Using Mixed Methods to Examine Refugees and Other Migrants’ Decision-Making in Transit

Project Overview and Context

The “Understanding Irregular Migrants Decision Making Factors in Transit Project” was funded by the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian National University’s Collaborative Research Programme on the International Movement of People. The goal of this project was to increase understandings of how refugees and other migrants make decisions within their migration journeys and in transit contexts. Most research on migrant decision-making focuses on the decision to leave the country of origin or the decision to return. Within the migration journey and transit countries, decision-making is more complex as an individual can choose to stay, migrate onward, or return. Furthermore, there are additional decisions on where to go, how to go, and when to go for those seeking to migrate onward. There is a recognition within migration research that we know too little about these details of migrants en route and what is happening between their origin and destination (Benezer & Zetter, 2015; Mainwaring & Brigden, 2016).

Increasing these understandings is important for the policy context. In 2015, over a million asylum seekers came to Europe, many of whom had been living in Turkey, Iran, or other countries for a significant period of time. This resulted in the European Union (EU)–Turkey deal being signed in 2016, which essentially created a one-for-one arrangement wherein all non-Syrians coming from Turkey to Greece would be returned, and for each Syrian who came and was returned, another Syrian would be resettled from Turkey to the EU. The effect was a significant decrease in the number of asylum seekers coming from Turkey to the EU in 2016 and 2017.

The data in this project were collected in Turkey and Greece from May to July 2015. The information gathered in this project reflects on the decision-making factors of refugees and other migrants in each country in deciding to stay, migrate onward, or return from each country.

Research Design

The research design for this project included a mixed-methods approach. Most research on migration journeys and migrant decision-making is qualitative due to the complexity of decision-making and that it may change over time. In this project, however, we sought to use quantitative methods as we wanted a large enough sample to be able to conduct a regression analysis and understand correlations between different variables.

We decided to use a migrant-to-migrant approach, meaning that migrants would use computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) methods to complete the questionnaire on tablets in face-to-face interviews. The benefit of this approach is that both the interviewer and respondent speak the same language, often have some similarities in experience in that they are both migrants, and migrant interviewers are able to gain access to locations that foreign researchers would find difficult (e.g., smugglers houses).

Recognizing, however, that closed-ended surveys exclude details on decision-making, we also incorporated qualitative interviews into the research design. These interviews were conducted with individuals that had already completed the closed-ended interview survey in an effort to gain further details on their experiences and decision-making.

Research Practicalities

There are several research practicalities that need to be navigated in implementing a migrant-to-migrant survey. The following steps were taken:

• 1.
  Questionnaire development: The questionnaire used a life cycle approach, meaning that it began with the individual’s experiences before their migration, then continued to their decision to migrate, experiences during their migration, their arrival in the current country, current experiences, and then their decision-making if they wanted to stay, migrate onward, or return, and follow-up questions regarding this decision. In developing the questionnaire, we had an advisory team that reviewed the questionnaire and offered feedback. We went through several rounds of the questionnaire before finalizing it for the fieldwork.
• 2.
  Informed consent: The questionnaire began with a detailed informed consent process. Considering that refugees and other migrants are a vulnerable population, it was important to be very clear about the purpose of the survey, how participation may or may not affect them, that it is confidential, and how the results will be shared and used. Within the preamble, fieldworkers explicitly stated “I also am not in a position to help you with the authorities or your situation here.” This was important as we wanted to ensure that individuals did not complete the survey with the expectation of assistance in return.
• 3.
  Questionnaire pilot: The questionnaire was piloted in a planning trip to Turkey before the fieldwork. A key set of questions within this questionnaire was on the factors that influenced the individual’s migration decision. We had a list of 25 different variables in the onward migration sections. We tested two ways: asking the open-ended question and filling in the individual’s response and asking each of the 25 items for a yes or no answer. We found that when asking the open-ended question, we received only one or two items (even after probing for more), whereas when we asked the 25 items, we received a yes to roughly half of the variables. Considering that we wanted to understand the impact of these different variables, we decided to use the second approach and ask each variable.
• 4.
  Translation: Once the questionnaire was finalized, we had it translated into each of the required local languages for our target population (Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, and Syrians).
• 5.
  Programming the questionnaire: We decided to use Kobo Toolbox as our survey methodology as it was a free software, could be used offline as well as online, and colleagues reported having a good experience with the software. The lead researcher learned the software, so that once in the field she could trouble shoot any problems that arose.
• 6.
  Fieldworker recruitment: To recruit fieldworkers, a local project manager was hired in each location. This project manager went to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working with migrants and introduced the project. They then asked for recommendations on individuals to hire for conducting the surveys and to also place an advertisement at the NGO. Local academics who had conducted research were also asked for recommendations regarding translators and migrants they had worked with. All applicants were then asked to come for an interview with the researcher and local project manager. They were interviewed on both their experience and their level of comfort in approaching people on the street to conduct interviews, time availability, and other practical issues required for conducting the research.
• 7.
  Fieldworker training: Once the fieldworkers had been selected, a 5-day training took place. Mandatory attendance was required at all days to work as a fieldworker on the project (training was also paid). A training manual was developed that was given to each respondent and included information on

  • a.
    Project background;
  • b.
    The overall methodology;
  • c.
    Overview of the questionnaire including guidelines on how to use the tablets, types of questionnaire questions, skip patterns, ranking questions, and scale questions;
  • d.
    How to select and approach participants including informed consent;
  • e.
    How to conduct an interview including building trust, privacy, objectivity/neutrality, interview behavior, and professionalism; managing sensitive issues; asking questions; and interpreting answers, how to handle long and elaborate answers, how to handle socially desirable answers;
  • f.
    What to do after the interview including confidentiality;
  • g.
    Potential problems and management;
  • h.
    Field safety protocol;
  • i.
    Daily reporting and expectations.

Four days of the fieldworker training were in a training center and included role-play, practicing the questionnaire, and testing of the fieldworkers.

• Pilot testing the survey: The final day of the fieldworker training was a pilot testing day for the fieldworkers to go out and complete interviews. On this day, all questionnaires were checked immediately at the end of the day and the fieldworkers reported back on any challenges they experienced or questions they had regarding the fieldwork. After this was completed, the official fieldwork began.
• Survey implementation: All surveys were implemented using CAPI methods. This allows for the surveys to be directly uploaded at the end of each fieldwork day and for the researcher to be able to check the data for consistency. All tablets were password protected, which also provides further data protection to the respondents than using paper surveys that could be potentially lost or stolen.
• Respondent recruitment: As there is no census available of the irregular migrant population in each country, it was not possible to use random sampling, and instead the research team used multiple points of entry to find respondents. Entry points included approaching migrants on the street (Greece = 226, Turkey = 115), referrals through a limited number of migrant organizations (Greece = 29, Turkey = 14), and the networks developed in the field (Greece = 25, Turkey = 187). From these entry points, snowball sampling was used to find further respondents (Greece = 249, Turkey = 213).
• Survey checking: After surveys were completed, survey checking was conducted on an ongoing basis. Approximately one in every three respondents interviewed was called to check the survey results. If there were any discrepancies between the information collected during the survey and the checking, this was recorded. An assessment was then made regarding each individual discrepancy, and in some cases, the original data were used; in others, revised data were used; and if the data were deemed unreliable, they were discarded (one case).
• Qualitative interviews: The final method used in this study was follow-up in-depth interviews with selected survey respondents. The main selection criteria were employment (we interviewed a mix of employed and unemployed respondents) and complexity of case (where the survey was not optimal for capturing the individual’s full story). We sought a balance between the different countries of origin and gender. All interviews were translated and transcribed into English and coded for analysis.
• Practicing reciprocity: Reciprocity is an important concept in refugee research. Mackenzie, McDowell, and Pittaway (2007) argue that although the principles incorporated under “do no harm” are critically important, they are not enough and “that researchers need to move beyond harm minimization as a standard for ethical research and recognize an obligation to design and conduct research projects that aim to bring about reciprocal benefits for refugee participants and/ or communities” (pp. 12–13). One way that we tried to do this in our study is to practice reciprocity by helping respondents whenever we could. It is important to contrast here, that we explicitly say in our recruitment we are unable to help people as we do not want them to participate in the survey with the expectation of something in return. However, all fieldworkers were given a list of NGOs working in the area and services that they offered to refugees and other migrants. When an individual was interviewed and if they were in need, fieldworkers would refer them to NGOs and provide them information on where they could go to access help. Finally, at the end of the project, we had small resources where we were able to bring some food and supplies to some of the most vulnerable individuals interviewed.
• Data storage: Ethics in data storage is also very important. Recalling that we collected phone numbers, these were all deleted at the end of the fieldwork and not stored in the data set. The data were kept under password protection and safely stored. It will be deleted after 7 years.

Method in Action

On the whole, the methodology worked well. The beginning of survey implementation is always difficult and challenging to find initial respondents. Fieldworkers experienced frustration and concern at the beginning regarding not being able to find respondents. This was managed by continued encouragement and support, and after the initial week, this improved and fieldworkers were able to find respondents. As many people were approached on the street, there were a high number of refusals to participate; however, this is to be expected and fieldworkers became used to this.

The CAPI surveys worked very well and few issues were encountered. In the initial few days, the fieldworkers reported that some response categories were not available in the questionnaire that respondents were stating. A few on the spot response categories were added to the questionnaire to avoid large numbers of “other” responses. This was possible as the lead researcher knew the software and could do this on the spot. Some days the fieldworkers were not able to connect to Wi-Fi right away and this led to a delay in the survey being uploaded.

At the end of the survey, respondents were asked for their phone numbers to follow-up and check survey responses. Some respondents did not have a mobile phone and were not able to give a number, and some did not want to share their phone number. This was anticipated from the beginning, but meant that these respondents could not be called for follow-up. This occurred, however, in only a small number of cases.

Research Analysis

The analysis for this project had three components: (a) a descriptive overview of the survey results, (b) regression analysis, and (c) mixing of the qualitative data with the quantitative results to further examine certain topics. The first step was a cleaning of the data to check for incomplete or inconsistent respondents.

Practical Lessons Learned

This study highlights the multiple steps that need to be taken in implementing a migrant-to-migrant survey and the benefits of using a mixed-methods approach. Implementing a survey takes a lot of preparation and planning. Pre-trips were held to each field-site before arriving for the actual fieldwork. Based on previous survey implementation, several lessons were incorporated into this study such as having a mandatory paid training, establishing high standards for fieldworkers to meet at the training, and not continuing with fieldworkers that did not meet this standard for the actual implementation. It is essential to ensure a strong team of fieldworkers to have a good implementation.

Furthermore, it is important to make sure your fieldworkers are treated well during the implementation. A key practical lesson in this research was that these were very difficult interviews to conduct for the fieldworkers. This is because often respondents shared beyond the survey questions discussing issues that they experienced of rape, torture, abuse, family separation, and other topics. In the training, we discussed that interviews may be difficult and to discuss experiences within the field team for de-briefing and to take time off between interviews that were challenging.

Finally, recognizing that refugees and other migrants are a vulnerable population, practicing reciprocity and encouraging the fieldworkers to assist people where possible are very important. In several instances, fieldworkers walked respondents to an NGO and introduced them so that they knew the services available. In one case, a fieldworker took someone to the hospital who needed medical assistance and stayed with them to translate so that they got the care they needed and were calm because they knew what was going on. Although clearly as researchers we cannot intervene in respondents’ situations, when individuals needed help and the team could assist in these small but meaningful ways, it was always encouraged and supported.

Conclusion

This project resulted in the collection of 1,056 surveys and 60 qualitative interviews collected with refugees and other migrants from May to July 2015 in Turkey and Greece. The timing was important, as it unexpectedly coincided with the beginning of the so-called “European migration crisis.” Our findings helped to elicit understandings of why refugees and other migrants wanted to move onward from Turkey and Greece at this time.

The methodology we used was a mixed methodology of migrant-to-migrant questionnaire interviews and follow-up qualitative interviews. The approaches combined provided different insights into refugees and other migrants’ decision-making for onward migration, stay, or return in Greece and Turkey. In working with refugees and other migrants, several steps were taken to ensure protection for the respondents and the fieldworkers. We used reciprocity whenever possible to assist respondents. The methodology worked well and the resulting data set is still being used for further analysis.