarding national identities and belongings. Looking particularly at refugee settlement, these debates are dominated by two seemingly competitive attitudes towards refugees (Ghorashi, 2020). On the one hand, female refugees are victimized, seen as dependent and thus in need of help (Ghorashi, 2005). Male refugees, in particular from Islamic countries, are however seen as a threat to ‘national’ identities and belongings and therefore seen as ‘undesired’ (Huizinga & van Hoven, 2021). This is problematic as both narratives keep negative attitudes in place, and thereby sustain a ‘latent yet strongly present’ othering discourse in which perceived cultural and religious identities of migrants are essentialised and their determination, aspirations and desires, as they emerge from the everyday, tend to remain unnoticed (Ghorashi, 2020, p. 91).

This study was conducted in the northern more peripheral part of the Netherlands. The area’s dominant urban centre, Groningen, can be considered relatively diverse due to its international student population and university city life. However, the region is home to a fairly homogeneous white established majority population. I grew up in this part of the Netherlands and never left. It is where I developed my research interests, influenced by my lifelong experiences in this region, experiences that cannot be defined by dislocation, dispossession or movement. As a member of the dominant culture in multiple categories, I cannot disconnect my attitudes, norms, values, actions, worldviews and ideologies from being a white, Dutch, heterosexual male who studies to obtain a doctor’s degree. My academic work, including the reflections in this paper, developed in a context of white normativity and was influenced by social norms and values belonging to the majority group in this region.

I received my entire academic training at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands (MSc Cultural Geography, PhD Cultural Geography), which has its own research traditions and conceptual ways of thinking. Musterd and de Pater (2003, p. 555) conclude that Dutch geographers in their research and teaching ‘cling to the practical, social relevance of their discipline’, and thus tend to link social issues to policy issues. This is important in the context of this paper as much work in refugee and forced migration studies, too, is often criticized for being embedded in policy objectives and thus maintaining a political agenda (Bakewell, 2008). Indeed, as Dahinden (2016) points out, policy-related studies tend to focus on particular ethnic groups or sub-groups, emphasizing differences and highlighting migration status.

Regarding the Department of Cultural Geography in Groningen, then, van Hoven et al. (2011, p. 163) stated in 2011 that the teaching environment remains ‘somewhat ignorant of the impact of the interaction between the researcher and researched’. Since then, bachelor-level courses have been touching upon themes such as difference, colonialism and othering. Since 2012/2013, the master programme in Cultural Geography includes a separate course on qualitative research methods. Here, ethical and methodological challenges embedded in positionality and social location are exposed through training in participatory research, interviewing and observation. In addition, more awareness of research relationships is reflected in the research conducted at the faculty level. However, due to the presence of other disciplines such as demography, economic geography and spatial planning within the faculty, a clear position regarding the role of interactions between the researcher and the people who are researched is lacking.

In this socio-political, personal and academic context, I became interested in the way Syrian men experienced and organized their everyday lives. Early 2016, three young Syrian men were accommodated in the street where I was living and we started to chat and ask questions. Other men I met at a social organization where I worked one day in the week or during community-building activities or social events between local residents and migrants. When I began my research project, I got to know more men through contacts with organizations such as the Dutch Council for Refugees or through my own informal network. Over time, most of the men would introduce me to their friends or family members to see if they were willing to participate in the research as well. Whereas some of the men seemed to have no interest to stay in touch after our initial meeting and the interviews, with others I began to hang out more as we played videogames, prepared Syrian food or walked in the park.

Next to such informal conversations and encounters, forty-four men consented to a sedentary interview and eighteen of them also participated in a walking interview. This paper builds on the experiences and observations during informal conversations as well as the interview transcripts. The men were aged between nineteen and thirty-six years. Most of them self-identified as Muslim, three as Kurdish, five as Christian, and eight men explicitly mentioned that they did not have any religious affiliation. Sixteen men had a technical university degree or held a bachelor’s or master’s degree from a university. Many of the younger men had been forced to interrupt their studies or were not able to start educational training because of the outbreak of the civil war.

The interviews were conducted between May and August 2016, between July and October 2018 and between December 2019 and March 2020. The interview themes related to experiences and feelings of home and belonging in public spaces (see Huizinga & van Hoven, 2018) or the strategies that Syrian men employed to renegotiate masculinities after migration (see Huizinga & van Hoven, 2021). In the following sections, I reflect upon my experiences during these periods of data collection and focus on the research relationships that developed within these contexts.

5. Navigating positions of betweenness: openings for solidarity, mutual acts of care and vulnerability

Here, I explore three dimensions that shaped research relationships during my encounters with young Syrian men. These dimensions highlight how exploring and occupying positions of betweenness may assist in maintaining more ethical and insightful research relationships. Although they are presented here in isolation, they are interlinked. Moreover, both within and between research encounters, emphases on particular dimensions were subject to change, supporting other studies on differences and similarities that consider research positions and hierarchies as fluid (e.g. Abell et al., 2006; Berger, 2015; Hopkins, 2007). First, I explore how similarities due to gender and generation, as positions of betweenness, opened up spaces for mutual recognition and solidarity, and how this led to shared responsibilities and authority in the research process. Second, I examine how betweenness helped to make sense of ethnic and religious differences, and how this in some cases led to acts of care and catharsis. Third, I zoom in on migration status as another position of betweenness that made both me and the Syrian men experience vulnerability and insecurity, which resulted in a momentary exchange of power and ownership.

5.1. “We’re not that much different from you”

In this section, I explore how an awareness of positions of betweenness may help to identify shared interests, sympathies and attitudes within research relationships during times of perceived insecurity and anxiety. I first trace back the circumstances in which the initial research encounters occurred and show how these circumstances caused us to interpret each other in more stereotypical and simplistic ways due to popular representations and media reports. I go on to illustrate how self-disclosure by myself and the men in this study, helped to recognize similar patterns in our everyday lives and to realize our motivations and incentives were not so different after all. Last, I demonstrate how these moments of recognition, at least in that moment of time, led to a sense of solidarity.

The initial conversations I had in 2016 with Syrian men in the Northern Netherlands were often marked by feelings of unfamiliarity and insecurity, which, at least for a short moment, seemed to cause both of us to fall back on more essentialising social positionings and understandings. Having just started my first research project, I remember that visiting these men in their homes caused moments of unease and anxiety. Thus far, I had only spoken to Syrian men in my capacity as a voluntary worker, or as a neighbour or fellow urban citizen during community activities. As a researcher, then, my role suddenly felt different (see also Darling, 2014). I perceived conversations to be more stiff and constrained. To not come across as unwelcoming or indifferent, I enthusiastically tried to express my interest in all that I perceived as being different. At the same time, it seemed as if I was talking about my own personal views, attitudes and practices as if they represented a larger group, i.e. typically ‘Dutch’ or common in the Northern Netherlands. Although this led to interesting and joyful conversations as we laughed about the things each one of us took for granted, there was a tendency to focus on those notions and practices that made us different, and to underappreciate those aspects of life that we organized in similar ways.

Most men, simultaneously, were trying to find their way in a new society, often felt disorientated and appeared in a heightened state of alert. Their knowledge about local everyday life practices originated from textbooks or fleeting moments of contact with local residents or social workers. Nevertheless, most were well aware of the suspicious and hostile discourses towards them, which increased their feelings of insecurity during encounters with local residents. Most men would therefore ask my opinion about the civil war in Syria, what I thought about the Islam or about Muslim people. Mostly, our conversations seem to be a means to explore each other’s attitudes, norms and values, in which our individual lives were often taken as being representative of a wider community. This, at least from my point of view, felt like a safe option at that time to handle these insecurities towards what was unknown or perceived as different. However, at the same time, as I began reading through the interview transcripts and started to reflect on our conversations, these research relationships seemed to reify simplistic understandings of how everyday life is organized; in that moment we were ‘doing difference’, even though we were trying to look for similarities (Abell et al., 2006).

Whereas my analysis focused on differences, the research encounters themselves revolved more around similarities. In terms of hobbies, responsibilities and interests, we frequently connected and recognized our shared interests and objectives as young men. We talked about mundane aspects of our lives such as cooking, food, sports (football), and video gaming. Instead of an interview, we played football together, some men showed me how to prepare Syrian or Levantine dishes or we spent the evening playing FIFA on a PlayStation. We also talked about ‘men stuff’. During their early settlement in the Netherlands, many of the Syrian men had taken an interest in hanging out with and dating girls. They wanted to hear from me how they could approach women, where they could meet them to arrange a date, but also what the best way is to engage in sexual relationships. We further connected by talking about shared experiences and views regarding personal development, familial responsibilities and career opportunities. Amongst other things, we talked about our growing care responsibilities towards our parents as they grow older, or about expectations expressed by family and friends to settle down, marry and think about family planning. At first, I felt this was disruptive to the research process, but in time I came to realize this was actually what my research was about (see also Tarrant, 2014).

I started to become more aware that as young adults, the men and I shared many aspirations, goals, priorities and needs, despite the categorical differences and contextual circumstances that set us apart. My reflections illustrate that our identities and personal biographies influenced how more structural positions were navigated and performed during research encounters (see also Berger, 2015; Moser, 2008). As we began to hang out in more informal ways, I noticed the men also began to ‘interview’ me about my life in order to gather information (see also Dempsey, 2018). Consequently, the men and I shared experiences of growing up in the same generation. We bonded over experiences and expectations related to our current life stage as a young adult man. For example, many men had grown up with an interest in ‘Western’ culture and materiality, which influenced their ambitions and desires to a considerable extent (see Huizinga & van Hoven, 2021). This was exemplified by a common desire between the men and me to learn English at a young age, which was practised through movies, music, books and video games. These mundane insights proved useful to take away the imagined boundaries that had overshadowed our understandings of each other before.

As the research setting became more intimate, our conversations involved more than just extracting information, but also generated a genuine interest in each other’s lives and a willingness to support each other. Although the similarities described in this section cannot remove the broader social context in which the research encounters occurred, they defined many of the research relationships as they began to transform research encounters into sites of solidarity. Indeed, Fawcett and Hearn (2004, p. 15) point out that ‘research otherness’ may deviate from as well as overlap with ‘societal otherness’. As moments of recognition and solidarity became visible due to the identification of positions of betweenness, a dimension of care and support surfaced in research encounters, which is further explored in the next section.

5.2. Acts of care and catharsis in the research process

Exploring and understanding positions of betweenness during my research project with young Syrian men at times led us to carry out mutual acts of care and support. In this section, I explore how these greater feelings of responsibility resulted in mutual acts of care and support. First, as research participants helped me out in my research, I assisted them with paperwork, struggles to obtain information and orientation in their new living environment. Second, I demonstrate the cathartic nature of some research encounters as some men felt more free to discuss certain emotions, concerns or topics due to my perceived outsider status.

Over the course of the research, the research encounters changed from more static interview settings to interactive and dynamic encounters that also included reciprocal activities to maximize the benefits of research (Clark-Kazak, 2017). Based on individual needs and desires, I used my position as a Dutch native man to help out the men with any questions or tasks they had. This meant that I assisted them in reading and responding to the letters they received, but also helped them to fill out their tax declaration or birth registration forms. I also used my knowledge of the local environment and my social connections to obtain clothes, furniture or household items. Over time, some of the men approached me to help them with language training or write their curriculum vitae. But also the walking interview method, for example, was used by some of the Syrian men as an opportunity to explore parts of their residential environment they had not been to yet.

Interestingly, next to support activities, research encounters helped some of the men to temporarily relieve themselves of repressed emotions, thoughts and feelings. The men I spoke to generally expected I did not identify as a religious person, and often assumed my knowledge of Islam or Muslims was limited. In clarifying my position in the research, one of the things I mentioned was that I had lived my entire life in the Northern Netherlands. Coming from a non-religious context and upbringing, I did not explicitly mention my viewpoints towards religion as I perceived this to be not important (see Kapinga et al., 2020). However, my personal appearance seemed to contain cues for many men to associate me with certain attitudes and behaviour, often related to earlier encounters they had had with young local men.

In some cases, being perceived as a religious and ethnic outsider to their affiliated group, our shared position as young men between different identity markers offered interesting avenues for conversation, inquiry and disclosure (Hopkins, 2007; Tarrant, 2014). It was often mentioned during conversations with Syrian men that they perceived social control within local Syrian or Arab communities, and were uncertain about the potential consequences of emotional self-disclosure. Hence, some felt restricted at times to express themselves or to speak their mind. On some occasions, our conversations or the interview encounters were used to talk about sensitive topics or taboos, and to express thoughts they did not want to share within Syrian or Arab communities. Consider Hevdem and Mustafa, for example,

Actually, I never mention to any Syrian guy that I’m an atheist. But I think most of them notice that I’m not following Islam rules strictly. I have an Islamic background, I know a lot of Islam. I can read Quran, but I don’t believe anymore. I don’t think something exists. I passed Ramadan. I don’t go to mosque. I drink, that’s not allowed, and I sleep with girls sometimes when I have the chance. All that stuff is forbidden […] don’t tell anyone that I’m an atheist.

(Hevdem, 30, university degree, single)

Yes, I do know Syrian people, but I always clash with them. The thoughts that I have are not accepted by them. Do you understand? Ideologically, we clash with each other. That is why I’m not being accepted as a member of this group. But I don’t mind at all. It is fine. It’s a shame, but I can’t regret it […] I’d rather speak with Dutch people anyway. Then I don’t have to think about my words. Like here with you in this interview, I feel you understand more what I mean.

(Mustafa, 30, no educational certificate, married in the Netherlands)

It is likely the information that was shared by Hevdem and Mustafa might have been different had they been talking to someone they perceived as an ‘insider’. My position as a religious and ethnic outsider seemed to prompt a conversation about their personal opinions about religion. Indeed, Miled (2019) describes how her religious identity was only part of a broader spectrum of identities that influenced the relationship between her and her participants. ‘Being visibly Muslim’ (p.7), she writes, gave some participants a sense of familiarity during her research, which helped her build rapport and establish a partial connection in order to gather situated, meaningful insights (Haraway, 1988). In the context of this study, being ‘visibly non-Muslim’ seemed to elicit familiarity and responses from some Syrian men whose relationship with religion remained somewhat ambiguous, and who felt the need to share this with another person.

The quotes seem to suggest Hevdem and Mustafa experienced parts of the interview as what England (1994) describes as a cathartic or restorative experience. Other researchers, too, have scrutinized the impact of a researcher who is perceived as sympathetic and emotionally receptive towards the participants’ situation (see e.g. Moser, 2008). Some of the men seemed to appreciate opening up to somebody outside their communities and talk about topics considered sensitive, taboo or inappropriate, yet of personal importance to them. Due to limited social networks outside ethnic lines (in particular in the early stages of settlement), or the withholding of psychological treatment, they relied on the benevolence of others to talk about personal topics. Not only did family and friends of the men in this study often reside in countries such as Turkey, Egypt or Lebanon, they explicitly mentioned being hesitant or ashamed to openly discuss their emotions, experiences and thoughts with those back home.

The research encounter – my intrusion into the emotional sphere of the Syrian men – was therefore not solely an uncomfortable or negative experience, at least not at that particular time. At the same time, I am aware that the realization by the men that one experiences non-belonging to fellow Syrians in the Northern Netherlands, as well as feeling excluded in everyday life by a majority population, might be a painful one and could reinforce feelings of social isolation. These moments of catharsis therefore simultaneously reinforced a hierarchy by maintaining a degree of dependency between researcher and participant.

5.3. Embracing vulnerability in research encounters

This final section examines positions of betweenness in research relationships as I zoom in on vulnerable and unsettling moments. In the previous two sections, I illustrated how research encounters may function as sites of solidarity and care. Migration status, as another position of betweenness, caused conflict and vulnerability within research relationships, which blurred and, at times, destabilized power in and ownership of the research process. I illustrate how the migration experience was seen by Syrian men as an important life transition, which contrasted with societal narratives around young refugee men in the Netherlands. I then show how the refugee label over time led to disappointment and annoyance, which put the men in study in a liminal and thus vulnerable position. In response, my non-migrant status was problematized by some men due to contemporary politics in the Netherlands and I illustrate how this lead to key moments of inquiry.

Recurring themes in the lives of many Syrian men were a loss of status and a perceived lack of recognition in the Netherlands regarding life-course achievements (see Huizinga & van Hoven, 2021). For them, the migration experience played a significant role in their social identity formation processes. Migration was often linked to a perceived higher status as opposed to a general discourse of non-migrants as ‘lazy, unenterprising and undesirable’ (see also Massey et al., 1993, p. 453). Migration became ingrained in the identities of many men and was associated with success, ingenuity and perseverance.

In popular representations in the Netherlands, then, Syrian male refugees were frequently represented as a threat to the nation-state and its citizens, being depicted as welfare seekers, terrorists or rapists (Ghorashi, 2020). As Malkki (1995) observed earlier, representations of true suffering and vulnerability seemed to be reserved for women and children. Hence, many Syrian men felt the legitimacy of their asylum claim was discussed, dividing them into ‘real’ refugees and fortune seekers (see also Crawley & Skleparis, 2018). Social discourses around ‘good’ or ‘deserving’ refugees influenced the way I perceived Syrian men and how they perceived their own position, but also how their position was misperceived.

During my first days in the field, I deliberately chose to avoid the term ‘refugee’ during conversations and research encounters. My aim was to avoid unnecessary harm or discontent given the ambiguous way refugees were represented by media, politicians and policymakers. However, at the outset of the study my approach led to negative responses from some men. The following excerpt from my field notes in 2016 suggests that Marwan is very unhappy with my decision to address him as a migrant instead of a refugee,

As soon as Marwan sits down opposite of me, I grab my notepad, my pen and the recording equipment. Before we begin, I quickly run through the aims of the study with him to verify if I still have his consent for the interview or if he has any further questions regarding our interview. During the previous four interviews, I had used the term migrant instead of refugee as I was unsure how participants would react to be called a refugee. As soon as I mention the word ‘migrant’, however, I notice a sudden change of posture with Marwan. I pause for a millisecond to look at him, and I sense something is the matter. As I continue to explain, Marwan interrupts me and says: ‘We are refugees, you have to call us refugees! I did not go to the Netherlands like other migrants. Not for jobs, a career. Not for uitkering (social security benefits) and also not for girls. No, I am here to be safe from the Syrian war and the killings’.

(Field notes interview Marwan, 21, basic education certificate, in a relationship)

Whereas I was afraid that the term ‘refugee’ might be perceived as stigmatizing, Marwan seemed to think I did not consider him to be a ‘worthy’ or ‘genuine’ refugee. Unaware of my motives, he seemed agitated by my decision, which continued to impact our understanding, but also the flow and depth of the interview. As he remained hesitant to talk about his personal life, I felt ashamed and upset about what happened. At the same time, this incident seemed to touch upon the core of my study, which focused on perceived inequalities by Syrian men in the Northern Netherlands. To me, Marwan’s outburst felt as a partial but genuine connection, which produced an important personal insight for me as a researcher (Haraway, 1988). Hence, it was also a productive learning experience as a consequence of making ‘mistakes’.

As I met up with Marwan for a follow-up interview two years later, I sensed a different attitude. Whereas he had found his refugee status an essential part of his identity before, that same part of his identity two years later seemed to hold a different meaning due to stigmatization and marginalization. Talking about his experiences in the past two years, he says,

I am not saying it is annoying to show yourself over and over again, but I do say that at some moments, or in particular situations, it was really tiring for me. It did not happen so often that it became unbearable, but it got up to the point where I was thinking: ‘Hey, I am also a human being, why do you think you are in a higher position because you are Dutch and I am a refugee?’

(Marwan, 23, University degree, single)

For Marwan and other young Syrian men, the refugee label was important to justify their migration to and settlement in the Netherlands. At the same time, the refugee label became a burden as they tried to establish their place in a society where they experience exclusion. These insights illustrate that the ‘refugee’ category cannot capture the complexity and messiness of Syrian men’s everyday lives. Rather, this label seem to reinforce existing social and cultural inequalities and produce new boundaries. Indeed, Crawley and Skleparis (2018, p. 59) write that ‘categories have consequences’ and haunt people even if they try to escape from them. Ghorashi (2005) furthers adds that the Dutch asylum procedure fails to recognize the inherent qualities and capacities of forced migrants. By not considering the risks they need to take and the agency they need to employ in order to arrive in a destination country, they are fixed by categories in time and space (Ehrkamp, 2017). By taking a step back as the researcher and giving voice to the participants on a topic of their expertise, these insights may surface.

Migration status, as a position of betweenness, was simultaneously used by some of the men to put me in a vulnerable position and force me to take a step back. Considering contemporary politics and positionality (Van Ramshorst, 2020), my position as a ‘stayer’ or ‘non-migrant’ became increasingly visible. It was perceived as typical for other Dutch people the men had met and had been in contact with. In their views, their own personal attributes, experiences and qualities had developed partly in relation to migration, but were hardly recognized or valued by local residents or social workers within Dutch institutions who generally did not have experience with migration.

During several research encounters, then, I felt I was made a scapegoat by the men in the study. Based on my non-migrant status and experience as a local, some of them brought up my intentions and capacities as a researcher. They were surprised to hear why I was interested in them and wondered why I wanted to know about their daily routines and practices. In particular for university-educated participants who had travelled or worked abroad for several years, my perceived achievements and my status as an academic and PhD candidate were at times met with doubt and criticism: ‘What was I supposed to know about living abroad!’ or, ‘How should I possibly be able to understand the consequences of migration and war!’. By sarcastically stating ‘you’re just another brown-haired, blue-eyed, hippy Dutch person, what do you know!’, one man deliberately problematized my position.

Such comments affected me personally and made me question the legitimacy and quality of my study. By pointing out my lack of experience with international migration and living abroad, they touched upon a sensitive matter in my personal life. For some time, studying and living abroad appeared to be the rule rather than the exception in my social networks, and I regret shying away from such opportunities. My insecurities seemed to place me in a subordinate position, at least in that moment, which made me doubt my capacities as a researcher who is interested in a phenomenon with which he does not have direct experience.

Due to the exchange of power in that moment, the research encounters developed into sites of personal transformation and learning as I began to let go of control and perceive my position in the research differently (Caretta, 2015). Being sensitive as a researcher to these underlying dynamics seemed to facilitate more honest and ‘raw’ relationships and was, to a certain extent, useful to apply nuance to the societal differences and similarities between us (Hopkins, 2007; Tarrant, 2014). By being perceived as the embodiment of a restrictive and exclusive Dutch society, the interviews produced relevant insights into the uneven geographies of everyday life that for me as a member of the majority group were difficult to grasp, let alone understand. Critical reflexive practice as well as recognition of the ability of the men in my study to reflect on my position were therefore crucial to circumventing a Western discourse in which sedentary living remains the norm.

6. Conclusion and discussion

This paper argues that ongoing and critical reflexive practice towards positions of betweenness in research relationships in refugee and forced migration studies, addresses the often contested research spaces and the social and cultural inequalities researchers otherwise risk to perpetuate. Although individual attempts that seek to change structural inequalities of power are per definition incomplete and unfinished (England, 1994; Nagar, 2014, 2019), the paper demonstrates that within systems of injustices and between different social locations, exploring and understanding positions of betweenness in research relationships may help to secure ethical research practices and novel empirical insights into refugees’ everyday lives. I began to illustrate how an awareness of positions of betweenness may transform research encounters into sites of solidarity. I went on to show that feelings of camaraderie and shared interests may lead to mutual acts of care and catharsis. Last, I gave insight into the ways betweenness may expose vulnerabilities that otherwise might not have been exposed, and how these vulnerabilities may lead to situated forms of knowledge and learning.

Consequently, the paper evidences that involuntary or forced movements of people are always only one aspect of much larger constellations of socio-political and cultural practices, processes and hegemonies (see Bakewell, 2008). By being sensitive to the blurry boundaries between researcher and participants, I highlight a broader spectrum of social and cultural relationships that frequently remains underexposed in positionality statements in refugee and forced migration studies (Ehrkamp, 2017; Müller-Funk, 2020; Saltsman & Jacobsen, 2021), but are nevertheless important to understand lived experiences of people and to disarticulate discourses on the ‘other’. At the same time, the paper demonstrates that an investigation into refugees’ lived experiences should not be ‘divorced from the human realities of displacement and dispossession’ (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh et al., 2014, p. 16). Nor should the outcome endanger the legitimacy of participants’ claims for refugee status (Bakewell, 2008). By emphasizing similarities in research relationships too much, and by not addressing uneven social and cultural relationships that continue to shape societies and groups, researchers actually risk to ‘do difference’, as Abell et al. (2006) point out.

To conclude, researchers in refugee and forced migration research should strive to find a balance in research relationships by conceptualizing social and cultural positions in the research process not only as fluid but also as ambiguous. Such attempts may lead to situated feelings of care, vulnerability and solidarity (Nagar & Geiger, 2007) that are pivotal in challenging the ethical and methodological quandaries identified by research in refugee and forced migration studies (e.g. Clark-Kazak, 2017; Müller-Funk, 2020; Saltsman & Jacobsen, 2021). The insights from this paper illustrate this can be a time-consuming, daunting or uneasy endeavour, as critical reflexive practice constitutes an investigation into the unexplored and potentially uncomfortable (see also Kohl & McCutcheon, 2015; Pillow, 2003). At the same time, the production of knowledge is embedded in complex networks, including actors with contradictory agendas and priorities (Darling, 2014; van Hoven et al., 2011). It is up to researchers to explore and make decisions regarding the contextual benefits of reflexive practice, and to consider when to ‘enable’ and ‘disable’ critical reflexive practice in the research process.

Acknowledgments

I could not have written this paper without the engagement of the amazing men that participated in this study. Thank you for your honesty and support. I would also like to thank Bettina van Hoven and three anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and critical remarks on an earlier version of the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).