Blog post by Eva Van Belle over at the NCCR on the move on our meta-analysis and experiment on immigrant-native wage gaps:
People with a migration background face many barriers in the labour market. Research has shown that they have fewer chances of being invited for job interviews or being offered a promotion, and when they do get a job, they may well earn less or face worse working conditions. Much less is known about other forms of labour market discrimination, however. It seems therefore interesting to investigate whether immigrants face wage discrimination and whether people think this wage gap is fair.
Back in 2018, Daniel Auer and Didier Ruedin were conducting a research experiment on prejudice in the Swiss housing market. That same summer, a footballer at the FIFA World Cup made a controversial gesture that got the nation talking. After he did so, our researchers observed a significant drop in ethnic discrimination. Were the two phenomena connected?
A joint initiative of the IMISCOE Standing Committee Reflexivities in Migration Studies and the nccr – on the move
Research about migration has historically been shaped and dominated by a Western, state- and immigration-centred perspective. An early challenge of this perspective was Wimmer’s and Glick Schiller’s article ‘Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Science’, published twenty years ago in 2002. The diverse debates address not only methodological nationalism but also other problematic features (e.g. the ‘ethnic lens’) that frame mobile humans as problematic and migration as exceptional. A growing number of scholars furthermore criticize the geopolitics of knowledge production in Migration Studies, for example by examining the researchers’ positionalities or exposing the colourblindness or postcoloniality of migration research in Europe. In order not to reproduce essentialist views and hegemonic power relations, reflexive migration researchers have proposed participatory methods. Contributions to this series may address the development of the field at large, zoom in on specific conceptual debates or methodological approaches, or reflect on individual experiences. Blog posts could also examine the impact of reflexive migration studies on certain disciplines or discuss the operationalization of the rather theoretical ‘reflexive’ considerations in qualitative or quantitative research. Equally welcome are contributions challenging certain assumptions widely shared in ‘critical’ / ‘reflexive’ approaches to migration and mobility, or that raise hitherto little considered issues.
International travel restrictions introduced during the pandemic constrained our freedom to travel. To understand how, we must look at the interaction between immigration status, citizenship, employment, and place of residence, write Lorenzo Piccoli, Jelena Dzankic, Timothy Jacob-Owens and Didier Ruedin
Restricting international mobility during the coronacrisis
To contain Covid-19, every government in the world has introduced restrictions on international movement. From late January 2020, these restrictions initially targeted travellers from China. But they quickly expanded to other East Asian countries, then to Iran, Italy, and soon to the entire world. We can see these policies as part of a global ‘regime of mobility’, wherein states have the power to halt movement across international borders.
The NCCR on the move is going to run a blog series on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on junior researchers. This is your opportunity to tell the world how Covid-19 disrupted mobility and may have disrupted your career.