Making Connections: re-appraising family, networks and social capital

Making Connections: re-appraising family, networks and social capital Professor Louise Ryan, Co-Director of the Social Policy Research Centre, Middlesex University, London

Aims • This paper argues for more attention to the processes through which migrants access, maintain and construct different types of relationships, in different social locations and with different types of people. • Going beyond a simplistic binary between dense bonding networks and expansive weak ties (Patulny and Svendsen, 2007) • Rather than simply focusing on the structure of informal ties, I suggest that an examination of the content and meaning gives a useful insight into a continuum of dynamic relationships • These concepts may be useful in discussing how new family connections emerge and, in particular, the gender roles that underpin that process

Migrant social networks • Vertovec (2002:3): ‘Migration is a process that both depends on, and creates, social networks’ • Migration leads to a re-organisation of social ties • Thus, Eve argues ‘migration can be seen as a special case of the development of social networks’ (2010: 1236). • However, many migration scholars do not undertake an analysis of network formation (Wierzbicki, 2004). • There is a tendency to simply take ethnic networks for granted; there has been little research on how migrant social ties are formed and change over time (Ryan et al, 2008, Ryan and Mulholland, 2013).

Social Network Analysis • Researchers of migration would be well advised to employ some of the specific concepts and terms in Social Networks Analysis. • Analysing durability, intensity, multiplexity, frequency and density is useful in providing a deeper understanding of the dynamic structure and function of migrants’ networks (Vertovec, 2001). • A social networks analysis provides a useful tool ‘for those macroscopic studies which currently leave interpersonal relations out and those interpersonal analyses which assume that relationships operate in a social structural vacuum’ (Wellman, 1984: 44)

Analysing networks • Social Network analysis (SNA) is experiencing ‘a golden age of rapid growth’ (Burt, et al, 2012). However, much of this development has occurred using a quantitative perspective. • This has been directly attributed (Burt et al 2012) to the ‘expanded computing and communication technology’ enabling statistical computations of large network structures. • For example, much of the research on ‘bridging networks’ uses quantitative methods to measure the number or frequency of associations across ethnic lines (e.g. Fernandez and Nichols 2002; Nannestad et al 2008).

Qualitative SNA • However, the dominance of a highly mathematical quantitative approach to SNA has both reflected and reinforced the relative absence of qualitative approaches to network analysis. • Despite calls in the literature, ‘few researchers have chosen to study social networks using qualitative methods’ (Hersberger, 2003) • and in the UK, in particular, examples of qualitative SNA are rare (Heath et al 2009).

Using qualitative SNA to study migrant networks • As Patulny and Svendsen (2007) and Edwards (2010) note, there is an opportunity for qualitative research to tell us more about the construction of ties - their intensity, durability and reciprocity. • Crossley (2010) observes: ‘social’ networks involve a world of meanings, feelings, relationships, attractions, dependencies, which cannot be simply reduced to mathematical equations.

Using Qual SNA to revisit bonding and bridging I use many of social networking concepts to examine how migrants access and construct ties with different types of people in different social locations (Ryan, 2011). Being mindful of networks as active entities (Boyd, 1989), it is necessary to consider spatial and temporal dynamism. • 1. how and why do migrants engage in network formation and on going network maintenance in the destination society • 2. what resources are accessed and generated through social ties with different types of people This raises questions about how ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ are defined and differentiated. The precise meaning of these concepts has been questioned (Geys and Murdoch, 2010; Patulny and Svendsen, 2007).

Bridging and bonding • Within migration studies there is a tendency to draw upon the work of Putnam • The distinction between dense networks of close ties and loose contacts of acquaintances is conceptualised as; • bonding ‘ties to people who are like me in some important way,’ • bridging, ‘ties to people who are unlike me in some important way’ (Putnam, 2007: 143). • But closed bonding networks may lead to ethnic enclaves and ghettoisation proving a threat to social cohesion (Crowley and Hickman, 2008). • while, bridging contacts tend to be associated with integration and social mobility (Nannestad, et al, 2008). • However, it is necessary to question what ‘like me’ may mean – not simply defined through ethnicity

Relationships within ties My work contributes to this field of study by: 1. going beyond a simple differentiation of bonding and bridging on the basis of the similarity or dissimilarity of the people involved, but instead to think about the different relationships taking place through these contacts 2. applying Granovetter’s and Bourdieu’s concepts of relative ‘social location’/‘social distance’ 3. considering the value and usefulness of resources travelling across horizontal and vertical bridges.

Content of ties while considerable attention has been paid to network structures, it is also necessary to examine network content (Podolny and Baron, 1997) What is the nature of inter-personal relationships within particular ties? What factors affect why some contacts remain ‘weak’ while others develop into deeper friendship? Dense networks may be constructed around ‘interpersonal attraction’ (Podolny and Baron, 1997: 677). Hence, Podolny and Baron have called for more research on ‘the contours and consequences of different types of content that flow through informal social ties’ (1997: 690). The reasons behind particular network size and composition are ‘still poorly understood’ (Roberts et al, 2009: 138) Ibarra and Deshpande observe, there is still insufficient understanding of ‘what leads people to form networks with particular characteristics’ (2004: 3).

Processes that enable networking • networking in new social and geographical contexts requires particular mechanisms • These can be understood as: • Opportunity structures • shared interests • and skills (see Ryan and Mulholland, 2013). • Migrants cannot simply make friends with anyone they wish, instead access to networks has to be negotiated and migrants may encounter unanticipated obstacles

Obstacles to networking • Bourdieu (1986) highlights that access to networks cannot be taken for granted. • Networks of privilege and access to resources may be constructed in ways that exclude outsiders (Reimer, et al, 2008). • Migration complicates class position as people may find themselves in reduced circumstances (Kelly and Lusis, 2006; Oliver and O’Reilly, 2010). • The social position of migrants may be complicated by language fluency, occupational status, expectations and ambition (Eade et al, 2006; Temple, 2010).

Vertical bridging • Migrants’ ability to mobilise social capital and successfully engage in vertical bridging or weak ties may depend upon the cultural capital (language, skills and educational qualifications) at their disposal (Bourdieu, 1986; Csedo, 2008). • But also on opportunities to meet people with similar interests in sharing resources (Ryan and Mulholland, 2013) • accessing weak ties may be particularly beneficial in enhancing employment and career opportunities (Granovetter, 1983).

Gender and networks • Within classic social network analysis there is both quantitative (Marsden, 1987) and qualitative (Wellman, 1984) evidence to show that network composition changes with age and family structure. • Marriage and motherhood impact sharply on the range, density and composition of women’s networks (Moore, 1990). • In her classic study of gender differences in networks, Karen Campbell found that: ‘Women with young children have more restricted network range and lower network composition, than women without youngsters’ (1988: 193-4). She found no such disparity in the networks of fathers compared to other men. • networks of women who are engaged in full time caring tend to become predominantly made up of other women: ‘Child rearing therefore skews the sex composition of networks more heavily towards women’ (Campbell, 1988: 184).

Gender, networks and life stage • Research also shows that through marriage and motherhood, women tend to become social hubs for their households and wider kinship ties: ‘The standard marital division of labour also assigns to women coordination of the couple’s kin and friendship’ (Fischer and Oliker, 1983: 129). • wives do almost all the ‘network maintaining work’ (Wellman 1984:17). • Network research shows women’s role in maintaining local neighbourhood relationships. • Neighbours form the largest portion of the networks of full time mothers, facilitated by local meetings through children, shopping etc (Moore, 1990).

resources • Resources, such as reciprocal childcare, are usually exchanged within these neighbourhood networks (Doucet, 2000). • Neighbours may also develop into intimate friendships (Wellman, 1984). • These classic network studies focused on largely sedentary populations and thus their application to migratory groups raises questions about how new comers can access local connections (Ryan et al, 2008; Ryan, 2011; Ryan and Mulholland, 2013).

Gender and Migration • Within the migration literature there is some evidence to suggest that non-working ‘trailing wives’ may play a key role in building local connections, especially around children and schooling (Beaverstock, 2005; Purkayastha, 2005). • This raises important questions about the gendering of networks and the ways in which family responsibilities impact on women’s migratory experience (Salaff and Greve, 2004; Cooke, 2007). • Almost 25 years ago, Monica Boyd highlighted empirical and theoretical challenges for research on migrant networks. These included; an analysis of the dynamism of network relationships over time and ‘the inclusion of women in models that are currently gender blind’ (1989: 654). • For migrant families: ‘It is largely women who bear the brunt of anxieties, social isolation, responsibilities and sacrifices necessary for the familial strategy to succeed’ (Cooke 2007: 59).

Data from two studies • ESRC-funded study on French highly skilled migrants (Mulholland and Ryan, 2010-12) • As Bourdieu (1986) notes, access to networks requires effort. Many women mentioned the effort they had to exert to build up their social ties in London. • ‘you have to work on it… When you’re coming from abroad, yes you have to work on it because when you arrive you know nobody, nobody knows you’ (Bernadette, French migrant) • Another mother noted: ‘I found it very lonely at first, so partly because I had a tiny baby I thought it was quite difficult to make friends. People didn’t know I was here... neighbours and local people, it took actually a long time to grow roots and community’ (Sylvie, French migrant).

Martine had recently arrived in London she was a full time mother of three children, her husband worked long hours. While he was incorporated in a busy work place she felt very isolated in the home: • ‘You never really think that you’re leaving so many friends and then you have no-one. It takes time to make new friends, a bit more than I thought’. • It takes time to re-build such trusting relationships in a new place and Martine felt that this was made more difficult in London by geographical distance: • ‘everything is more complicated even to meet friends...We are new but it’s also I think because the area is bigger so it’s much more complicated to organize…most of the people are putting their children in schools not really in the area’

Perceived transience • As noted elsewhere (Ryan, 2007), schools may be sites where migrant mothers make new friends but they may also encounter unanticipated obstacles to friendship making. • Another French mother, Valerie sent her children to an English primary school but this did not provide access to parental networks: • I remember her last day at the school, some of the mothers saying ‘Oh, I never realized you will stay such a long time, otherwise I would have invited you to coffee’. I said ‘thank you very much’. So they were a little bit… not very welcoming I would say • Perceptions of transience may impede access to local networks (Kennedy, 2008).

Obstacles to networks • ESRC-funded study of Polish migrants (Ryan et al, 2008-09) • Amelia, a Polish graduate in her 30s with two young sons: • ‘England is quite a divided society, in terms of class. I think that the problem is that with working class I don’t necessarily find a common language and common interests and things. The middle class they often reject you’.

Horizontal bridging • Through her children Inga, Polish professional, has established many acquaintances with other parents in her working class neighbourhood. Inga distinguishes between ‘close friends’ and ‘a circle of contacts’. • ‘I can’t say that I am really very good friends with them… when I have a big problem, like a personal problem, I wouldn’t turn to them, but if I needed my cat to be left for a week I would turn to them’ (Inga).

conclusion • This paper has sought to challenge simple assumptions about how migrants build new social ties in new places • It cannot be assumed that migrants simply arrive in a new location and immediately slot into tight, ethnic-specific bonds of friendship and mutual support • Neither can it be assumed that migrants will gradually over time build up wider, bridging networks with more diverse social actors • Although women may be perceived as the hubs of kinship and local neighbourhood networks (Wellman, 1984; 1990), it is apparent that migrant women may encounter a range of challenges and obstacles in constructing and accessing particular kinds of social ties

Conclusions Drawing on qualitative data, I suggest that networks need to be understood not only in terms of structure but also content. What are the relationships within social ties, what resources flow between these ties and what is the relative social location of the actors In order to build up such relationships and access the resources therein, migrants need particular opportunities, perceived shared interests and specific skills It is apparent that unanticipated obstacles may hinder migrants from making the kinds of social connections that they desire Migration may reduce their opportunities to meet like minded people, it may also shift their perceived social skills and social interests (cultural capital) Hence, migrants may end up relying on people not by choice but by necessity, this can impact on their sense of identity, belonging and wellbeing

Making Connections: re-appraising family, networks and social capital