Is migration a unique field of study in social sciences? A response to Levy, Pisarevskaya, and Scholten

The emergence of a new research field or area of study in the social sciences always is fraught with controversy, fits and starts, theoretical, methodological, and even epistemological debates. Migration studies is no different, but some things are relatively unique about this ‘new’ field of study,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Comparative migration studies 2020-10, Vol.8 (1), p.1-9, Article 34
Main Author: Hollifield, James F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic disciplines
Assimilation
Bibliometrics
Commentary
Disciplines
Economics
Epistemology
Institutionalization
Migration
Politics
Population Economics
Segmentation
Social Sciences
Sociology
Teams
The coming of age of migration studies: Debating the evolution and impact of a research field
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The emergence of a new research field or area of study in the social sciences always is fraught with controversy, fits and starts, theoretical, methodological, and even epistemological debates. Migration studies is no different, but some things are relatively unique about this ‘new’ field of study, while others are more conventional. The article on the ‘rise of migration studies’ by the CrossMigration team, Levy et al. ( Comparative Migration Studies, 8 forthcoming), “Between Fragmentation and Institutionalization” under consideration here captures some of the controversies in migration studies, and poses some interesting questions about the direction of the field. Building on the ‘bibliometric analysis’ of journal articles by the cross-migration group, I ask what is unique about migration studies and what is conventional?
ISSN:2214-594X
2214-594X
DOI:10.1186/s40878-020-00192-3