Having discussed the conceptualisation of networks, and explored my epistemological contribution, in the previous chapter, now, this chapter turns to methodology and the techniques that underpin my empirical research. The overall goal of this book is to present my approach to doing qualitative SNA in migration research, through the technique of telling relational stories and drawing pictures of interpersonal connections. This chapter summarises how that approach evolved slowly over the last 20 years of research with migrants.

As discussed in the introductory chapter, my work focuses primarily on London, a city shaped by centuries of migration (Back & Sinha, 2018; Panayi, 2020), to where I moved in the 1990s. Working with migrants who arrived in London at different historical periods draws attention not only to place but also to change over time (Massey, 2007). As argued elsewhere, ‘Migration not only involves spatial but also temporal movement. Migrants are not only moving between countries, they are also negotiating these environments over time’ (Ryan, Lopez Rodriguez and Trevena, 2016). However, as noted by other scholars, it is notoriously difficult to research temporal dynamism (Adam, 2000; McKie et al, 2002; Collins and Shubin, 2015; King and Della Puppa, 2021; Lubbers et al, 2021). Hence, the first aim of this chapter is to discuss my attempts to research change over time. Influenced by Elder's work, I approach time in two ways: first, by drawing on a large corpus of qualitative data collected with migrants who arrived at different historical times, and second, by using longitudinal approaches to reinterview some migrants on several occasions to understand changes in biographical time.

In bringing together migrant stories from across a wide range of research projects, over many years, I faced the challenge of how to present these rich and varied stories in a meaningful way that conveys the diversity of experiences, while being engaging and digestible for readers. Thus, the second aim of this chapter is to explore the use of case studies or thick descriptions (see Thomson, 2007; Phoenix and Brannen, 2014; Stanley, 2015), in making sense of a large and diverse data sets.

Although interviewing individual migrants, it is apparent that their stories present complex relationalities. As Elder also notes, individuals do not experience sociohistorical contexts as isolated actors. The notion of ‘linked lives’ (Elder et al, 2003) highlights the salience of interpersonal relationships in individual biographies.

Introduction

Migration poses particular opportunities for network researchers. Migration changes social relationships as migrants navigate new ties in new places as well as negotiating existing long-distance ties. However, that is not to suggest migrant exceptionalism (Eve, 2022). While acknowledging the specificities of international migration, I have argued that we can also draw upon the concepts and tools of network researchers who have worked with non-migrants.

This book has sought to contribute to migration studies by applying qualitative SNA to gain nuanced understandings of dynamic relationships, the resources flowing between particular social ties and the relative social location of the actors within specific spatio-temporal contexts. In so doing, I have also sought to advance the field of qualitative SNA by developing my approach of telling network stories.

While presenting the many advantages of this approach, it is important to acknowledge that doing qualitative network analysis and applying the framework of telling network stories is relatively intensive and timeconsuming. It is necessary to invest time in building rapport with participants, especially when seeking to remain in contact with them over a lengthy period of time. Beyond the data generation phase, the analysis of such rich data, especially including visual as well as oral data, can be quite labourintensive. Nonetheless, as I hope to have demonstrated in this book, such an investment of time and effort is undoubtedly worthwhile.

In this concluding chapter, I begin by summarising the contribution of my epistemological, methodological and empirical approaches. I then briefly consider the implications of recent, ‘unsettling events’ (Kilkey and Ryan, 2021), including Brexit, drawing upon follow-up communication with some my participants. Finally, I reflect upon possible future directions for my work and the application of my framework.

The contribution of ‘telling network stories’

Throughout this book, I have argued that migration stories are, at heart, relational stories. People narrate their migration experiences through accounts of dynamic and intricate networks of interpersonal relationships. Network stories are interesting and engaging for readers by presenting particular situations and experiences through vivid and evocative narratives. Moreover, the epistemological and methodological approach of telling network stories, I argue, has the potential to offer new and important insights into how we understand relationality in contexts of migration.

Introduction

Ever since the 1990s’ ‘transnational turn’ in migration studies (Schiller et al, 1992), there has been a huge body of research on the salience of migrants’ identification and connection with their origin countries (for example, Faist and Ozveren, 2004; Parreñas, 2005; Goulbourne et al, 2010; Bryceson and Vuorela, 2020).

However, as Dahinden notes, ‘the initial euphoria’ about transnationalism ‘has been replaced by a certain sobriety’ (2005: 192): ‘While the transnational perspective brings interesting insights to the study of migration processes’, she cautions that ‘transnational ties and social relations must not be presumed but rather carefully analysed’ (Dahinden, 2005: 191). The fact that migrants have transnational connections tells us very little about what is actually going on within those relationships (Ryan and D’Angelo, 2018; Nowicka, 2020). SNA can reveal much about the make-up, meaning and dynamism of transnational ties (Bilecen et al, 2018; Lubbers, et al, 2021). The first aim of this chapter is to apply the framework of telling network stories in order to explore the meaning of long-distance relationships and the resources flowing therein.

Of course, migrants’ cross-border communications are not new. Historians have studied the importance of long-distance correspondence, especially letters, over the centuries (Skrbiš, 2008). As Nancy Foner (1997) notes, many transnational practices hailed as ‘new’ actually have a long history. Nonetheless, a key difference nowadays is the extent to which technology can create a sense of co-presence in real time (Madianou and Miller, 2013). So-called ‘transconnectivity’ can mean that migrants feel part of the everyday lives of relatives back home (King-O’Riain, 2015). However, such technological connections are not without limits (von Koppenfels et al, 2015) and rarely replace the need for proximate physical contact, especially hands-on care with children (Ryan, 2007a) or elderly relatives (Wilding and Baldassar, 2009). Hence, the chapter's second aim is to consider how migrants connect transnationally and the changing patterns of long-distance communication over generations.

Through network stories, including visualisation techniques, and longitudinal methods, I also seek to understand relational change over time (Ryan and D’Angelo, 2018). Migrants’ continued embedding in transnational relationships cannot be taken for granted (Ryan et al, 2021). Despite communication technologies, ties may weaken through prolonged separation. Hence, the chapter's third aim is to analyse how transnational ties ebb and flow, with changing needs, through different life course stages (Ryan, 2018).

Introduction

Scholars have long been interested in social networks in enabling and supporting chain migration (Tilly and Brown, 1967; Hugo, 1982; Massey and España, 1987; Boyd, 1989). A migrant network has been defined as ‘a web of social ties that links potential migrants in sending communities to people and institutions in receiving areas’ and in so doing ‘dramatically lower costs of international movement’, giving ‘powerful momentum’ to the migration process (Massey and España, 1987: 733).

By the late 1980s, a ‘growing body of research existed regarding the role of social networks in the etiology, composition, direction and persistence of migration flows, and in the settlement and integration of migrant populations in receiving societies’ (Boyd, 1989: 639). In the following decades, this body of work continued to grow, with particular attention on networks as sources of migrants’ capital, facilitating migration and settlement but also in the maintenance of transnational lives (Gurak and Caces, 1992; Portes, 1998; Castles and Miller, 2003; Jordan and Duvell 2003; Faist and Ozveren, 2004).

Nonetheless, as noted in the opening quote of this chapter, there were also increasing criticisms about the loose ways in which the concept of ‘network’ was applied within migration research (Wierzbicki, 2004; Ryan, 2007a), often resulting in a metaphorical use of networks (for a discussion see Bilecen et al, 2018; Ryan and Dahinden, 2021). Moreover, there was growing concern that the relationship between networks and capital was being assumed rather than properly examined and analysed (Portes, 2000; Anthias, 2007; Erel, 2010; Ryan, Erel and D’Angelo, 2015; Keskiner, Eve and Ryan, 2022). Furthermore, the tendency within migration studies to simply take for granted ethnic networks has been increasingly challenged (Wimmer, 2004; Schiller, Çağlar and Guldbrandsen, 2006; Eve, 2010; Dahinden, 2016). As Eve argued, ethnic ties cannot be simply assumed as natural, but should stimulate enquiry into their roots so that we can develop a ‘sociological explanation of particularities and an account of how they emerge from preceding ties’ (Eve, 2010: 1245).

Having examined initial migration plans and stories of arrival in Chapter 4, the focus now shifts to networks and employment seeking post-arrival. Within migration studies, there has been considerable interest in the role of migrant networks in accessing employment (Massey, 1986; Boyd, 1989; Curran et al, 2005, to name a few). Moreover, there has been much discussion about the benefits but also the potential disadvantages of coethnic ties in facilitating labour market access (Smith, 2005; Nannestad et al, 2008). Over-reliance on ethnic-specific networks may result in a funnelling effect into niche jobs, downward mobility and economic disadvantage, as well as possible exploitation (Anthias and Cederberg, 2009; Thondhlana, Madziva and McGrath, 2016). Drawing on social network literature, some migration scholars have examined the importance of weak ties in helping migrants to forge more diverse and advantageous social connections as a way of increasing job opportunities (Lancee, 2010; Ryan, 2011a; Patulny, 2015; Gericke et al, 2018; Bernhard, 2020). Weak ties are often configured in the migration literature as bridging ethnicity – that is, ties to people outside the ethnic enclave (Lancee and Hartung, 2012; Damstra and Tillie, 2016).

My work has cautioned against a reductive approach that conflates tie strength with ethnic composition (Ryan, 2011a; 2016). As noted in Chapter 2, it cannot be assumed that ties to co-ethnics are necessarily strong, while ties to so-called ‘natives’ are necessarily weak. Moreover, the social capital inhering in these ties cannot be taken for granted. Instead, it is important to look more closely at the relationships between people and the kinds of resources flowing between them. Furthermore, as my research over many years has shown, not all ‘weak ties’ are beneficial. Simply forging diverse social connections is no guarantee of enhancing employment opportunities. As discussed in Chapter 2, my work draws on network theorists such as Granovetter, Burt and Lin to critically interrogate what is meant by weak ties. Analysing relative social location, I have differentiated between horizontal and vertical weak ties (Ryan, 2011a). In other words, weak ties are more likely to be advantageous if connections are vertical (that is, to those in a higher social position).

Irish nurses in Britain in the post-war era (2004– 2005)

Having read in the literature (Walter, 1989) that Irish women made up a significant proportion of migrant workers recruited to work in Britain's newly established NHS in the 1940s and 1950s, I decided to find out more by undertaking a qualitative, oral history study with Irish nurses from the post-war era. I recruited the participants through advertisements in Irish newspapers in Britain, the Irish Post and Irish World, through Irish organisations such as the Federation of Irish Societies and snowballing. 26 semi-structured interviews, informed by oral history techniques, were carried out between October 2004 and August 2005. Most women had arrived in Britain in the 1940s and 1950s, with a few in the 1960s and 1970s. Clearly, those who arrived earlier were in advanced old age by the time of the interviews, with several aged over 80 years. All the women had arrived young and single; most migrated as student nurses aged 18 years or so. All bar one had subsequently married and had children (for more details see Ryan, 2007a; 2007b; 2008b).

Post-accession Polish migration to London

In 2006, as explained in the Introduction, my research embarked in a new direction when I began a study on post-EU accession Polish migration. Along with Rosemary Sales and Mary Tilki, I received ESRC funding (RES-000-22-1552) for the study entitled: Recent Polish Migrants in London: Social Networks, Transience and Settlement. Bernadetta Siara was the research fellow on the project. We conducted three focus groups and 30 individual interviews, with a combined total of 46 participants. The majority were aged between 21 and 39 years old, with approximately 20 per cent aged between 40 and 59. Just over half had children, with a majority of those living with them in London, but almost one quarter of those who were parents had children living in Poland. A number of stakeholder interviews were also conducted with people from Polish community organisations. Thus, over 50 participants were involved in the study (for more details see Ryan et al, 2008; Ryan et al, 2009; Ryan and Sales, 2013).

Muslims in the London Borough of Barnet

The next data set I draw upon in this book is from a study commissioned by Barnet Muslim Engagement Partnership.

Introduction

As Barry Wellman (1997) has noted, social network research can be polarised into quantification of social ties at one end of the spectrum and metaphorical descriptions at the other end. Similarly, in migration studies, research that, on the one hand, seeks to measure migrant networks, by counting ties, or, on the other hand, merely refers to the role of networks in some vague, metaphorical way, each risks simplifying complex and dynamic relationships. Indeed, merely describing the existence of ties tells us very little about how they may be implicated in migration decision-making processes. Hence, it may be misleading to simply infer causality between pre-existing network ties and migration (D’Angelo and Ryan, 2021).

Drawing on the framework of ‘telling network stories’, this chapter's primary aim is to contribute to deeper explorations and understandings of the multidimensional, messy and nuanced role of different relational ties in narratives of migration decision making and arrival in London. Following Borgatti et al (2009), I seek to analyse rather than merely describe social ties. Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 2, networks are a product of perception and cognitive processes (Krackhardt, 1987). Analysing network stories, I am interested in how participants perceive and present various social connections and narrate how these relationships may have shaped their migration projects.

In so doing, the chapter's second aim is to go beyond the merely ‘metaphorical’ use of networks within migration studies (Bilecen et al, 2018), to gain nuanced understandings not only of the meaning of relationships, but also the varied actors involved and the roles they play within network stories, as well as the sorts of resources that seem to be accessed and shared. My diverse participants present opportunities to analyse different arrival routes, including, for example, students, family migrants, intra-company transferees (ICTs), refugees and those directly recruited from abroad. Many, though not all, had pre-existing ties to friends or relatives in London. Using rich narratives, including thick descriptions, I explore how migration decision making can involve varied and even competing interpersonal relationships. Therefore, the chapter challenges simplistic assumptions about the apparent lure of strong ties, or the role of dyadic weak ties, as well as offering insights into negative ties and fleeting ties in migration processes.

Key statement of intent

As highlighted in the opening quote, networks are multifaceted and wide ranging, providing access to varied resources (Wellman and Wortley, 1990). Indeed, in recent decades, there has been a marked increase in social network research, across a number of fields (Conway, 2014; Healy, 2015; Maltseva and Batageli, 2019; Tubaro et al, 2021). Hence, it has been argued that, as a disciplinary project, social network research has grown from a ‘peripheral position’ or ‘niche’ specialised subfield ‘into a central project within contemporary sociology’ (Healy, 2015: 176). Migration researchers have also increasingly embraced social network analysis (SNA) (Dahinden, 2016; Bilecen et al, 2018; Lubbers et al, 2021; Keskiner et al, 2022).

Nonetheless, it has been noted that the notion of ‘a network’ is often defined differently by scholars (Knox et al, 2006; Ryan and Dahinden, 2021). As the influential social network scholar Barry Wellman observed, ‘many analysts and practitioners’ have misused network analysis as a ‘mixed bag of terms and techniques’. While some ‘hardened it into a method’, others ‘softened it into a metaphor’ (1997: 20). By using the concept of networks metaphorically, Wellman argues, researchers risk ‘treating all units as if they had the same resources, all ties as if they were symmetrical, and the contents of all ties as if they were equivalent’ (1997: 20). This book, focusing on the specific field of migration studies, takes up the challenge of going beyond the metaphor in social network research.

Social networks have been a key focus of my research for almost 20 years. Reflecting on why I became so interested in networks, I realise I have always been fascinated by relationality.

Introduction

Friendship is ‘an important part of what makes us human’ (Bunnell et al, 2012: 490). While sociologists in the past may have been guilty of ignoring friendship as a ‘personal’ rather than ‘social’ relationship (Eve, 2002), in recent decades there has been a proliferation of work on the sociology of friendship (for example, Pahl and Spencer, 2004; Pahl and Pevalin, 2005; Reynolds, 2012; Vincent et al 2018; May, 2019). Among social network researchers, there has also been increasing interest in examining the number and nature of friendship ties (Wang and Wellman, 2010). For migration scholars, while there has long been attention on kinship ties, recent decades have seen increasing attention on migrants’ friendships (Kennedy, 2004; Conradson and Latham, 2005; Gill and Bialski, 2011; Ho, 2011; Bilecen, 2014; Ryan, 2015a; Robertson, 2018) and how migrants negotiate identities and attachments through relationality in new places (Butcher, 2010; Meier, 2014; Van Riemsdijk, 2014; Koelet, Van Mol and De Valk, 2017; Grzymala-Kazlowska, 2018) Of course, we must acknowledge ‘the ambiguities of concepts of “friend” and “friendship” as culturally and historically situated, and potentially overlapping with relations of family, kin, colleagues and acquaintances’ (Robertson, 2018: 543). As Ripley Smith (2013) observed in his analysis of refugee women's networks in the US, there may be cultural differences in how friendship is defined and understood. Therefore, it has been suggested that more research is needed in order to understand how mobility impacts on meaningful friendship relationships (Harris et al, 2020).

I have long been interested in how migrants make new friends in new places (Ryan, 2004; Ryan and Mulholland, 2014c; Ryan, 2015a). The first aim of this chapter is to take forward that work, drawing on the rich narratives of my diverse participants, by adding insights into the meaning of friendship ties and the varied ways in which new, local relationships are forged. As noted in Chapter 2, social network research is not simply about describing social ties but also analysing the antecedents and consequences of those relationships (Borgatti and Ofem, 2010). Hence, I consider how stories of friendship formations may indicate processes of embedding (Ryan and Mulholland, 2015; Mulholland and Ryan, 2022), suggesting the opportunities, as well as obstacles, for migrants to create attachments and belonging in particular places.