Talking to Migrants: Invisibility, Vulnerability, and Protection

References

• Ahern, K. 2014. Gatekeepers: People who can (and do) stop your research in its tracks. SAGE Research Methods Cases. London: SAGE. Accessed July 16, 2018. http://study.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/gatekeepers-people-who-can-and-do-stop-your-research-in-its-tracks.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Andrade, J., A. Ávila, and L. Díaz de León. 2017. Informe sobre las condiciones de la Estación Migratoria del Instituto Nacional de Migración en Acayucan, Veracruz. Mexico City: Instituto para la Seguridad y la Democracia.
   Google Scholar
• Angulo-Pasel, C. 2018. The journey of Central American women migrants: Engendering the mobile commons. Mobilities 13 (6):894–909. doi:10.1080/17450101.2018.1498225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barja Coria, J. 2015. Derechos cautivos: La situación de las personas migrantes y sujetas a protección internacional en los centros de detención migratoria. Mexico City: Sin Fronteras.
   Google Scholar
• Bartram, D. 2015. Forced migration and “rejected alternatives”: A conceptual refinement. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 13 (4):439–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basok, T., and M. L. Rojas Wiesner. 2017. Winning a battle, losing the war: Migrant rights advocacy and its “influence” on the Mexican state. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 42 (1):17–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basok, T., and M. L. Rojas Wiesner. 2018. Precarious legality: Regularizing Central American migrants in Mexico. Ethnic and Racial Studies 41 (7):1274–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beebeejaun, Y., C. Durose, J. Rees, J. Richardson, and L. Richardson. 2015. Public harm or public value? Towards coproduction in research with communities. Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy 33 (3):552–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bivand Erdal, M., and C. Oeppen. 2018. Forced to leave? The discursive and analytical significance of describing migration as forced and voluntary. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44 (6):981–98. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block, K., E. Riggs, and N. Haslam. 2013a. Ethics in research with refugees and asylum seekers: Processes, power and politics. In Values and vulnerabilities: The ethics of research with refugees and asylum seekers, ed. K. Block, E. Riggs, and N. Haslam, 3–19. Toowong: Australian Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Block, K., D. Warr, L. Gibbs, and E. Riggs. 2013b. Addressing ethical and methodological challenges in research with refugee-background young people: Reflections from the field. Journal of Refugee Studies 26 (1):69–87. doi:10.1093/jrs/fes002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, A. 2016. Alternatives to detention at a crossroads: Humanisation or criminalisation? Refugee Survey Quarterly 35 (1):29–46. doi:10.1093/rsq/hdv018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosworth, M., and M. Guild. 2008. Governing through migration control: Security and citizenship in Britain. British Journal of Criminology 48 (6):703–19. doi:10.1093/bjc/azn059.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosworth, M., C. Hoyle, and M. M. Dempsey. 2011. Researching trafficked women: On institutional resistance and the limits to feminist reflexivity. Qualitative Inquiry 17 (9):769–79. doi:10.1177/1077800411423192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brigden, N. 2018. A visible geography of invisible journeys: Central American migration and the politics of survival. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies 4 (1–2):71–88.
   Google Scholar
• Burgess-Proctor, A. 2015. Methodological and ethical issues in feminist research with abused women: Reflections on participants’ vulnerability and empowerment. Women’s Studies International Forum 48:124–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, L. M., N. J. Gray, Z. A. Meletis, J. G. Abbott, and J. J. Silver. 2006. Gatekeepers and keymasters: Dynamic relationships of access in geographical fieldwork. The Geographical Review 96 (1):97–121. doi:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2006.tb00389.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, R., and A. E. Adams. 2009. Why do rape survivors volunteer for face-to-face interviews? A meta-study of victims’ reasons for and concerns about research participation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24 (3):395–405. doi:10.1177/0886260508317192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, R., A. E. Adams, S. M. Wasco, C. E. Ahrens, and T. Sefl. 2010. ‘What has it been like for you to talk with me today?’: The impact of participating in interview research on rape survivors. Violence against Women 16 (1):60–83. doi:10.1177/1077801209353576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casillas, R. 2011. The dark side of globalized migration: the rise and peak of criminal networks—The case of Central Americans in Mexico. Globalizations 8 (3):295–310. doi:10.1080/14747731.2011.576846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CCINM (Consejo Ciudadano del Instituto Nacional de Migración). 2017. Personas en detención migratoria en México: Misión de Monitoreo de Estaciones Migratorias y Estancias Provisionales del Instituto Nacional de Migración. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Migración.
   Google Scholar
• Chavez, L. M., T. V. Chavez, A. G. Todd, E. Brown, and C. Pérez-Bustillo. 2017. The need to open doors and hearts: The detention of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in the United States and Mexico. University of Dayton Law Review 42 (3):359–410.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, T. 2010. Gaining and maintaining access: Exploring the mechanisms that support and challenge the relationship between gatekeepers and researchers. Qualitative Social Work 10 (4):485–502. doi:10.1177/1473325009358228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CNDH (Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos). 2009. Informe especial sobre los casos de secuestro en contra de migrantes. Mexico City: CNDH. http://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/doc/Informes/Especiales/2009_migr a.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• CNDH (Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos). 2011. Informe especial sobre secuestro de migrantes en México. Mexico City: CNDH. http://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/doc/Informes/Especiales/2011_sec migrantes.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• CNDH (Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos). 2016. Recomendación No. 22/2016 sobre el caso de violaciones a los derechos humanos a la libertad personal, de tránsito, a la no discriminación, a la integridad y seguridad personal, y al acceso a la justicia en agravio de V1, V2, V3 y V4 de nacionalidad mexicana. 22 May. Mexico City: CNDH. http://informe.cndh.org.mx/uploads/menu/10070/Rec_2016_022.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• CNDH (Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos). 2019. Informe especial sobre la situación de las estaciones migratorias en México. Hacia un nuevo modelo alternativa a la detención. Mexico City: CNDH. https://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/default/files/documentos/2019-11/Informe-Estaciones-Migratorias-2019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Crowhurst, I. 2013. The fallacy of the instrumental gate? Contextualising the process of gaining access through gatekeepers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16 (6):463–75. doi:10.1080/13645579.2013.823282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunliffe, A. L., and R. Alcadipani. 2016. The politics of access in fieldwork: Immersion, backstage dramas, and deception. Organizational Research Methods 19 (4):535–61. doi:10.1177/1094428116639134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daley, K. 2015. The wrongs of protection: Balancing protection and participation in research with marginalised young people. Journal of Sociology 51 (2):121–38. doi:10.1177/1440783313482365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Haene, L., H. Grietens, and K. Verschueren. 2010. Holding harm: Narrative methods in mental health research on refugee trauma. Qualitative Health Research 20 (12):1664–76. doi:10.1177/1049732310376521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doering-White, J. 2018. The shifting boundaries of “best interest”: Sheltering unaccompanied Central American minors in transit through Mexico. Children and Youth Services Review 92:39–47. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.01.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Düvell, F., A. Triandafyllidou, and B. Vollmer. 2010. Ethical issues in irregular migration research in Europe. Population, Space and Place 16:227–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyregrov, K., A. Dyregrov, and M. Raundalen. 2000. Refugee families’ experience of research participation. Journal of Traumatic Stress 13 (3):413–26. doi:10.1023/A:1007777006605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edens, J. F., M. Epstein, P. G. Stiles, and N. G. Poythress Jr. 2011. Voluntary consent in correctional settings: Do offenders feel coerced to participate in research? Behavioral Sciences & the Law 29 (6):771–95. doi:10.1002/bsl.1014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elks, M. 1993. The right to participate in research studies. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 122 (2):130–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, B. H., M. Kia-Keating, S. A. Yusuf, A. Lincoln, and A. Nur. 2007. Ethical research in refugee communities and the use of community participatory methods. Transcultural Psychiatry 44 (3):459–81. doi:10.1177/1363461507081642.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fisher, J. A. 2013. Expanding the frame of “voluntariness” in informed consent: Structural coercion and the power of social and economic context. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23 (4):355–79. doi:10.1353/ken.2013.0018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, P. 2012. Ethics in qualitative research: ‘Vulnerability’, citizenship and human rights. Ethics and Social Welfare 6 (1):2–17. doi:10.1080/17496535.2011.591811.
   Google Scholar
• FitzGerald, D. S. 2019. Refugee beyond reach: How rich democracies repel asylum seekers. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gifford, S. 2013. To respect or protect? Whose Values shape the ethics of refugee research? In Values and vulnerabilities: The ethics of research with refugees and asylum seekers, ed. K. Block, E. Riggs, and N. Haslam, 41–59. Toowong: Australian Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gillam, L. 2013. Ethical considerations in refugee research: What guidance do formal research ethics documents offer? In Values and vulnerabilities: The ethics of research with refuges and asylum seekers, ed. K. Block, E. Riggs, and N. Haslam, 21–38. Toowong: Australian Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Golash-Boza, T. M. 2015. Deported: Immigrant policing, disposable labor, and global capitalism. New York and London: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harrell-Bond, B., and E. Voutira. 2007. In search of ‘invisible’ actors: Barriers to access in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies 20 (2):281–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hugman, R., L. Bartolomei, and E. Pittaway. 2011. Human agency and the meaning of informed consent: Reflections on research with refugees. Journal of Refugee Studies 24 (4):655–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy-Macfoy, M. 2013. ‘It’s important for the students to meet someone like you.’ How perceptions of the researcher can affect gaining access, building rapport and securing cooperation in school-based research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16 (6):491–502. doi:10.1080/13645579.2013.823294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakeman, R., S. McAndrew, L. MacGabhann, and T. Warne. 2013. ‘That was helpful … no one has talked to me about that before’: Research participation as a therapeutic activity. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 22 (1):76–84. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0349.2012.00842.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lammers, E. 2007. Researching refugees: Preoccupations with power and questions of giving. Refugee Survey Quarterly 26 (3):72–81.
   Google Scholar
• Legerski, J.-P., and S. L. Bunnell. 2010. The risks, benefits, and ethics of trauma-focused research participation. Ethics & Behavior 20 (6):429–42. doi:10.1080/10508422.2010.521443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leutert, S. 2018. The impact of securitization on Central American migrants. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Policy Research Project Report Number 199. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
   Google Scholar
• Liamputtong, P. 2007. Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, C., and C. McDowell. 2007. Beyond ‘do no harm’: The challenge of constructing ethical relationships in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies 20 (2):299–319. doi:10.1093/jrs/fem008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mainwaring, C., and S. J. Silverman. 2017. Detention-as-spectacle. International Political Sociology 11:21–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, L. L. 2012. ‘Catch and remove’: Detention, deterrence, and discipline in US noncitizen family detention practice. Geopolitics 17 (2):312–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez, C. 2019. Juntos, todos juntos: Crónica del primer intento colectivo de saltar la frontera estadounidense. Logroño: Pepitas.
   Google Scholar
• Martínez, Ó. 2016. Los migrantes que no importan. 3rd ed. Mexico City: Surplus Ediciones.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, T. 2019. Empire of borders: The expansion of the US border around the world. London and New York: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Minas, I. H. 2004. Detention and deception: Limits of ethical acceptability in detention research. Monash Bioethics Review 23 (4):69–77. doi:10.1007/BF03351421.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mitchell, G. 2017. Global advocacy: Civil society engagement of government on alternatives to immigration detention. In Challenging immigration detention: Academics: Activists, and policy-makers, ed. M. J. Flynn and M. B. Flynn, 120–40. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Mountz, A., K. Coddington, R. T. Catania, and J. M. Loyd. 2012. Conceptualizing detention: Mobility, containment, bordering, and exclusion. Progress in Human Geography 37 (4):522–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterie, M. 2018. Deprivation, frustration, and trauma: Immigration detention centres as prisons. Refugee Survey Quarterly 37 (3):279–306. doi:10.1093/rsq/hdy008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradilla, A. 2019. Caravana: Cómo el éxodo centroamericano salió de la clandestinidad. Mexico City: Debate.
   Google Scholar
• Presidencia de la República. 2011. Decreto por el que se expide la Ley de Migración. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 25 May. http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5190774&fecha=25/05/2011.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, H. E., B. Ludwig, and L. Braslow. 2016. Forced migration. In International handbook of migration and population distribution, ed. M. J. White, 605–25.  Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Roesch-Marsh, A., A. Gadda, and D. Smith. 2011. ‘It’s a tricky business!’: The impact of identity work in negotiating research access. Qualitative Social Work 11 (3):249–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryo, E. 2019. Understanding immigration detention: Causes, conditions, and consequences. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 15:97–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez, G. 2017. Critical perspectives on Clandestine migration facilitation: An overview of migrant smuggling research. Journal on Migration and Human Security 5 (1):9–27.
   Google Scholar
• Sardiza Miranda, Á., A. Calvo Valderrama, and M. Kissenkoetter. 2019. Painting the full picture: Persistent data gaps on internal displacement associated with violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Geneva: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Schmelz, A. F. 2012. Human rights and refugees in times of increasing human mobility. In Refugees worldwide, Volume 1: Global perspectives, ed. D. Elliott and U. A. Segal, 147–72. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• SEGOB (Secretaría de Gobernación). 2012. Acuerdo por el que se emiten las Normas para el funcionamiento de las Estaciones Migratorias y Estancias Provisionales del Instituto Nacional de Migración. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 8 November. http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5276965&fecha=08/11/2012.
   Google Scholar
• Sherman-Stokes, S. 2019. Reparations for Central American Refugees. Denver Law Review 96 (3):585–634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stumpf, J. 2006. The crimmigration crisis: Immigrants, crime, and sovereign power. American University Law Review 56 (2):367–420.
   Google Scholar
• Tyldum, G. 2012. Ethics or access? Balancing informed consent against the application of institutional, economic or emotional pressures in recruiting respondents for research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 15 (3):199–210. doi:10.1080/13645579.2011.572675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Liempt, I., and V. Bilger. 2018. Methodological and ethical dilemmas in research among smuggled migrants. In Qualitative research in European migration studies, ed. R. Zapata-Barrero and E. Yalaz, 269–86. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Vogt, W. A. 2018. Lives in transit: Violence and intimacy on the migrant journey. Oakland: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• von Benzon, N., and L. van Blerk. 2017. Research relationships and responsibilities: ‘Doing’ research with ‘vulnerable’ participants. Social & Cultural Geography 18 (7):895–905. doi:10.1080/14649365.2017.1346199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheatley, A. C., and R. Gomberg-Muñoz. 2016. Keep moving: Collective agency along the migrant trail. Citizenship Studies 20 (3–4):396–410. doi:10.1080/13621025.2016.1158351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J. 2011. Protection as subjection. City 15 (3–4):414–28. doi:10.1080/13604813.2011.595919.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, S., (coord.). 2013. Diagnóstico del Instituto Nacional de Migración: Hacia un sistema de rendición de cuentas en pro de los derechos de las personas migrantes en México. Mexico City: Instituto para la Seguridad y la Democracia.
   Google Scholar