Points to Ponder
Topic 1: Learning from each other
One of the things I am learning as we exchange ideas is that we have different concepts as well as language for migration related phenomena. For example, our colleagues from China pointed to the issue of ‘registration’ for elderly migrants, some of whom leave their rural homes to live with their children in urban areas. I initially could not understand what that is and why it mattered because I had not read or heard about. I subsequently learned that pensions (or welfare / public support funds?) are calculated on the basis the location of where claimants (and is this just the elderly or everyone who qualifies for them?) reside. As we know hardly anything about internal migration in China (or in other countries in the Global South) this was an entirely new idea for me. Also new to me was the notion of ‘floating’ or ‘visiting’ grandparents, which our Australian and Chines colleagues were familiar with, but I certainly was not. In fact, I raised a question about this in one of the literature review conducted, suggesting that ‘visiting’ and ‘migrating’ are two very different notions: one is temporary and the other is – more or less – permanent. This is a crucial difference because concerns related to settlement or integration could be less consequential in the first instance and much more significant if when the move is permanent.
My limited understanding was based on Canadian regulations, where visitors’ visas are issued for only six months. A relatively new category called “Super Visa” was created to allow parents and grand-parents to stay as visitors in Canada for up to two years at a time, but this is still considered a ‘temporary’ stay, and required private health insurance and the host’s commitment to provide financial support for the visitor. To sponsor parents or grandparents to permanently migrate to Canada, a different application process rather is required. As a result the ‘Super Visa’ category does not offer a pathway to permanent residency.
Understanding and appreciating structural as well as cultural differences are so important for studying migration as a phenomenon. It is not just insufficient but potentially dangerous to assume things work in the same way in other parts of the world as they do in our little corners.
Topic 2. Evolution of the joint projects
The DemiKnow proposal specified that the empirical work will require each centre to work with at least one other centre. I had put this in the proposal because of my premise that by working across the centres, we will all garner some lessons on how to work effectively with international partners. What I had not specified (and continued to resist during our meetings) is whether we should create one single project, or two or more, in which each partner will have a negotiated role. My purpose in leaving this open was to see how the projects would evolve under the overarching umbrella of ‘families’ roles in migration.’ My hope was that our colleagues from the ‘Global South’ would conceptualize and articulate projects they were interested in, and specify how colleagues in other centres may contribute to their research. This would be different from what has typically happened in the past, where scholars from the Global North create the research agenda, even when their studies are conducted in the Global South.
When we began articulating our research interests, colleagues in Australia, China and India appeared to have specific immigrant populations in mind for their empirical projects. Our Canadian colleagues took some time to articulate their focus (possibly holding back consciously or subconsciously?) which subsequently offered the flexibility we needed. Our Australian colleagues wanted to focus on older immigrants, as did our Chinese partners; the former on international immigrants while the latter on internal (rural to urban) immigrants. The Indian colleagues wanted to study international students and the Canadian team shifting their overarching interest in migration decision-making to match their interest. While this shift may have been made primarily to work with the Indian team, maintaining the symmetry of two teams in related projects, media interest in international students in Canada, especially from India, probably also helped to commit to this focus.
It took multiple meetings and exchanges of short drafts of proposals for the projects to evolve. This must have been frustrating at times, especially as I kept pushing my colleagues (due to DemiKnow projected timeless) to make commitments, while they worked at a distance from each other, did not know each other personally or professionally, or the different contexts in which they worked. Even now, as my colleagues prepare their ethics applications (which seal some of our commitments) I can sense the many uncertainties they are grappling with. I am deeply grateful for their tolerance for these uncertainties and for their patience in working through them.
Topic 3. Research Ethics Applications
A few months ago I learned that proposals from all four centres would have to approved by my university’s Research Ethics Board (REB). I was told that because funds for the project flow from our university, which is obligated to adhere to Tri-Council (an entity that provide research funds to Canadian scholars using tax dollars) policies for ethical procedures in research, regardless of where our human participants reside, and where our research partners are based. This meant that colleagues who did not have a an REB in their universities would have to fill in the very detailed form required by the Ryerson, and those who did would first have to go through their boards; then submit their locally approved applications along with a shorter Ryerson form to our university. Everyone will have to wait for 4-6 weeks for Ryerson’s approval before beginning data collection.
I have several concerns related to this process. 1) Colleagues in other countries who are unfamiliar with REB forms will find it difficult to think through and fill out all the details it requires. Those who have been through similar procedures in their own universities will chafe against the need to fill two different forms and address possibly conflicting demands (see Cat’s note); 2) Potential participants may be unwilling to sign consent forms because they may not fully understand them, or simply be suspicious of ‘formal’ documents; 3) Translating consent forms, recruitment scripts, interview guides and surveys can be quite expensive in terms of time and funds, which we didn’t budget for; and above all 4) By requiring us to go through the Ryerson REB procedures, the university is reappropriating its dominance in what was supposed to be our collective knowledge generation endeavor, designed to reduce inequalities among scholars based in the Global North and South.
As anticipated, our colleagues in China and India do not have to go through REB processes. Because they have paired up with the teams in Australia and Canada, we will submit two applications to REB, a full one for the India+Canada plan, and a truncated one for the Australia+China plan (as it will first have to be approved by the Australian university). We will attach the application and approval letter from Australia to our application to Ryerson’s REB and I expect an expedited review as the forms and processes are likely to be similar. Because scholars based in universities in the Global North are more familiar with the REB forms and processes, they will take the lead in preparing the forms and hence the data collection procedures. Once again, this feels like ‘you must do what we do in order to work with us’ which goes against the grain of what we are trying to do.
