Understanding Immobility: Moving Beyond the Mobility Bias in Migration Studies
By K. Schewel. International Migration Review, 2020
569 citations recorded by the source corpus.
This article suggests that there is a mobility bias in migration research: by focusing on the “drivers” of migration — the forces that lead to the initiation and perpetuation of migration flows — migration theories neglect the countervailing structural and personal forces that restrict or resist these drivers and lead to different immobility outcomes. To advance a research agenda on immobility, it offers a definition of immobility, further develops the aspiration-capability framework as an analytical tool for exploring the determinants of different forms of (im)mobility, synthesizes decades of interdisciplinary research to help explain why people do not migrate or desire to migrate, and considers future directions for further qualitative and quantitative research on immobility.
Subfields: Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df04132e4ce7abd458a184a356ed1b9844428e8e
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- A theory of migration: the aspirations-capabilities framework (2021, background): “Schewel (2015, 2020) therefore proposed the category of acquiescent immobility to describe situations in which people are neither able to migrate nor desire to do so.”
- Keeping People in Place: Political Factors of (Im)mobility and Climate Change (2019, background): “It has rarely been studied in its own right, perhaps reflecting a ‘mobility bias’ (Jónsson 2011; Schewel 2019).”