权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Pro- and Anti-Migrant Mobilization in Mediterranean Refugee Reception Sites

地中海难民接收点支持和反对移民的动员

基本信息

批准号：
ES/W012324/1
负责人：
Olga Demetriou
金额：
$ 105.19万
依托单位：
Durham University
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2023
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2023 至无数据
项目状态：
未结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FW012324%2F1
关键词：
Pro Anti Migrant Mobilization Mediterranean

项目摘要

"Contesting Migration" tackles a crucial social and humanitarian contemporary challenge, that of forced displacement, affecting 80 million people. The crossing of international borders by refugees who flee has, in the last decade, become more intense, more difficult, more organised, and more deadly and has spurred wholesale policy changes globally and in Europe in the forms of the Global Compact on Refugees and the European Migration Pact. These grand policy shifts have largely been elicited by emergencies in specific refugee reception sites. In the Mediterranean, Lesvos, Ceuta and Lampedusa have attracted much attention during this time. These sites distil but also magnify the broader socio-political dynamics that refugee flows set in motion, primarily between pro- and anti-refugee actors. The project studies the governance of migration through the lens of refugee reception sites with a focus on political contestation.We focus on the following four questions:RQ1: What pro- and anti-migrant campaigns are mobilized at reception sites, how do they unfold and how do they influence each other? We have selected three well known locations, which have received significant media and research attention, and three lesser-researched reception sites, in each of three Mediterranean countries: respectively, Ceuta and Melilla in Spain, Lampedusa and Trieste in Italy, and Lesvos and Evros in Greece.RQ2: In what ways are these contestations amplified in public debate and local governance across the different sites?RQ3: How do mobilization dynamics relate to wider migration politics?RQ4: What does the cross-disciplinary combination of ethnographic depth and comparative rigor offer to the analysis of pro- and anti-migrant actors?Three forms of action are of particular concern to the project (WP2):(i) conventional, comprising initiatives like activist litigation and electoral mobilization;(ii) contentious, comprising a spectrum of activities from search and rescue operations, counter-forensics, beach patrols, and protests;(iii) cultural-artistic, comprising exhibitions, performances, staged events, and use of heritage materials.We examine these three forms in both their distinctiveness and interrelation, taking into account cross-cutting issues like gender. Our focus is on the political processes that unfold across themes and categories to amplify the effect of actions and determine the success of mobilization.The case studies are compared (WP3) in terms of:(a) institutional environment (e.g. European migration apparatuses, policing practices, location on migration routes);(b) profile of pro- and anti-migrant actors present (e.g. link to state and other institutional actors and place in local society);(c) social context (e.g. historical and political relevance of migration, the role of borders in daily life, and existing forms of diversity).Towards these comparisons, we employ participant and non-participant observations, a range of semi-structured interviews, and onsite collection and analysis of documents relating to policy, law, media and art.We also adopt a collaborative approach on field engagement through partnerships with institutions, and on the production of public outputs. We work with universities and experts at the sites through field research activities and exchange field visits. We also collaborate in designing and organising engagement activities, selecting actors and stakeholders who can offer input and reflection regarding the project's policy and public outputs. "Contesting Migration" will produce a policy report and a film, alongside academic outputs. These will be prepared following group discussions with actors in the field and virtually.The rigorous comparative methodology we adopt allows us to piece together the multiple micro-stories that illuminate the often abstract view of migration dynamics and the complex political processes they entail in a meaningfully impactful way.

《移民之争》解决了当代一个重要的社会和人道主义挑战，即影响8000万人的被迫流离失所问题。在过去十年中，逃离的难民跨越国际边界变得更加激烈，更加困难，更有组织，更致命，并以《难民问题全球契约》和《欧洲移民公约》的形式刺激了全球和欧洲的大规模政策变化。这些重大的政策转变在很大程度上是由特定难民接待地点的紧急情况引起的。在地中海，莱斯沃斯岛、休达岛和兰佩杜萨岛在这段时间备受关注。这些网站提炼但也放大了难民流动所引发的更广泛的社会政治动态，主要是在支持和反对难民的行动者之间。该项目通过难民接收点的视角研究移民治理，重点关注政治争论。我们重点关注以下四个问题：RQ1：在接待场所动员了哪些支持和反对移民的运动，它们是如何展开的，它们如何相互影响？我们在三个地中海国家中分别选择了三个知名地点，这些地点受到了大量媒体和研究的关注，以及三个较少研究的接待地点：分别是西班牙的休达和梅利利亚，意大利的兰佩杜萨和的里雅斯特，希腊的莱斯沃斯和埃夫罗斯。RQ2：这些争论在不同地点的公共辩论和地方治理中以何种方式被放大？RQ3：动员动态与更广泛的移民政治有何关系？RQ4：民族志的深度和比较严谨性的跨学科结合为支持和反对移民的行为者的分析提供了什么？该项目（WP2）特别关注三种行动形式：(i)传统行动，包括积极分子诉讼和选举动员等倡议；（ii）争议性，包括从搜索和救援行动、反取证、海滩巡逻和抗议等一系列活动；（三）文化艺术，包括展览、表演、舞台活动和遗产材料的使用。我们研究这三种形式的独特性和相互关系，考虑到跨领域的问题，如性别。我们的重点是跨主题和类别展开的政治进程，以扩大行动的效果并决定动员的成功。案例研究在以下方面进行比较（WP3）：(a)制度环境（例如欧洲移徙机构、警务做法、移徙路线上的位置）；(b)目前支持和反对移民行为者的概况（例如与国家和其他机构行为者的联系以及在当地社会中的地位）；(c)社会背景（例如移民的历史和政治相关性、边界在日常生活中的作用以及现有的多样性形式）。为了进行这些比较，我们采用了参与者和非参与者的观察，一系列半结构化的访谈，以及现场收集和分析与政策、法律、媒体和艺术有关的文件。我们还通过与机构建立伙伴关系，在实地参与和生产公共产出方面采取合作方式。我们通过实地研究活动和交流实地考察，与现场的大学和专家合作。我们还合作设计和组织参与活动，选择能够就项目政策和公共产出提供意见和反思的行为者和利益相关者。除了学术成果外，“移民之争”还将制作一份政策报告和一部电影。这些将在与实地和虚拟的行动者进行小组讨论后编写。我们采用的严谨的比较方法使我们能够将多个微观故事拼凑在一起，以一种有意义的有影响力的方式阐明了移民动态及其所带来的复杂政治过程的抽象观点。