Enfoques

Following the initial task of locating my two research sites, the next step was to identify and gain access to my research participants, both returnees and key informants. This, in a multi- sited research represents a twofold challenge. Return migrants constitute a specific segment of the population that can be difficult to locate as they may be spread out in various clusters within the overall population (Kuschminder 2017:27; van Hear 1998). Therefore, multiple access strategies were used to find participants and these varied slightly on the place of return. My main entry strategy was to conduct a questionnaire survey with the only objective of identifying my research participants and introduce the research to them. To do so, I targeted specific physical and virtual places where I could have access to returnees. Two other secondary strategies were finding participants through snowballing46 _{or networking} and, in a few cases, approaching those people who publicly self-identified as returnees. The first selected location to carry out the questionnaire survey was the local governmental offices (DIRMP and DAHMF), responsible for providing services to migrants in Mexico City and Huaquechula. As these were governmental services, I had to follow the

46 _{In snowball sampling once the researcher has access to participants, s/he essentially uses}

required protocol which seemed to be bureaucratic, therefore I was seriously concerned about its efficiency. Surprisingly, in both cases the entry strategy47 _{worked well and I was} granted an interview with the head of each office. During these meetings, I introduced myself and the research project, making particular efforts to explore if there was any interest from them in actively collaborating in this study, either in terms of data that they would want me to collect, or making further use of my research results to inform policy and practices. Despite my efforts, none of the interviewed authorities showed any interest in collaborating in this study. Nonetheless, I requested access to their waiting areas in order to administer my questionnaire and identify possible participants. Particularly in the case of Huaquechula, despite the fact that the local authority considered that this site was not pertinent for the study as he believed there was not a significant number of returnees in the town, he was willing to help. Consequently, I realised that for this field site it would be necessary to strengthen the snowballing strategy.

A second entry point in both sites was through non-governmental organisations providing services for returnees. In this case, the access was less bureaucratic due to previous connections I had with key actors. After a brief introduction to the project, the relevant staff were willing to introduce me to the returnees that they had contact with. Despite having access to fewer returnees, people were more willing to be interviewed, perhaps due to the pre-existing relationship of trust between them and the NGO.

While it proved to be the least successful, I had a third entry point. In the case of the urban site, I approached one of the largest call centres which employs a significant number of return migrants in the city48_{. In the case of Huaquechula, I approached several public}

47 _{The strategy was to send an e-mail with a formal letter attached introducing myself and the}

research, followed up by the delivery of the hard copy of the letter at the premises of the institution targeted. In order to give more formality to my image as researcher, I also made some business cards including the university logo as well as my contact details. As a third step, I followed up through telephone calls.

48 _{I consider that through this place I could have had access to a higher number of participants with}

more diverse origins (other than Mexico City) but they had little interest in being interviewed. On one hand, accessing this space required more time since I had to learn about returnees’ sub-culture and social dynamics as well as gain their trust (e.g. many of the people working in these call centres are young people from the 1.5 generation who grew up in the USA so Spanglish is the main

communication language and the use of slang is very common. Additionally, they use to socialise after working hours in local bars and restaurants to which I did not have access). On the other hand, it was hard to find returnees willing to be interviewed. Those who agreed in responding the questionnaire were not very interested in being interviewed and in several cases, they even gave me wrong contact details. Additionally, I also tried contacting the administration office of the call centre to get help distributing the online questionnaire survey, but I never got any reply to my e- mails.

schools within the municipality49_{. In addition to these physical entry points, I approached} returnees in virtual spaces such as Facebook. It was though this avenue that I identified three other entry points to participants. I will elaborate further on these strategies later in this chapter.

With regard to the snowballing technique, this was a method that was used in both sites but which proved to be more effective in the urban location. The typical process would be that my interviewee identified someone whom he or she would introduce me to. During my initial contact (either by phone or in person) with the potential participant, I introduced the study and checked the person’s interest in being part of it. For those who showed interest in participating, I would then proceed to arrange the time and place of the interview. In the case of Huaquechula, many people, either participants or key informants, would identify returnees, provide me with their names (or in many cases just their nicknames) and information of where to locate them, but they often did not want to be identified as the source of information. In general, people were so cautious that they did not even want to be seen in public with me. Undoubtedly, the fact that on numerous occasions I approached returnees without being introduced by anyone, had a negative effect and people refused to be interviewed, or even answer the questionnaire.

Lastly, in the case of Mexico City I approached some participants directly who publicly self-identified as returnees through the mainstream media50 _{or during public events in which} I participated (see Figure 4). While participants identified in this manner were low in numbers, everyone accessed through this strategy agreed to participate in the study. During my time in both field sites I was always introduced to someone new or I discovered a new entry point which would provide me with access to more returnees. This experience leads me to believe that there is a significant presence of return migrants in both locations which merits further exploration.

Once the interviews with returnees were completed, I proceeded to contact my third group of interest, service providers and policy makers of both governmental organisations and civil society. My aim was to interview representatives of each of the governmental

49 _{Authorities in two schools helped me to have indirect access to those households identified as}

having return migrants. I sent through the students the questionnaire survey and a letter explaining the research project and inviting people to participate in the study. Many questionnaires sent did not come back and I am almost sure that many of these questionnaires were filled in by the children themselves. In total, I was only able to access three interviewees through this channel.

50 _{For an example see http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/may/17/deported-to-mexico-}

services or programmes identified as relevant by returnees, as well as those policy makers identified through my participation in various seminars (see Figure 4) or through interviews with other key informants. In order to access governmental officers, I used the same strategy mentioned earlier51 _{and managed to interview those in charge of services identified as the} most relevant by returnees. In the case of civil society, as I have been working intermittently within the migration field in Mexico for approximately 10 years, people were aware of who I was and this facilitated access considerably.

Figure 4. Forums and seminars attended during fieldwork

Name of event Organiser Date

Seminar, The return of Mexican migrants from the USA to Michoacán, Oaxaca, Zacatecas, Puebla, Guerrero and Chiapas from 2000 to 2012: Building a

comprehensive reintegration programme for migrants and their families.

Autonomous University of Zacatecas (UAZ) and the National Institute of Social Development (INDESOL)

February 22, 2015

Seminar, They have the voice, a dialogue with migrants’ rights advocates.

Iberoamerican University, Mexico City

March 25, 2015 Seminar, Dreamers and USA children,

citizens in exile with their deported parents in Mexico.

California and Mexico Project, and US Mexico Foundation

March 27, 2015

Seminar, Strategies of integration and reintegration of migrants to their host and home countries.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs July 15, 2015

Workshop, Social and productive integration/reintegration of migrants.

Ministry of the Interior October 2015

Seminar, Return migration paths: young returnees (1.5 generation) working in Mexico City call centres.

Michael Da Cruz, COLEF November 9, 2015

Source: Fieldwork with key informants in Mexico.