El aprendizaje de las Matemáticas en la Educación Básica en Excale

The second phase of gender and migration scholarship is characterised by a focus on the household economy as the pivotal site for exposing the relationship between women and migration (Curran et al., 2006:201). Some researchers concluded that migration reinforced existing inequalities between migrant women and men (Tienda & Booth, 1991; Zlotnik, 1993; Man, 1995; Abyaneh, 1989; Abdulrahim, 1993), while others claimed that migration led to greater emancipation for migrant women, and possible improvements in their status (Pedraza, 1991; Pessar, 1986; Eastmond, 1993; Kibria, 1993; Hirsch, 1999). Yet others were more equivocal about the gendered consequences of migration, maintaining that it led to gains for migrant women in some areas of their lives, and losses in others (Bhachu, 1991; Hugo, 2000; Tienda & Booth, 1991; Pyke & Johnson, 2003). In addition to a dominant focus on the household, the second phase of gender and migration scholarship is exemplified by three significant developments: the turn to qualitative methods; the shift in focus from women to gender; and the incorporation of other axes of social difference (such as ethnicity, ‘race’ and class) into gender analysis. I discuss each of these developments in turn, and then review criticism of the stage’s main focus on the household.

The Turn to Qualitative Methods 

During the household economy phase of gender and migration scholarship, it became evident that there were two important limitations in quantitative migration research (Curran et al., 2006:201). Firstly, migration studies from this period demonstrated a

clear male bias, exemplified in the longstanding practice of interviewing only (or mostly) men. By focusing on the migration experiences of ‘household heads’, who were largely identified as men, such research contained little data on women (Zlotnik, 1995:229). Despite this fact, many highly-regarded quantitative migration studies, based almost completely on data from male migrants, made claims about the entire migrant population (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2003:5). Secondly, the data collection methods in this work tended to neglect pre- and post-migration experiences and contexts (Tienda & Booth, 1991:69), thus rendering invisible non-migrants, who were frequently women. As a consequence of the male bias in quantitative migration research, by the mid-90s sociologists had effectively turned to qualitative methods in their research on the gendered dynamics of migration (Curran et al., 2006:201).

The Shift in Focus from Women to Gender 

In addition to the move from quantitative to qualitative methods, sociologists (and others) shifted their lens from women to gender in their examination of the migration process (Curran et al., 2006:201; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2003:7). Gender and migration scholarship, it was claimed, ‘showed how migration processes are reciprocally related to the social construction of gender’ (Curran et al., 2006:201), and demonstrated that migration outcomes cannot be understood without accounting for intra-household dynamics and the behaviour of both women and men (Lawson, 1998:39). Examples of such work include Hondagneu-Sotelo’s (1994) research demonstrating the effects of migration on the gendered family relationships of undocumented Mexican migrants in California, and Kibria’s (1993) book on the shifts occurring in the family lives of Vietnamese refugees in the United States.

Overall, these studies challenged the widespread assumption that migration decisions are derived from rational calculations based on equitable household relationships (Curran et al., 2006:202; Mahler & Pessar, 2006:33; Phizacklea, 1999:34; Hondagneu- Sotelo, 1994:94-95). ‘Unpacking the household, and analyzing the hierarchies and power relations within it’, Silvey (2006:68) claims, ‘has been at the heart of feminist contributions to migration studies’. Household-focused research showed how gendered differences in power and access to resources at times facilitated male migration (Grieco & Boyd, 1998; Cerruti & Massey, 2001) and at others advantaged female migration

(George, 2001). Despite the progress represented by this work, however, the dominant focus on the migrating household meant that the effect of gender on other aspects of human mobility was largely ignored (Curran et al., 2006:202).

Gender and Other Axes of Social Difference 

The second phase of gender and migration scholarship is also characterised by a greater awareness of the intersectionality of ethnicity, class and gender relations; and an increased understanding of the heterogeneity of the category ‘woman’ (Hondagneu- Sotelo, 2003:7). Early feminist frameworks that privileged gender over other axes of social difference were replaced by those that attempted to capture the simultaneity of gender, class and ethnic exploitation (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1999:565-568; Glenn, 1999:9). Anthias (2000:16), for instance, writing about the gendering of migration experiences, cautioned that ‘the use of the gender category must avoid homogenising women's experiences and practices and must be undertaken in relation to how gender intersects with other social divisions, such as ethnicity, ‘race’ and class’ (see also Andall, 1992; Brah, 1996; Piper, 2003; Calavita, 2006:121-122). In addition to an increased awareness of ‘difference’, there was also a shift away from the idea that all migrant women were victims,8 and that each category of diversity conferring disadvantage on them could be added cumulatively to form a ‘sum of oppressions’ (Anthias, 1992:79; Larner, 1991:53). As Calavita (2006:122) notes ‘additive accounts of migrant women’s vulnerability are neither accurate nor strategically useful’.

The greater attentiveness to the concept of difference in gender and migration scholarship, and the increased focus on the complex interrelationships of gender with other axes of social difference, is epitomised in a range of studies. Zhou (2000:445), for example, describes how migrant women from working-class Chinese families contributed significantly to the family income after migration to the United States. As a consequence of their increased financial input, they were entitled to make major household decisions, and to insist that their husbands shared some of the household

8 This cumulative disadvantage (Purkayastha, 2005:183) was sometimes referred to as a ‘double negative’ (M. Boyd, 1984), or the ‘double discrimination’ of being female and foreign (Escriva, 2000). It was also called ‘triple disadvantage’ (Kosack, 1976; Rivera, Nash, & Trlin, 2000) when scholars added the variable of class oppression. Espin (1999:8) claims that migrant women have several ‘mountains’ on their back, for example, the ‘heritage of tradition’ and ‘the oppression from outside’.

responsibilities. In short, their migration resulted in an overall improvement in their position in the family. Middle class Chinese women, in contrast, experienced a deterioration or permanent loss of their pre-migration status because of problems pursuing further education in their adopted country, and difficulties obtaining employment commensurate with their qualifications and experience.

Criticism of the Household Focus 

The focus on households that typifies the second phase of gender and migration scholarship resulted in the ‘ghettoisation’ of gender in migration studies (Curran et al., 2006:202). Hondagneu-Sotelo and Cranford (1999) were among the first to identify this marginalisation, and called for the redirection of gender and migration scholarship into other areas of the migration process. In a more recent article, Hondagneu-Sotelo (2003:8-9) explains that it is not only meso-level social institutions such as families and households that are gendered, but also macro-level structures such as labour markets, governments and nation states. She goes on to claim that it is particularly important to focus on the gendered aspects of these larger structures in the contemporary environment, because ‘immigrant women from around the world migrate to many post- industrial societies for work as nurses, nannies, cleaners and sex workers. Particular types of societies’, she concludes, ‘create particularly gendered labor demands’ (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2003:9).