Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T18:41:09.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological nationalism and the study of migration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2003

ANDREAS WIMMER  and
NINA GLICK SCHILLER
ANDREAS WIMMER
Affiliation:
UCLA.
NINA GLICK SCHILLER
Affiliation:
University of New Hampshire (Durham); Max-Planck-Institute for Social Anthropology (Halle).
Get access

Abstract

The study purports to show how a bias, known as methodological nationalism, has weighed down research and investigation on migration until recently. Relying on the contribution of work on transnational communities, the authors propose a programmatic conclusion.

L'étude entend montrer comment un biais, baptisé “nationalisme méthodologique” a obéré les enquêtes et recherches sur les migrations jusqu'à une date récente. S'appuyant sur les apports du savoir sur les communautés transnationales, les auteurs proposent une conclusion programmatique.

Die Studie zeigt, inwieweit der sogenannte methodologische Nationalismus bis vor kurzem Projekte und Forschungen über Wanderströme behindert hat. In Anbetracht der Kenntnisse über transnationale Gemeinschaften ziehen die Autoren eine pragmatische Schlußfolgerung.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , August 2002 , pp. 217 - 240
Copyright
© 2002 Archives Européennes de Sociology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We should like to thank the organisers and the participants of a SSRC-conference on transnational migration, held at the University of Princeton in June 2001, where a first version of the paper was presented. We especially thank Stephen Castles and Aristide Zolberg for their extensive and inspiring discussions of the paper, as well as Peter van der Veer, Rainer Bauböck, Werner Schiffauer, Robert Smith, Ewa Morawska and José Casanova for their comments and critiques. Michael Bommes has read the manuscript and provided thoughtful comments for which we should like to thank him. An extended version of the paper will appear in Global Networks 2(3), 2002.