In the kick-off meeting of the Ge.M.IC project which was held in Athens, on 28-29 February 2008, the research team met for the first time in flesh and blood. This was an opportunity for exploring, discussing, disagreeing on the possible research paths that the project might follow in the next three years. What follows is a brief, incomplete description of what took place, the issues raised and the presentations made.
The meeting was organised around:
• Presentations by EC project officer and the members of the coordinator, Panteion University research team, of the conceptual and methodological framework, the timing, and the financial issues of the project followed by group discussion.
• Group sessions on specific work packages, during which WP coordinators presented the outline of the proposed research area and further discussed with the partners involved research material, methodological approaches, conceptual questions and case studies for field work.
Points raised during the discussion included:
a) The challenges of diversity of migrant-sending, receiving and transit societies and areas to be studied. Migrant experiences in countries like FYROM, for example, where internal movements following the ethnic conflict have been dominant, or Turkey where transit migrations prevail are very different from the Greek, Italian or Spanish cases. Bulgarian and Romanian partners made the point that their country’s situation is somewhere in between emigration and immigration. Since most of these distinctions, however, are based on state-centric, geopolitical notions of movement, it was agreed that the Ge.M.IC consortium should try and address this diversity and identify the complex interactions between emigration and immigration, rather than seek uniformity in both analysis and policy recommendations.
b) During the discussion, different partners agreed that while they will be doing research on concrete case studies, it is in the interethnic and interdisciplinary potential of this consortium that the possibilities to produce innovative research lie. From this perspective close, collaboration and communication is essential.
c) A new idea introduced during this session was that at the end of the project the consortium will produce an alternative map or mappings of the region no longer based on geopolitical boundaries but on forms of mobility and diversity analyzed in the project. The model maps produced in the context of another project- Transit Migration- were shown as an example.
d) Another suggestion was to begin writing a glossary of the basic concepts used and their application during the span of the project, which will be built gradually during the course of the project and will be available on line.
Issues discussed included:
1 With regards to the timing of work packages, it was agreed that all partner reports will be sent to WP coordinators at least two months in advance in order for the synthesis reports to be written on time.
2 With regards to the consortium agreement, all partners agreed on the basic principles. Bologna University legal services asked for a short extension in order to comment and suggest changes on the draft and University of Cyprus legal services were still studying it. All partners committed to have the CA signed by the end of the deadline (45 days after the signature of the GA).
3 With regards to the ethical issues, it was agreed that a code of ethics should be drafted by the next meeting. Partners agreed to begin work on the main principles of the CA, but noted that these will have to take into account the specificities of the object of research, that is intercultural interactions involving migrant populations whose precarious legal status and living conditions may impose obstacles on the application of a very strict code.
Work package sessions
Alexandra Zavos introduced the guidelines for WP2 – Context Analysis and Methodology Review. The WP will include two sections. Section 1: a national report comprising a state-of-the-art literature review on research on migration and intercultural interactions, particularly in relation to gender and ‘race’. A critical review of the methodologies used and their relevance and applicability to the project will be included. The time-period covered by this review spans the decades starting from the 1990s until today, with emphasis on current developments and trends. Partner countries will adjust the periodization of the review in relation to their specific needs. The aim of this section will be to outline the main trends and issues in migration and migration research in each partner country, arriving at a synthesis report representing the region covered by the project. Section 2: a methodology review of research methodologies and concepts related to individual thematic work/research packages to be undertaken by coordinating partners. The aim will be to critically outline the main significant research approaches and debates relevant to each thematic work package in order to facilitate the development of a common methodological framework by the partners participating in each work package. Finally, a glossary of terms and concepts will be compiled for future reference.
Nelli Kambouri and Maria Stratigaki prepared a proposal for the country reports of WP3 – Policy Analysis, which reflects Ge.M.IC’s tripartite conceptual focus. More specifically each partner will produce a report which will include the following chapters: 1. Gender in Migration Policies, 2. Migration in Policies of Gender Equality, 3. Intercultural Interaction as a Policy Objective. Partners agreed on the basic outline. Points raised during the discussion include the following:
a) The WP coordinator should establish a list of relevant EU and UN documents to be sent to the partners and used as a common basis for policy analysis.
b) Although the focus is on national policies, analysis should include when necessary the reports and actions of NGOs and international organizations, such as the IOM, which play an important role in the effective implementation of the European “migration regime”.
c) It was agreed that it is very important to incorporate into the reports concerns and criticisms raised by feminist, migrant, and anti-racist social movements.
d) The main focus will be on a policy area which is not yet identified by policy makers. Country reports need to address the intersections between seemingly “distinct” policy areas of migration, gender equality and intercultural interactions
Dominant representations of otherness may be challenged by migrant flows, but it is difficult to explain how. In the case of Greece similar subversions with regards to national identity occurred in relation to the perceived transformation from migrant sending to migrant receiving. Gendered strategies of constructing the nation are at the centre of national identity and media representations.
WP5 – Education was introduced by Zelia Gregoriou, on behalf of the University of Cyprus research team, through an exploration of critical debates on multiculturalism and its shortcomings – both as an official and explicit educational policy and in practice. Gendered and racialized representations of otherness (ranging from Manet’s Olympia to students’ drawings of migrant domestic workers) and their reframing/subversion in relation to the dominant narratives of isolation and victimhood were introduced as ‘food for thought’ and critical debate, particularly in relation to the possible methodologies and sites/contents of research for this project.
Ideas about researching educational practices, politics and contents outside the privileged and mainstream location of the school and closer to the every-day situations in which migrant women interact with native populations were considered. The contradictions between official state policies and directives, aiming to secure national (mono)cultural reproduction, and applied school practices were also discussed as possible research case-studies. Differences between partner countries need to be taken into account in arriving at a common research framework for this work-package.
WP6 – Religion was introduced by Sandro Mezzandra, on behalf of the University of Bologna research team, who suggested that one of the most critical tasks of all partner countries involved will be to identify appropriate case studies. He explained that the Italian team had already discussed this issue and cautioned against the choice of comparative case studies, since Ge.M.IC is a project that attempts to transcend traditional comparative analysis. Instead, he suggested, that a possible focus for Italy might be the dynamics around the planned construction of a Mosque in Bologna.
This might be a starting-point that can help the research team to trace the dominant discourse on issues of migration, gender, and intercultural interaction (which shapes the limits of the debate around the building, or non-building of the Mosque), but also, to trace how this discourse is experienced (reproduced, criticized, subverted, resisted) by migrants by looking at sites were migrant practices become visible. Partners agreed to identify appropriate case studies by the next meeting: although the different national contexts might require different research strategies, this approach might provide the general framework for this work package.
In the discussion of WP 7 – “Social spaces and movements”, there was a presentation by Claudia Pedone on behalf of the Institute of Childhood and Urban World research team. Her presentation can be summarized in the basic ideas/concepts listed bellow: a) To study the intersection between migration, gender, class and intercultural interactions in urban spaces with particular emphasis on neighborhoods and the production of transnational «homes», b) to study formal and informal practices of assimilation, integration, and/or marginalization as well as forms of resistance to established power relations in urban spaces, and assess their impact on gender relations c) to develop an alternative framework for understanding neighborhoods and transnational “homes” as material spaces of intercultural interaction d) to explore policy and theoretical perspectives through which both conflict and dialogue between natives and migrant groups and the accommodation strategies. At the same time the Spanish team proposed some issues of focus for the analysis and also a qualitative methodology that would be suitable to address these issues. After the presentation of their proposal there was a quite interesting discussion, which included “deepening” on the issues of space and gender in the migration process and other proposals on how to address these questions and which should be the issues of focus: from the closer examination of the urban place/space to the attempt to focus on the domestic workers and their experience of urban space. The session end up with the decision to continue the discussion and exchange ideas and texts in the following period in order to shape the final plan of research for this work package until the next meeting.
Katarina Kolozova’s presentation of WP8 – “Violence”, on behalf of the “Euro-Balkan” Institute research team, focused mainly on the theoretical analysis of the concept of violence in gender studies and feminism. Her presentation drew on Judith Butler’s work on violence and mourning and talked about a theoretical approach that concers not just violent acts, but violence as the “ground of political discourse”. Instead of taking for granted the “comforting” position that silences violence as the instance beyond or outside discourse, she argued that in this WP we should focus on problematizing instances of violence as the limits of discourse, as the moments that cannot be spoken. There were three significant points agreed during the discussion.
a) All partners agreed that case studies should include both domestic violence and rape involving migrant and refugee women – including internally displaced persons- and victims of trafficking.
b) Partners agreed that research should focus on the different ways in which discourse of violence is articulated by different institutional and arrangements and experts, i.e. the police, the NGOs, the medical staff, psychological support services and relate them to the ways in which violence is articulated (silenced or not) by victims themselves
c) Finally the question of victimization with regards to the conceptualization of gender violence was discussed. Some partners noted that it is important and challenging to maintain a balance between the trauma experienced by the victims and the victimization of migrant women in European policies, the media and public debates. The idea of a “hierarchy of victims that count and victims that do not count” was mentioned in relation to Giorgio Agamben’s work in conjunction with Butler’s notion of “lives not worth mourning” as a useful conceptual tool for the development of a problematization that goes beyond conventional thinking about violence, perpetrators and victims.
Marko Hadjinak presented, on behalf of the International Centre for Minority Studies research team a draft outline of WP9 – Mixed and Transnational families. While research on mixed families appeared straightforward for most partners, research on transnational families proved to be more complicated for partners to make concrete. The conversation focused on the concept of a transnational family and who can be included in this category. One idea was to study transnational families in two countries simultaneously, for example both or one of the parents living in Greece as migrants and the children with grandparents and/or one parent in Bulgaria. It is necessary until the end of this phase to clarify what is meant by transnational families and which cases will be included in the research sample.
With regards to the WP9 – Dissemination, there were two presentations by the Panteion University research team. Maria Paradeisi presented a video by a Greek video artist and argued that it is a very powerful medium for communicating the ideas developed during the project. She stressed that although Panteion University is responsible for the production, collaboration between partners is very important in collecting the material to be presented and disseminating information relevant to the situation experienced in different social spaces. Some of the partners proposed a collaboration between directors in different countries, and gave the example of a video produced in the context of the “Visions of Europe” project, where film makers were asked to contribute five minute films on Europe.
Pavlos Hatzopoulos explained how the Ge.M.IC website, which was already on-line might act as a tool for the dissemination of the research project. He emphasized that it is up to the partners’ ability and willingness to contribute relevant material and information collected during the research process to create a web-site that will be open and dynamic. The website, he stressed, aims to be something more than an electronic archive of project deliverables. Through the website the research team will have the opportunity to exchange ideas, conduct an electronic consultation with stakeholders and the general public in the face of the final analysis and policy recommendations; it will also have the chance to invite all actors involved in any way in the project to share their views, possibly submitting audiovisual material for inclusion in the Ge.M.IC documentary.
Next Meeting
1. The next meeting was scheduled for the 2-3 October 2008.
2. During this meeting work produced in the context of WP2 and WP3 during the previous months will be finalized.
3. Until the next meeting, the partners involved in each thematic WP should agree on the case studies in order for fieldwork to begin in October as planned.
4. The WP coordinators should think through the main theoretical concepts methodologies for each specific area of study and establish an outline of their respective work packages to be discussed and finalized during the next meeting.
5. Many partners agreed that it would be useful to include a workshop on intersectional approaches for the next meeting.
6. There should be a draft of the code of ethnics to be agreed and finalized by the next meeting.
7. Partners agreed that it would help to include baby sitting facilities for children.
8. Partners discussed the possibility of having the meeting in an island and the Panteion team proposed Aigina.
