ABSTRACT

Research output on the nexus of cities and migration has grown considerably since the local turn in migration policy. Knowing that this interdisciplinary research field has always shown a preoccupation with certain locations and has long been dominated by particular research topics, we wonder whether recent knowledge production is still characterized by a spatial one-sidedness that produces topical imbalances. Pursuing a reflexive perspective in the overlapping field of urban studies and migration studies, we chose to scrutinize the places of research: Where are the places of knowledge production, and which places are referred to and examined empirically? To find sound answers, we have examined more than 500 exemplary articles published over a period of ten years in ten prominent journals of migration studies or urban studies. With the help of bibliometric analysis, we can reveal particular patterns in the researched sites and researchers’ academic affiliations. Our study detects a clear dominance of research about the Global North, the places of migrant arrival, and larger cities. The results indicate both similarities and differences between city-related migration studies and migration-related urban studies. Thus, this study uncovers blind spots and illustrates how and why current—but nevertheless historically rooted—research practices portray migration movements and cities in a biased way.

摘要

自从地方转向移民政策以来，关于城市与移民关系的研究成果显着增长。知道这个跨学科研究领域总是表现出对某些地点的关注，并且长期以来一直被特定的研究主题所主导，我们想知道最近的知识生产是否仍然以产生主题不平衡的空间片面性为特征。在城市研究和移民研究的重叠领域中寻求反思的视角，我们选择仔细研究研究地点：知识生产地点在哪里，哪些地方被引用和实证检验？为了找到可靠的答案，我们检查了 500 多篇典型文章，这些文章在十年内发表在十个著名的移民研究或城市研究期刊上。在文献计量分析的帮助下，我们可以揭示研究地点和研究人员的学术隶属关系中的特定模式。我们的研究发现，关于全球北方、移民到达地和大城市的研究明显占主导地位。结果表明，与城市相关的迁移研究和与迁移相关的城市研究之间既有相似之处，也有不同之处。因此，这项研究揭示了盲点，并说明了当前（但仍根植于历史）的研究实践如何以及为何以有偏见的方式描绘移民运动和城市。结果表明，与城市相关的迁移研究和与迁移相关的城市研究之间既有相似之处，也有不同之处。因此，这项研究揭示了盲点，并说明了当前（但仍根植于历史）的研究实践如何以及为何以有偏见的方式描绘移民运动和城市。结果表明，与城市相关的迁移研究和与迁移相关的城市研究之间既有相似之处，也有不同之处。因此，这项研究揭示了盲点，并说明了当前（但仍根植于历史）的研究实践如何以及为何以有偏见的方式描绘移民运动和城市。