From the multi-sited to the in-between: ethnography as a way of delving into migrants’ transnational relationships

Abstract

Multi-sited ethnography has been extensively applied to migrants’ transnational family life and to the underlying care practices. Its methodological underpinnings and dilemmas, though, are relatively under-reflected. How can the relational and affective spaces between migrants and left-behind kin be ethnographically appreciated? Against this question, I revisit my fieldwork on a migration flow between Ecuador and Italy. This is an instance of the development of transnational social relationships, based on the circulation of material, cognitive and emotional resources, whereby people living ‘here’ and ‘there’ negotiate mutual affections, concerns and expectations. The challenge for ethnographers, under similar circumstances, lies less in staying in more sites than in sensing and understanding the relationships between them and the social practices on which this connectedness relies. The attendant methodological implications are discussed, ultimately pointing to the significance of relationality and in-betweenness for ethnographies of migration, transnationalism and mobilities.

Keywords:

• multi-sited ethnography
• transnational relationships
• circulation
• relationality
• in-betweenness
• methodological implications

Acknowledgements

Preliminary versions of this paper were helpfully discussed at a session of the IMISCOE Annual Conference in Amsterdam (“Transnational family care practices”, August 2012) and at a COMPAS - EASA workshop in Oxford (“Fielding challenges, challenging the field: the methodologies of mobility”, September 2013). Furthermore, valuable comments on earlier drafts were provided by A. Brighenti, E. Gallo, R. Grillo, N. Harney, P. Kivisto and L. Sood. Last, I benefited from the comments of the three anonymous reviewers of the International Journal of Social Research Methodology.

Notes

1. For an overview of international migration from Ecuador, including its demographics in Italy as a receiving country, see OIM (2012).

2. Interestingly, though, scant literature expands upon their methodological interconnections. Exceptions include Fitzgerald (2006); Boccagni (2012); Amelina and Faist (2012).

3. Such criteria, as tentatively listed by the author, are as follows: ‘Worthy topic – Rich rigor – Sincerity – Credibility – Resonance – Significant contribution – Ethical – Meaningful coherence’ (Tracy, 2010, p. 840).