Abstract
AbstractIn this rejoinder for this special issue, we enter into dialogue with the various commentaries that our article "Between Fragmentation and Institutionalisation" received. In doing so, we address some of the commonly-identified limitations of our paper and clarify the interpretation of some of our findings. This includes key issues such as the uneven internationalisation of migration studies, the need to reveal a broader variety of disciplinary contributions to the field, and the need for some further clarification of the results of the co-citation analysis and caveats of its interpretation.
Funder
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development,Demography,Law,Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development,Demography
Reference11 articles.
1. Chan, Y. W. (2020). Asian perspectives of migration: a commentary. Comparative Migration Studies, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00190-5.
2. DeWind, J. (2020). Blind men and the elephant: one view of the field of migration studies. Comparative Migration Studies, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00191-4.
3. Hollifield, J. F. (2020). Is migration a unique field of study in social sciences? A response to Levy, Pisarevskaya, and Scholten. Comparative Migration Studies, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00192-3.
4. IMISCOE (2020). Roundtable: Innovative science-society dialogues on migration: Opening Plenary at the Conference “The coming of age of migration studies Debating the evolution and impact of a research field”. Retrieved from https://migrationresearch.com/posts/roundtable-innovative-science-society-dialogues-migration.
5. King, R. (2020). On migration, geography, and epistemic communities. Comparative Migration Studies, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00193-2.