Received: 6 December 2019 Accepted: 11 July 2020 DOI: 10.1111/glob.12317 ORIGINAL ARTICLE The networked character of migration and transnationalism Başak Bilecen1,2 Miranda J. Lubbers3 1 Department of Sociology, University of Abstract Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands 2 Acknowledgement of the prominent role of social networks Center for Migration, Citizenship and Development, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, in migration studies marked a significant departure from ear- Germany lier studies, suggesting that social networks determine migra- 3 Department of Social and Cultural tion decisions, trajectories, and outcomes. While social network Anthropology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain analytical tools have not always been used in empirical investi- gations of migratory phenomena, studies on migration that use Correspondence Başak Bilecen, Department of Sociology, relational approaches also show an inherent network thinking. Interuniversity Center for Social Science (ICS), In this paper, we review the state of the art of the literature Grote Rozenstraat 31, Building 2222-Room 305, 9712 TG Groningen, The Netherlands. on migration and social networks, highlighting the advances Email: b.bilecen@rug.nl made by empirical research using network thinking, particu- larly in different stages of migration and for operationalizing transnational phenomena related to migration. Based on this review, we detect the role of networks in different stages of migration, and we reflect on the remaining challenges for future research regarding the role of social networks within migration scholarship. KEYWORDS migration and mobility, network analysis, relational approaches, social networks, transnationalism INTRODUCTION Migration is networked. Individuals are embedded in plural social networks that influence the ways in which they mobi- lize resources, adjust to new circumstances, envisage their identities, and spend their lives. Social networks are partic- ularly important during international migration when decisions about trajectories are taken and when ties, belongings, and attachments are (re)imagined and (re)negotiated. Migration, in turn, also affects networks. This is not only the case This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2021 The Authors. Global Networks published by Global Networks Partnership and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Global Networks. 2021;21:837–852. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/glob 837 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 838 BILECEN AND LUBBERS for migrants, but also for those who stay behind, whose lifeworlds also involve transnational dimensions through their connections with migrants. At an aggregate level, migration even alters the linkages between nation-states and their institutions. Although network thinking (the idea that individuals are interdependent rather than making decisions in a vacuum) has been inherent in migration studies ever since the concept of “chain migration” was proposed (MacDonald & Mac- Donald, 1964), networks have often been used in a metaphorical sense (Bilecen et al., 2018; Krissman, 2005, Vertovec, 2009), that is, as a vocabulary for describing social situations, taking for granted that they matter rather than by ana- lyzing the structure of relationships and interactions and their consequences. When networks are studied explicitly, migration researchers have not always used a social network analytical perspective as in other disciplines, adopting specifically developed quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and analysis for relational data. Rather, much research on migration focuses either on individuals or dyadic relationships in the context of networks (Krissman, 2005; Mitchell, 1969). Consequently, the literature on the networked character of migration is scattered. This makes it difficult to understand what is currently known about the role of networks in migration. This paper provides a review of empirical studies on the networked character of migration with the aim to eval- uate the state of the art and to discuss future pathways for research. To accomplish this task, we first identify how networks have been approached in migration research, distinguishing between social network analysis and relational approaches stemming among others from cultural sociology. Subsequently, we review what these two approaches have jointly taught us regarding the networked character of migration, following three broad phases of migration: The pre-migration phase (including decision-making and preparing for migration), the migration phase (including border- crossings and transit), and the post-migration phase (e.g., adjustment to the new society), the latter of which is under- stood as a long-term phase. We organize the literature around these three phases because research has traditionally focused on a single one, given the logistic difficulty of following migrants (see for an exception the Mexican Migration Project, e.g., Massey, 1987). We then review studies on migrant transnationalism, which allows for a more flexible mod- elling of these phases and focuses more on the connections with the countries of origin. On the basis of our review, we argue that network and relational approaches should be better integrated to unearth the full potential of the social networks and migration nexus. In conclusion, we describe avenues for future research. NETWORKS IN MIGRATION STUDIES: SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS AND RELATIONAL SOCIOLOGY Researchers into the networked character of migration consider that individuals do not act in a vacuum, but rather their actions are interdependent with those of others via the social relationships that bind them. These social relation- ships are regarded as conduits for flows of material and non-material resources. They form social networks that are connected with the social behaviours of the actors. Agency can modify the social structure, and vice versa, the embed- dedness in social networks can offer actors ideas or opportunities or can limit their possibilities. In migration research, networks of relationships are investigated mainly from two angles: a social network analytic perspective and a relational approach. The interdisciplinary research into social networks has its origins in psychology, where sociometry was invented (Moreno, 1934), and in the Manchester school of anthropology, which systematized the study of social networks (e.g., Barnes, 1954; Bott, 1957; cf. Scott, 1996). Social network analysis (often abbreviated as SNA) conceptualizes inter-individual relationships as embedded within a larger set of ties (or network) and has a specific interest in how these relationships are structured and what implications this has for individual action. As Wellman and Berkowitz (1988) explained, Social structures can be represented as networks – as sets of nodes (or social system members) and sets of ties depicting their interconnections [. . . ] It immediately directs analysts to look at linked social rela- tions and frees them from thinking of social systems as collections of individuals, two-person dyads, bounded groups, or simple categories (Wellman & Berkowitz, 1988, p. 4; original emphasis). 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License THE NETWORKED CHARACTER OF MIGRATION AND TRANSNATIONALISM 839 The first step in investigating a network is to define its boundaries, that is, the “set of nodes”. These can either be defined sociocentrically as the set of relationships among the members of a predefined group or egocentrically as the set of social relationships that a focal actor has with others and that these others have among each other. The nodes (or actors or “vertices”) can be individuals, organizations (e.g., Ryan & D’Angelo, 2018), or even countries to study the migration flows between countries (Danchev & Porter, 2018; Windzio, 2018). In migration studies, most network research focuses on individuals, and often an egocentric (or personal network) perspective is employed to study indi- vidual actions and the relationships that influence them, whatever the context in which they were created (e.g., family relationships, work ties). In many cases, the networks are centred upon migrants as the focal actors, but they can also centre upon non-migrants (e.g., in comparative studies). The second step is to elicit the linkages (or edges or ties) between the actors, which can be of any type depending on the investigation, such as (between individuals) friendship, communication, emotional support, money transfers and other relevant types of relationships, transactions or exchanges that connect people. In personal network research, the definition of these linkages defines who the network members are: A network that gives emotional support may there- fore be differently composed than a communication network. Apart from the linkages between the focal individual (ego) and their network members (alters) in personal networks, researchers can also enquire about the relationships among network members. These linkages in personal network analysis, or the relationships among group members in sociocentric network analysis, help us to see the network structure, which is acknowledged to have an important effect on human agency. Examples of relevant structural mechanisms for migration research are reciprocity, homophily, bro- kerage, network closure, and cohesion. For instance, past research analysed how reciprocity in resource exchanges works in the networks of migrants who live in different nation-states, and thus who are entitled to different rights, rules, and regulations (Bilecen, 2020; Faist & Bilecen, 2015; Kornienko et al., 2018; Mazzucato, 2008). Another strand of research investigated the homophily of ties, that is, the tendency to associate with similar others (McPherson et al., 2001; in migration research mainly in terms of ethnicity), which migrants have to others in the receiving contexts that have implications for their social incorporation (Leszczensky et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2016). In his widely known “Relational Manifesto”, Emirbayer argued that The best developed and most widely used approaches to the analysis of social structure are clearly those of social network analysis. This perspective is not primarily a theory or even a set of complicated research techniques, but rather a comprehensive new family of analytical strategies, a paradigm for the study of how resources, goods and even positions flow through particular figurations of social ties (Emirbayer, 1997, p. 298). Yet, as other scholars started to advocate for investigating the social by shifting the primacy from individuals and their attributes to relationships among individuals (Tilly, 1978; White, 2008), other relational approaches emerged (Emirbayer, 1997; Mische, 2011). In particular, cultural sociology has contributed significantly to the study of relation- ships in terms of their cultural meaning, discourse, and relational practices, aspects that tend to be mostly ignored by quantitative social network analysts who focus more on the structure of networks and their effects but that can affect whether network effects take place (e.g., Mische, 2011). The relational approach stemming from cultural sociology is particularly suitable for exploring the meaning structure of relationships, indicating the expectations about relation- ships, norms, symbolic and cultural practices within networks (Fuhse, 2009, 2015). In addition, it can highlight the relational work (Zelizer, 2012) or networking practices (e.g., Schapendonk, 2015) employed by individuals, that is, “the creative effort people make establishing, maintaining, negotiating, transforming, and terminating interpersonal rela- tions” (Zelizer, 2012, p. 149). It also highlights individual decision-making processes within the context of relationships and captures their dynamism in less linear forms. Many of the insights from cultural sociology have seen their way into social network analysis through qualitative social network approaches (Hollstein, 2011) that tend to focus on dyadic relationships within the context of larger groups such as families, whether or not they also reveal network structures. 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 840 BILECEN AND LUBBERS In migration research, researchers have used qualitative methods to address the relationships migrants form and maintain as well as to investigate social support migrants exchange with their family members or friends (Bilecen, 2019, 2020; Lubbers et al., 2021; Menjívar, 2000; Ryan, 2011; Ryan et al., 2008). In addition, the meanings attached to certain relationships and networks are also highly relevant for the topic of identity in migration studies (Scranton et al., 2016; Zontini, 2004). The contribution of such studies is their in-depth examination of meanings migrants attach to their relationships as well as to the resources they exchange within their networks but also a greater eye for changes in relationships. After all, flows and exchanges of resources are guided by social norms, expectations, and culture. Pachucki and Breiger (2010) and Crossley (2010) argued that these two ways of “network thinking” (Pachucki & Breiger, 2010, p. 205) complement each other. On the one hand, social network analysis allows researchers to map complex network structures, spot absent ties, detect recurring patterns, and estimate effects, “allow[ing] us to see things that are not visible to the naked eye” (Crossley, 2010, p. 6). Relational approaches from cultural sociology, on the other hand, provide the “’story of the network” (Crossley, 2010, p. 12), its contents, meanings, the individual agency in networks, and temporality. THREE PHASES OF MIGRATION This section reviews how network and relational perspectives have jointly enriched our understanding of individual migration processes following three stages: Before, during, and after migration. As indicated before, these stages have typically been investigated separately in empirical research, most likely because it is difficult to follow migrants and their networks longitudinally over their migratory trajectories. Social networks in the pre-migration phase The role of personal relationships in initiating spatial mobility has been well established (Boyd, 1989; Fawcett, 1989; Massey, 1987; Massey et al., 1993). Social network approaches have shown that, on the one hand, strong, affective relationships in the country of origin can prevent migration because individuals wish to stay together, but they can also encourage it in the case of family members’ economic needs (Asad & Garip, 2019; Haug, 2008; Marcu, 2018). Knowing people in a destination country and/or knowing people with migration experience can reduce social, eco- nomic, and emotional risks, uncertainties, and costs of migration (e.g., Collyer, 2005). Personal connections are not only thought to affect the decision to migrate but also to influence the (initial) choice of place and the period of set- tlement by providing information about those destinations and by facilitating adjustment (e.g., Haug, 2008). As early as 1964, MacDonald and MacDonald introduced the concept of chain migration, defined as “that movement through which prospective migrants learn of opportunities, are provided with transportation, and have initial accommodation and employment arranged by means of primary social relationships with previous migrants” (p. 82, original emphasis). These expectations were supported in early empirical research that employed a network perspective. For example, in the pioneering Mexican Migration Project that started in 1982, Durand and Massey (2004) designed surveys that asked individuals detailed information about the composition of their households and the migration experiences of every member, but they also asked whether the head of household is connected to other people who had migrated to the United States and details about these relationships. Drawing on these data, Massey and colleagues (1993) and Pal- loni and colleagues (2001) demonstrated that an individual’s probability of migration increases when (s)he has friend- ship or community ties with someone with migration experience and/or when there is a migrant in his/her household. In a later large-scale multinational household survey (Migration between Africa and Europe; MAFE) with a similar methodology, Liu (2013) found evidence for this network effect after controlling for alternative explanations such as family reunification and household strategies. Paul (2019) showed however that pre-migration networks may differ across nationalities. The results of these studies have further inspired theoretical work. For example, using simula- tions, Teteryatnikova (2013) showed that even a small increase in personal relationships with individuals in a country of destination can significantly increase the likelihood of migration. 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License THE NETWORKED CHARACTER OF MIGRATION AND TRANSNATIONALISM 841 Consequently, while pioneer migrants experience high costs and risks of migration, later waves of migrants have much lower costs, as they can mobilize their network resources in the realm of finding jobs, housing, and getting help with obtaining or filling in official documents (Fussell & Massey, 2004). These mechanisms turn international migration into a self-reinforcing process in the long run (Bailey, 1982; Fussel & Massey, 2004; Herman, 2006; Massey et al., 1993; Morawska, 1989; Palloni et al., 2001; Tilly, 1990, 2007; Waldinger & Fitzgerald, 2004), a phenomenon known as the cumulative causation of migration or the network approach in migration studies. It has also been argued that a culture of migration emerges over time: As the rate of migration increases, it tends to become normalized in the communities of origin through relational mechanisms (Kandel & Massey, 2002). Nevertheless, not everyone migrates, and the reasons for migration are still on the agenda of researchers (Faist, 2000; Garip, 2016). Research using qualitative approaches has shown that the decision to migrate is not necessarily concerted; it can be the result of negotiations rife with conflicts (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). Research has also shown that network mobilization and uses differ across groups, such as by gender. Hoang (2011) observed that men use larger acquaintanceship networks to inform and support migration, whereas women build on family networks (cf. Riosmena & Liu, 2019), also for social protection. A further insight from relational approaches is that the “network effects” that are confirmed by social network analysis are in part a result of individual agency. Schapendonk (2015) observed how some migrants actively and strategically build their networks to prepare migration, while others do not. Even if carefully prepared, the connections prospective migrants create do not always function as expected, which can further explain the variation in outcomes. Furthermore, the influence of social networks on migration decision-making should not automatically be consid- ered as positive. First, Pohjola (1991) argued that although social networks had positive effects on the decision-making process of where to migrate, they also narrowed down the available options, and thus choices of migrants are con- strained by their networks. Following relational thinking, it is suggested that networks contribute to the formation and maintenance of so-called migration corridors at the macro-level, where migrants from one village are concentrated in one locale in the countries of immigration (e.g., De Haas, 2007; Parsons et al., 2007). Second, networks can also spread disinformation (Sanchez et al., 2018) that can hurt migrants, either because it prevents them from accessing the help they qualify for, or because it makes them vulnerable to exploitative practices. Third, network-based migra- tion can result in the dependency of persons as well as economies (Boyd, 1989; Fawcett, 1989).1 In this vein, newly arrived migrants often have language difficulties and lack of understanding of the functioning of the wider host soci- ety, so they rely on their established co-ethnic/co-national networks in the countries of immigration when dealing with bureaucracy and practical things such as seeing a doctor or babysitting (e.g., Pohjola, 1991; Sue et al., 2019), which might make the newcomers dependent on the previous migrants. Fourth, Engbersen, Snel and Esteves (2016) showed that the assistance of settled migrants depended on the reception context: Restrictive migration policies, a slack labour market, and anti-immigrant attitudes of the native population reduce the motivation to help and led to gate-keeping, resulting in reverse cumulative causation. Social networks in the transit or border-crossing phase A second, smaller strand of research highlights the role social networks play during migration itineraries, for those trajectories that are lengthy and uncertain. Recent ethnographies (e.g., Andersson, 2014; de León, 2015) describe the physical dangers, violence, and exploitations to which migrants are often subjected on South-North itineraries, whether these are from Mexico to the United States or from Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe. The few studies that focus explicitly on the role that relationships or social networks play in this phase argue that personal ties ease the crossing of borders of countries that apply restrictive entrance policies to collectives of migrants. For instance, personal ties provide valuable information about finding a helper or smuggler to cross national borders (e.g., Asad & Garip, 2019; Bilecen, 2012; Garip, 2016). Adopting a personal network approach, Fazito and Soares (2015) showed that special- ized actors in the illegal migration industry emerged within the context of social networks and suggested that par- ticularly return migrants with a high brokerage in their personal networks are valuable intermediaries in clandestine 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 842 BILECEN AND LUBBERS operations of border crossings. Furthermore, using qualitative approaches, Mandić (2017) and Achilli (2018) showed that migrant-smuggler relationships were mostly positive, far from the dominant narrative of public policy: Migrants saw them as allies, guides and informants that could save their lives. Rather than detaining migration, policy actions against smugglers only put migrants at greater risk during their itineraries. Koser (1997) argued that the social network approach is crucial for understanding the asylum-seeking process. He analysed migrants’ ties with friends and family members, community organizations, travel agents, human smugglers, and employers, and showed that asylum seekers often end up filing their asylum claims in countries they had never thought of before, their destinations being determined by smugglers and a weak connection (Koser, 1997). Indeed, chance encounters play a large role in the transit phase (Gladkova & Mazzucato, 2017). Relational research concluded that intentionality is a problematic concept in transit migration (Wissink et al., 2013). Furthermore, particularly dur- ing the transit or border-crossing phase, brokerage as a network mechanism facilitating or hindering such movements have been illustrated in manifold contexts (Faist, 2014). Wissink and Mazzucato (2018) explored the change of per- sonal networks and their use in the transit phase. Adopting a personal network perspective in ethnographic fieldwork in Turkey and Greece, the authors observed a series of critical events during the migration process (e.g., death in the family or the increase in smugglers’ fees) that influence the formation and disintegration of personal ties, leading to fluctuations both in the networks and in their functions. Social networks in the post-migratory phase The largest body of research into the networked character of migration involves the post-migration phase. Social net- work analytic scholarship has focused in the first place on describing with whom migrants socialize as an indicator for contested concepts such as “social integration” or “assimilation”. To do so, they describe the overall characteristics of the personal network, such as the size and composition of the network in terms of numbers of native-born peo- ple, compatriots, and other migrants in the place of residence, people living in the place of origin, and other places. Moreover, research also describes the ties that migrants have with each of the different sets of network members at a relationship level in terms of their roles, strength and duration of the tie and the way in which network members in different places or of different origins are connected or segregated in the personal network (network structure, e.g., Lubbers et al., 2010; Vacca et al., 2018). The main assumption of this line of research has been that the more ties migrants have with the native population in the country of immigration, the more socially integrated they are, while those who have more ties with co-ethnics either in the country of residence or origin used to be identified as less well integrated (Eisenstadt, 1952; Gordon, 1964; Nauck, 1989; but see below). Second, it was assumed and corroborated that time of residence is correlated with the number of relationships formed with natives (e.g., Facchini et al., 2014). Empirical social network research showed that in the initial arrival phase, migrants rely strongly on the one or few contacts with compatriots they have in their new country of residence (e.g., Bashi, 2007; Bauer et al., 2009). These ties provide newcomers with diverse types of support. However, it is believed to be crucial for the social mobility of immigrants, as well as for the integration of society, that newcomers also establish “expansive networks” that include native-born individuals or immigrants from other groups (Hagan, 1998). Nonetheless, the extent to which this is pos- sible depends on, among other factors, the openness of the native-born population to migrants and the level of racism encountered (Sánchez et al., 2018) as well as on the opportunities that migrants have to meet native-born people (Lub- bers et al., 2021). In general, studies focusing on migrants with longer residence in the destination country found a large variety of network profiles in terms of composition and structure (e.g., Cachia & Maya- Jariego, 2018; Gidengil & Stolle, 2018; Lubbers et al., 2007), showing that there are many ways in which individuals shape their networks after migration. Nevertheless, having ties with native-born persons in the country of residence is not at all incompatible with having ties with individuals in the country of origin (e.g., Snel et al., 2006), which shows that continued contact with the coun- try of origin does not hinder integration in the country of residence. 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License THE NETWORKED CHARACTER OF MIGRATION AND TRANSNATIONALISM 843 While this line of research focuses primarily on describing the composition of the networks of immigrants, there is still much to be done in understanding the underlying mechanisms of the formation and maintenance of migrants’ per- sonal ties with co-ethnics, natives, and others over time and space (e.g., Eve, 2010), given the relative lack of longitudi- nal network studies, quantitative or qualitative. For instance, Lubbers and colleagues (2010) studied the personal net- works of Argentinean migrants in Spain longitudinally and found that migrants’ networks had a high turnover over time but remained relatively stable in composition and structure at the network level, suggesting that there might be more stable characteristics such as personality traits that affect network morphology. Also, they found that larger changes in composition and/or structure were often related to life events such as marriage, childbirth, or divorce, a result that was also found for non-migrant populations (e.g., Bidart, 2006), such that network integration or the lack thereof may be a by-product of such events. These findings, thus, question the extent to which deliberate networking is underlying network dynamics, and thus the assumption that having more ties with natives indicates integration instead of chance. Apart from describing the personal networks in terms of their size, composition, and structure, researchers have analysed which resources are exchanged through networks and how they facilitate adjustment to the new society. The first line of research that does so focuses on social support. In this line, personal networks are assumed to be a major source of help in coping with the challenges of daily life and, in the case of migrants, adjustment to the new country. Personal networks are conceived as a safety net both in terms of emotional resources that facilitate feel- ings of belonging and in terms of access to material and symbolic resources. Studies in this line focus on exchanges of support through both local and transnational relationships (e.g., Bilecen, 2019; Bilecen & Sienkiewicz, 2015; Herz, 2015; Schweizer et al., 1998). They have shown, among others, that different ties are mobilized for support in differ- ent situations (Dahinden, 2005), as is the case for non-migrants (Bilecen, 2020). However, while most family ties are geographically far away, these ties remain for many people the main providers of emotional support (e.g., Bojarczuk & Mühlau, 2018) and sometimes even for support that requires co-presence (and thus network members’ mobility). Bilecen (2014) even found that international students seek emotional support the most from their transnational co- ethnic friends located in a third country (neither in the country of origin nor in the country where they receive their education). Other types of support are frequently exchanged with co-ethnics in the place of residence (Bilecen, 2019; Portes et al., 2002; Ryan, 2011; Waldinger, 1995), which shows that compatriots are important for adjustment to the country of residence. While social support studies generally assume that networks affect perceived stress or health, in migration research, networks are often not explicitly related to these outcomes, and more emphasis is placed on the function- ing of social support itself. Furthermore, to avoid an overly optimistic view on social support, qualitative studies with a relational approach have urged to also focus on the lack of support and conflict. In this vein, studies have shown that support is often contingent on the economic conditions of network members. In situations of economic scarcity, compatriots do not have sufficient resources to help each other out despite normative expectations to do so, which can provoke conflicts (Chelpi-den Hamer & Mazzucato, 2010; Gold, 2002; Menjívar, 2000; Ryan et al., 2008). Further- more, scholars have pointed at the exploitation of relatives (Tilly, 1990) or of undocumented migrants by documented intimate partners, relatives, and friends (Del Real, 2019). In this vein, we note that social network studies have paid relatively little attention to ties that are conflictive, demanding, or otherwise exerting a negative influence as well as non-relations (Hosnedlová, 2017), including ties that can be normatively expected (e.g., relatives) but that are absent. This is probably due to the fact that methods of analysis of negative ties were until recently little advanced although relational and network theories (e.g., balance, homophily, and status theories) have contemplated negative ties. In this aspect, qualitative studies complement social network studies by focusing on power differentials in ties. A second line of research that focuses on the exchange of resources in migrants’ networks is social capital stud- ies. Theories of social capital tend to integrate notions of social support, social integration, and cohesion in a broader perspective. An overview of conceptualizations of social capital2 is beyond the scope of this paper, but in migration studies, Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988), and Portes (1998) have been cited extensively. Despite their differences, studies in migration research typically consider social capital to be resources nested in social networks that can be accessed or mobilized through social relationships (see Mouw, 2006, for an extensive review). 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 844 BILECEN AND LUBBERS This strand of research focuses primarily on the effect of migrant networks on labour market outcomes (e.g., Kanas et al., 2009). Studies have shown that co-ethnic or compatriot networks are in favour of migrants hoarding opportunities by distributing valuable resources among their members while also reminding us that “every inclusion also constitutes an exclusion” (Tilly, 1990, p. 92). In that vein, empirical research demonstrated that having more friends and family ties in the country of residence has positive effects on migrants’ employment and earnings (Amuedo-Dorantes & Mundra, 2007; Munshi, 2003). These quantitative studies estimate the extent to which networks affect the likelihood of work or earnings, whereas qualitative research can give insight into the precise working of co-ethnic networks in finding employment. In her ethnographic network study among West-Indians who migrated to the United States, Bashi (2007) formulated the so- called hub and spokes model, distinguishing between the roles of “hubs” (veteran migrants who act as migration experts or brokers) and “spokes” (newcomers) in migrant networks. Veteran migrants regularly sponsor newcomers, but they do so selectively in order to maintain their good reputation in the community. They also use their connections to assist these newcomers in border crossing and to find jobs and housing, which helps them gain socioeconomic stability while being tied to cultural norms. On the other hand, social networks that are primarily centred on the co-national/co-ethnic community might not be socially mobile, as they are locked within their co-ethnic ties (Portes & Zhou, 1992). In this sense, Portes and Sensen- brenner (1993) argue that while co-ethnic networks make certain advantages available to their members such as privi- leged access to economic resources, reduced formalities in economic transactions, and altruistic support to their mem- bers, they also impose constraints through enforcing community norms and restricting their outside contacts. Other research confirmed that co-ethnic networks impose social control and place excessive claims on their group members (e.g., Evergeti & Zontini, 2006; Portes & Landolt, 2000; Zontini, 2006). Concomitantly, competition and rivalry among migrants and exploitation of fellow migrants due to a lack of resources have been reported (Cranford, 2005; Menjí- var, 2000). This perspective pinpoints to the power relations within co-ethnic or co-national groups, and it is crucial in understanding migrants’ life chances in a new environment. The effects of social capital embedded on labour market outcomes also vary by destination context. Based on the MAFE project mentioned earlier, Toma (2016) showed that having ties to prior migrants upon arrival has a positive effect on economic prospects for Senegalese men who migrated to France, where the Senegalese community is socioe- conomically diverse. However, a similar network effect was not found for Senegalese men who migrated to Spain or Italy, where the co-ethnic population only had lower-skilled jobs. These results suggest that the functioning of personal networks and their outcomes also depend on the larger legal, economic, and cultural context in which these networks operate. Only a few social network studies in migration compare the personal networks in different contexts of recep- tion in the way that Toma (2016) did. Moreover, social network studies have typically ignored other social forms that play a role in migration dynamics, such as social groups and organizations that may affect the way personal networks operate as well as the ways in which migrants are embedded within wider opportunity structures, focusing exclusively on patterns and contents of interpersonal relationships. Relational approaches are often more holistic in nature and can thus complement network studies. TRANSNATIONAL NETWORKS Contrary to early conceptualizations of migration as a unidirectional process, the concept of transnationalism acknowledges that migration can be temporary, circular, incomplete (i.e., only part of the household migrates) and/or followed by return or onward migration, and therefore scholars have started to approach migration as a multidirec- tional process (Faist, 2000; Glick Schiller et al., 1992; Levitt, 2001, 2002; Vertovec, 2009). Rather than conceptual- izing migratory phenomena within the boundaries of a single nation-state (“methodological nationalism”, Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002), transnational studies conceive of migrants as persistently embedded in networks of personal, economic, and political relationships scattered across different countries and sometimes continents (Levitt, 2002). 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License THE NETWORKED CHARACTER OF MIGRATION AND TRANSNATIONALISM 845 Moreover, migrants’ experiences and practices are considered to extend beyond only one scale of location (city, region, nation-state); rather, they are thought to be transnational, taking place within border-crossing networks that might have different implications such as inequality (Faist & Bilecen, 2015). Those “unbounded terrain[s] of interlocking egocentric networks” (Fouron & Glick Schiller, 2001) are considered to make up transnational social fields/spaces (Basch et al., 1994; Faist, 2000). Within those transnational arrangements, a plethora of studies have been conducted particularly on relationships between family members who are living in different nation-states and yet have a sense of familyhood from a rela- tional perspective (Baldassar & Merla, 2014; Bryceson & Vuorela, 2002; Fog Olwig, 2007; Mazzucato et al., 2014). Transnational family research examines the implications of the geographical separation of family ties pinpointing to how they survive over time and space using internet and communication technologies (e.g., Madianou & Miller, 2012) as well as the difficulties they experience in terms of resources, intergenerational conflicts, and intimacy. In that line of research, resource flows in the forms of financial and social remittances (Levitt, 1998, 2001; Mazzucato et al., 2014), care (Nedelcu & Wyss, 2019; Parreñas, 2005), social support (Boccagni, 2015; Herz, 2015), and social protection (Bar- glowski et al., 2015; Bilecen, 2019; Bilecen & Cardona, 2018) have been investigated, and their two-way nature is stressed (e.g., Bilecen, 2019, 2020; Mazzucato, 2008, Mazzucato et al., 2014). Another line of research is that of the emergence of migrant entrepreneurship in transnational social fields, taking advantage of network structural positions in these fields (e.g., Light & Bonacich, 1991; Portes et al., 2002; Sommer & Gamper, 2018). These and other studies showed how major relational mechanisms operate within and across several nation-state borders, including reciprocity between persons, groups, and communities, solidarity among co-ethnics, trust and coop- eration underpinning such exchanges (e.g., Dahinden, 2009). Nonetheless, one remaining issue within transnational conceptualizations of resource exchanges (be them in dyads or families) is the major emphasis on and qualification of only or mainly transnational ties (sampling on the dependent variable, as argued by Portes, 1995), lacking a more holistic view that includes people who never moved, where network analytical tools can contribute the most. Studying resource exchanges through network tools would yield a more comprehensive picture including manifold ties and do not prioritize some over others. Only recently has migration scholarship made efforts to illustrate more completely the concept of transnational social fields/spaces with network analytical tools. To do so, scholars have usually adopted a personal network approach (Molina et al., 2015), focusing on migrants’ individual positions within larger transnational fields, but some researchers have proposed other methodological designs to more fully respond to the idea of transnational social fields being “interlocking egocentric networks” (cf. Lubbers et al., 2020) that connect people in different countries. For example, Mazzucato (2009) developed a design to study simultaneously matched samples in the Netherlands and Ghana, fol- lowing small sets of transnational relationships over a period of a year. Among others, she illustrated the theoretical concept of simultaneity (Levitt & Glick Schiller, 2007), which refers to the notion that migrants’ and non-migrants’ real- ities are intrinsically connected with each other. Events that happened at one place, such as funerals, triggered actions in the other place of the transnational social field; thus, the two realities are strongly connected and sometimes coordi- nated. Mouw et al. (2014) used a binational link-tracing design to study the transnational social fields between Guana- juato in Mexico and two destination communities in the United States. By interconnecting the egocentric networks of a link-traced sample of individuals, both in destination and in origin, the authors could study flows of communication in the field and their positions within the field. This social network design comes closest to the idea of “interlocking egocentric networks” that Fouron and Glick Schiller (2001) initially introduced. QUO VADIS? Our review of the literature has shown that “network thinking” has been present for decades in migration scholarship even though formal/quantitative social network methods have been incorporated more commonly rather recently. The application of network logic through either social network analysis or relational approaches has led to increased 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 846 BILECEN AND LUBBERS TA B L E 1 Overview of findings regarding network effects in migration Phases Type of network effects Pre-migration Transit Post-migration Transnationalism Positive for Encourage migration Enable migration Creation of local ties Maintenance of individuals (economic needs of strong ties transnational ties (micro-level) in origin; normative influence) Detain migration (affinity with Determine Buffer Care and protection strong ties in origin) migration migration-related (two-way) trajectories stress (emotional support) Facilitate migration Help with asylum Facilitate adjustment Financial (information of prior migrants) seeking (linguistic, remittances residential, labor (two-way) market outcomes) Determine (initial) destination Create conditions for Social remittances (information of prior migrants) migrant (two-way) entrepreneurship Determine period of migration (information of prior migrants) Negative for Choices of destination are Trust betrayal can Economic conditions Inequality in individuals narrowed down risk lives can fragment relationships (micro-level) network functioning Networks can spread Status differential in Social pressure from misinformation local relationships transnational ties can breed exploitation Creation of dependency At the aggregated Chain migration Functioning of the Integration, social Effects of (macro) level so-called “illegal cohesion remittances for migration homeland industry” economy Migration corridors Migrant entrepreneurship Cumulative causation Culture of migration Reverse cumulative causation understanding of migration processes and outcomes, as captured in concepts such as chain migration, financial and social remittances, the culture of migration, or the hub and spokes model. One large question for the literature is, what effects do networks have on migration? As we have shown, networks play different roles in the pre-migration, transit, and post-migration phase and in transnationalism (see Table 1) both for individuals and society. Positive effects on indi- viduals are generated through networked exchanges of information, material, financial, and emotional support. Nega- tive effects are a consequence of channelling misinformation, power differentials, trust betrayal, and social pressure. On an aggregated level, networks shape migration corridors, the social integration of migrants and non-migrants in reception contexts and homeland economies. While network effects have often been tested with quantitative social network analysis, relational approaches using qualitative analysis have further highlighted the mechanisms through which these effects are established, which may be positive or negative. Furthermore, it has also illuminated the role of 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License THE NETWORKED CHARACTER OF MIGRATION AND TRANSNATIONALISM 847 relational work or networking practices in the establishment of network effects, showing how decisions are negotiated and suggesting that network effects are sometimes the result of individual agency, of strategic networking. Despite the much excellent previous work, we have identified various remaining challenges in this review. One such challenge is the longitudinal study of personal networks of migrants to explore how networks affect and are affected by migration over time. Although relational research tends to pay attention to the way in which dyadic relationships evolve, how they are negotiated and mobilized, most social network studies have captured migrant networks at a sin- gle point in time, providing a snapshot of an ever-changing network. Other remaining challenges are more attention for how sending and receiving contexts, including other social forms such as organizations, shape what networks can do; the need for more comparison of network processes between migrants and non-migrants to understand to what extent the migrant category affects network dynamics (Dahinden, 2016); attention to intersectionality in the function- ing of migrants’ networks; and a more systematic study of negative, absent, or latent ties. Many of these challenges are not unique for migration research but are wider issues that network researchers grapple with in many substantive areas. For many of these challenges, we conclude that better integration of social network analysis and other rela- tional approaches can be helpful. This may require greater use of mixed methods designs (e.g., Small, 2011), where the composition and the structure of networks are systematically measured, combined with an in-depth exploration of relationship meanings, dynamics, and context (Crossley, 2010; Domínguez & Hollstein, 2014). Nonetheless, mixed methods designs must be carefully planned to make sure that the design captures the best of both worlds and not the worst. Future migration research will also involve new types of network data, such as the already ubiquitous “big data”. Mobile phone call detail records and geo-tagged social media data can help to detect patterns of transnational mobil- ity (e.g., Spyratos et al., 2019) and communication (e.g., Gius, 2019) over time along with changing phone or media net- works. While the study of such data is still in its infancy in migration research, these types of data may help researchers to investigate the dynamism in social networks across migration that is otherwise difficult to capture, and can be a par- ticularly interesting source if combined with personal interviewing or online/offline ethnography, to be able to inter- pret and give meaning to these data (Gius, 2019). At the same time, border control also increasingly relies on data collected by surveillance drones and high-tech information systems that systematically collect identifying information (fingerprints, visa numbers) about people crossing borders. While these latter data can add to our understanding of the digital landscapes that migrants need to traverse (Light et al., 2017), it also implies that migrants on the move strategi- cally connect and disconnect from GPS systems, Wi-Fi, and communication channels, being highly aware of their “data shadows” as a potential source of vulnerability (Light et al., 2017). The need to use digital maps and communication and the simultaneous need to stay off the radar adds another layer of complexity to the networking practices that migrants may engage in, which calls for further research. However, using big data for research also calls for greater reflection on research ethics, particularly with vulnerable populations such as migrants. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Thomas Faist for his extensive comments on the earlier versions of this manuscript. We are grateful to Mario L. Small and the participants of his research class at Harvard University for their constructive feedback. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. ORCID Başak Bilecen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-9739 Miranda J. Lubbers https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8398-6044 ENDNOTES 1 Previous work considered the colonial ties, linguistic affinities, global division of labour and institutional frameworks through which nation-states are connected in a core-periphery structure where power is globally organized addressing eco- 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 848 BILECEN AND LUBBERS nomic dependencies. For Piore (1979), migrants are pulled to the countries of immigration more than they are pushed from countries of emigration because of industrialized economic factors. Moreover, world systems studies argued that due to restructuring in economies, division of labour is nowadays organized globally influencing the flows of people and capital making economies dependent on each other where the core is composed of industrialized nations with capital and receiving manpower from the developing nations (see, e.g., Sassen, 1988; Wallerstein, 1974). 2 In addition, there are others relying on social capital definitions by Burt (2007), Lin (2002), and Putnam (2001) and opera- tionalize their empirical research (see, e.g., Ryan et al., 2008). REFERENCES Achilli, L. (2018). The “good” smuggler: The ethics and morals of human smuggling among Syrians. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 676(1), 77–96. Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & Mundra, K. (2007). Social networks and their impact on the earnings of Mexican migrants. Demogra- phy, 44, 849–863. Andersson, R. (2014). Illegality.Inc.: Clandestine migration and the business of bordering Europe. California University Press. Asad, A. L., & Garip, F. (2019). Mexico-U.S. migration in time: From economic to social mechanisms. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 684(1), 60–84. Bailey, K. D. (1982). Post–functional social systems analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 23(4), 509–526. Baldassar, L., & Merla, L. (2014). Transnational families, migration and the circulation of care: Understanding mobility and absence in family life. Routledge. Barglowski, K., Krzyżowski, L., & Świątek, P. (2015). Caregiving in Polish–German transnational social space: Circulating nar- ratives and intersecting heterogeneities. Population, Space and Place, 21(3), 257–269. Barnes, J. A. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Human Relations, 7, 39–58. Basch, L. G., Glick Schiller, N., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1994). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. Gordon and Breach Science. Bashi, V. (2007). Survival of the knitted: Immigrant social networks in a stratified world. Stanford University Press. Bauer, T., Epstein, G. S., & Gang, I. N. (2009). Measuring ethnic linkages between immigrants. International Journal of Manpower, 30(1/2), 56–69. Bidart, C. (2006). Crises, décisions et temporalités: Autour des bifurcations biographiques. Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 1(120), 29–57. Bilecen, B. (2012). How to cross? Migrant perspectives. In A. Icduygu & D. Sert (Eds.), Borders under stress: The cases of Turkey-EU and Mexico-USA borders (pp. 167–182). The Isis Press. Bilecen, B. (2014). International student mobility and transnational friendships. Palgrave. Bilecen, B. (2019). ‘Altın Günü’: Migrant women’s social protection networks. Comparative Migration Studies, 7, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-019-0114-x Bilecen, B. (2020). Asymmetries in transnational social protection: Perspectives of migrants and nonmigrants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 689(1), 168–191. Bilecen, B., & Cardona, A. (2018). Do transnational brokers always win? A multilevel analysis of social support. Social Networks, 53, 90–100. Bilecen, B., Gamper, M., & Lubbers, M. J. (2018). The missing link: Social network analysis in migration and transnationalism. Social Networks, 53, 1–3. Bilecen, B., & Sienkiewicz, J. J. (2015). Informal social protection networks of migrants: Typical patterns in different transna- tional social spaces. Population Space and Place, 21(3), 227–243. Boccagni, P. (2015). Burden, blessing or both? On the mixed role of transnational ties in migrant informal social support. Inter- national Sociology, 30(3), 250–268. Bojarczuk, S., & Mühlau, P. (2018). Mobilising social network support for childcare: the case of Polish migrant mothers in Dublin. Social Networks, 53, 101–110. Bott, E. (1957). Family and social network. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. Boyd, M. (1989). Family and personal networks in international migration: Recent developments and new agendas. Interna- tional Migration Review, 23(3), 638–670. Bryceson, D. F., & Vuorela, U. (2002). The Transnational family: New European frontiers and global network. Berg Publishers. Burt, R. S. (2007). Brokerage and closure. an introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press. Cachia, R., & Maya Jariego, I. (2018). Mobility types, transnational ties and personal networks in four highly skilled immigrant communities in Seville (Spain). Social Networks, 53, 111–124. Chelpi-den Hamer, M., & Mazzucato, V. (2010). The role of support networks in the initial stages of integration: The case of West African newcomers in the Netherlands. International Migration, 48(2), 31–57. 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License THE NETWORKED CHARACTER OF MIGRATION AND TRANSNATIONALISM 849 Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. Collyer, M. (2005). When do social networks fail to explain migration? Accounting for the movement of Algerian asylum- seekers to the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(4), 699–718. Cranford, C. (2005). Networks of exploitation: Immigrant labor and the restructuring of the Los Angeles janitorial industry. Social Problems, 52(3), 379–397. Crossley, N. (2010). The social world of the network. Combining qualitative and quantitative elements in social network anal- ysis. Sociologica, 1(March-April), 1–34. Dahinden, J. (2005). Contesting transnationalism? Lessons from the study of Albanian migration networks from former Yugoslavia. Global Networks, 5(2), 191–208. Dahinden, J. (2009). Are we all transnationals now? Network transnationalism and transnational subjectivity: The differing impacts of globalization on the inhabitants of a small Swiss city. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32, 1365–1386. Dahinden, J. (2016). A plea for the ‘de-migranticization’ of research on migration and integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(13), 2207–2225. Danchev, V., & Porter, M. A. (2018). Neither global nor local: Heterogeneous connectivity in spatial network structures of world migration. Social Networks, 53, 4–19. De Haas, H. (2007). Morocco’s migration experience: A transitional perspective. International Migration, 54(4), 39–70. De León, J. (2015). The land of open graves: Living and dying on the migrant trail. California University Press. Del Real, D. (2019). Toxic ties: The reproduction of legal violence within mixed-status intimate partners, relatives, and friends. International Migration Review, 53(2), 548–570. Domínguez, S., & Hollstein, B. (2014). Mixed methods social networks research design and applications. Cambridge University Press. Durand, J., & Massey, D. S. (2004). Crossing the border: Research from the Mexican migration project. Russell Sage Foundation. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1952). The process of absorption of new immigrants in Israel. Human Relations, 5, 223–246. Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317. Engbersen, G., Snel, E., & Esteves, A. (2016). Migration Mechanisms of the Middle Range: On the Concept of Reverse Cumu- lative Causation. In O. Bakewell, G. Engbersen, M. L. Fonseca, & C. Horst (Eds.), Beyond networks: Feedback in international migration (pp. 205–230). Palgrave Macmillan. Eve, M. (2010). Integrating via networks: Foreigners and others. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1231–1248. Evergeti, V., & Zontini, E. (2006). Social capital, migration and transnational families. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(6), 1025– 1039. Facchini, G., Patacchini, E., & Steinhardt, M. F. (2014). Migration, friendship ties and cultural assimilation. Discussion Paper Series, No. 7881, IZA. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp7881.pdf Faist, T. (2014). Brokerage in cross-border mobility: Social mechanisms and the (re)production of social inequalities. Social Inclusion, 2(4), 38–52. Faist, T. (2000). The volume and dynamics of international migration and transnational social spaces. Oxford University Press. Faist, T., & Bilecen, B. (2015). Social inequalities through the lens of social protection: Notes on the transnational social ques- tion. Population Space and Place, 21(3), 282–293. Fawcett, J. T. (1989). Networks, linkages, and migration systems. International Migration Review, 23(3), 671–680. Fazito, D., & Soares, W. (2015). The industry of illegal migration: Social network analysis of the Brazil-US migration system. International Migration, 53(6), 183–204. Fog Olwig, K. (2007). Caribbean journeys: An ethnography of migration and home in three family networks. Duke University Press. Fouron, G., & Glick Schiller, N. (2001). All in the family: Gender, transnational migration, and the nation-state. Identities, 7(4), 539–582. Fuhse, J. (2015). Theorizing social networks: The relational sociology of and around Harrison White. International Review of Sociology, 25(1), 15–44. Fuhse, J. (2009). The meaning structure of social networks. Sociological Theory, 27(1), 51–73. Fussell, E., & Massey, D. S. (2004). The limits of cumulative causation: International migration from Mexican urban areas. Demography, 41(1), 151–171. Garip, F. (2016). On the move. Changing mechanisms of Mexico-US migration. Princeton University Press. Gidengil, E., & Stolle, D. (2018). The role of social networks in immigrant women’s political incorporation. International Migration Review, 43(4), 727–763. Gius, C. (2019). Online communities as points of observation of the transnational migrant career: A case study on italian immigrants in Toronto. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019. 1684247 Gladkova, N., & Mazzucato, V. (2017). Theorising chance: Capturing the role of ad hoc social interactions in migrants’ trajecto- ries. Population, Space and Place, 23(2), e1988. Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Blanc-Szanton, C. (1992). Transnationalism. A new analytic framework for understanding migra- tion. In N. Glick Schiller, L. Basch, & C. Blanc-Szanton (Eds.), Towards a transnational perspective on migration: Race, class, ethnicity and nationalism reconsidered (pp. 1–24). New York Academy of Science. 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 850 BILECEN AND LUBBERS Gold, S. J. (2002). Gender, class, and network: Social structure and migration patterns among transnational Israelis. Global Networks, 1(1), 57–78. Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation and American life: The role of race, religion and national origins. Oxford University Press. Hagan, J. M. (1998). Social networks, gender, and immigrant incorporation: Resources and constraints. American Sociological Review, 63(1), 55–67. Haug, S. (2008). Migration networks and migration decision-making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(4), 585–605. Herman, E. (2006). Migration as a family business: The role of personal networks in the mobility phase of migration. Interna- tional Migration, 44, 191–230. Herz, A. (2015). Relational constitution of social support in migrants’ transnational personal communities. Social Networks, 40, 64–74. Hoang, L. A. (2011). Gendered networks and migration decision-making in Northern Vietnam. Social and Cultural Geography, 12(5), 419–434. Hollstein, B. (2011). Qualitative approaches. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 404–417). SAGE. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994). Gendered transitions: Mexican experiences of immigration. University of California Press. Hosnedlová, R. (2017). Ties that bother–ties that matter. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 133(1), 29–45. Kanas, A., van der Lippe, T., & van Tubergen, F. (2009). Immigrant self-employment: Testing hypotheses about the role of origin- and host-country human capital and bonding and bridging social capital. Work and Occupations, 3, 181–208. Kandel, W., & Massey, D. S. (2002). The culture of Mexican migration: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Social Forces, 80(3), 981–1004. Kornienko, O., Agadjanian, V., Menjívar, C., & Zotova, N. (2018). Financial and emotional support in close personal ties among central Asian migrant women in Russia. Social Networks, 53, 125–135. Koser, K. (1997). Social networks and the asylum cycle: The case of Iranians in the Netherlands. International Migration Review, 31(3), 591–611. Krissman, F. (2005). Sin coyote ni patrón: Why the ‘migrant network’ fails to explain international migration. International Migra- tion Review, 39(1), 4–44. Leszczensky, L., Stark, T. H., Flache, A., & Munniksma, A. (2016). Disentangling the relation between young immigrants’ host country identification and their friendships with natives. Social Networks, 44, 179–189. Levitt, P. (1998). Social remittances: Migration driven local-level forms of cultural diffusion. International Migration Review, 32(4), 926–948. Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. University of California Press. Levitt, P. (2002). Transnational migration: Taking stock and future directions. Global Networks, 1(3), 195–216. Levitt, P., & Glick Schiller, N. (2007). Conceptualizing simultaneity–A transnational social field perspective on society. In A. Portes & J. DeWind (Eds.), Rethinking migration–new theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 181–218). Berghahn. Light, E., Lauth Bacas, J., Dragona, D., Kämpf, K. M., Peirano, M., Pelizzer, V., Rogers, C., Sprenger, F., Rowan, J., & Deng, A. L. (2017). Infrastructure of dis/connections: Of drones, migration and digital care. Imaginations, 8(2), 56–63. Light, I., & Bonacich, E. (1991). Immigrant entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965–1982. University of California Press. Lin, N. (2002). Social Capital. A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press. Liu, M. (2013). Migrant networks and international migration: testing weak ties. Demography, 50(4), 1243–1277. Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2007). Personal networks and ethnic identifications: The case of migrants in Spain. International Sociology, 22(6), 721–741. Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., Lerner, J., Brandes, U., Ávila, J., & McCarty, C. (2010). Longitudinal analysis of personal networks. The case of Argentinean migrants in Spain. Social Networks, 32(1), 91–104. Lubbers, M. J., Verdery, A. M., & Molina, J. L. (2020). Social networks and transnational social fields: A review of quantitative and mixed-methods approaches. International Migration Review, 54(1), 177–204. Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2021). How do migrants’ processes of social embedding unfold over time? Global Networks, 21(3), 529–550. MacDonald, J. S., & MacDonald, B. D. (1964). Chain migration, ethnic neighbourhood formation, and social networks. Milband Memorial Fund Quarterly, 42, 82–97. Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2012). Migration and new media: Transnational families and polymedia. Routledge. Mandić, D. (2017). Trafficking and Syrian refugee smuggling: Evidence from the Balkan route. Social Inclusion, 5(2), 28–38. Marcu, S. (2018). Mobility as a support strategy: Linked lives through the life course among Eastern Europeans in Spain. Geo- forum, 97, 335–342. Massey, D. S. (1987). The ethnosurvey in theory and practice. International Migration Review, 21(4), 1498–1522. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19(3), 431–466. Mazzucato, V. (2008). The double engagement: transnationalism and integration. Ghanaian migrants’ lives between Ghana and the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(2), 199–216. 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License THE NETWORKED CHARACTER OF MIGRATION AND TRANSNATIONALISM 851 Mazzucato, V. (2009). Simultaneity and networks in transnational migration, In J. DeWind & J. Holdaway (Eds.), Migration and Development within and across borders, (69–100). IMO. Mazzucato, V., Schans, D., Caarls, K., & Beauchemin, C. (2014). Transnational families between Africa and Europe. International Migration Review, 49(1), 142–172. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociol- ogy, 27, 415–444. Menjívar, C. (2000). Fragmented ties: Salvadoran immigrant networks in America. University of California Press. Mische, A. (2011). Relational sociology, culture and agency. In J. Scott & P. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 80–97). Sage Publications. Mitchell, C. (Ed.) (1969). Social networks in urban situations. Manchester University Press. Molina, J. L., Petermann, S., & Herz, A. (2015). Defining and measuring transnational social structures. Field Methods, 27(3), 223–243. Morawska, E. (1989). Labor migrations of poles in the Atlantic economy, 1880–1914. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3(1), 237–272. Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co. Mouw, T. (2006). Estimating the causal effect of social capital: A review of recent research. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 79–102. Mouw, T., Chavez, S., Edelblute, H., & Verdery, A. (2014). Binational social networks and assimilation: A test of the importance of transnationalism. Social Problems, 61(3), 329–359. Munshi, K. (2003). Networks in the modern economy: Mexican migrants in the U.S. labor market. The Quarterly Journal of Eco- nomics, 118(2), 546–599. Nauck, B. (1989). Assimilation process and group integration of migrant families. International Migration, 27(1), 27–48. Nedelcu, M., & Wyss, M. (2019). Transnational grandparenting: An introduction. Global Networks, 20(2), 292–307. Pachucki, M. A., & Breiger, R. L. (2010). Cultural holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 205–224. Palloni, A., Massey, D. S., Ceballos, M., Espinosa, K., & Spittel, M. (2001). Social capital and international migration: A test using information on family networks. American Journal of Sociology, 106(5), 1262–1298. Parreñas, R. S. (2005). Children of global migration. Transnational families and gendered woes. Stanford University Press. Parsons, C. R., Skeldon, R., Walmsley, T. R., & Winters, A. (2007). Quantifying international migration: A database of bilateral migrant stocks. (Working Paper No. 4165), World Bank Policy Research. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=969242 Paul, A. M. (2019). Unequal networks: Comparing the pre-migration overseas networks of Indonesian and Filipino migrant domestic workers. Global Networks, 19(1), 44–65. Piore, M. (1979). Bird of passage: Migrant labor and industrial societies. Cambridge University Press. Pohjola, A. (1991). Social networks–Help or hindrance to the migrant? International Migration, 29(3), 435–444. Portes, A. (1995). Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration: A conceptual overview. In A. Portes (Ed.), The economic sociology of immigration (pp. 1–41). Russel Sage. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24. Portes, A., Haller, W. J., & Guarnizo, L. E. (2002). Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 278–298. Portes, A., & Landolt, P. (2000). Social capital: Promise and pitfalls of its role in development. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32, 529–547. Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1320–1350. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1992). Gaining the upper hand: Economic mobility among immigrant and domestic minorities. Ethnic and Migration Studies, 15(4), 491–522. Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster. Riosmena, F., & Liu, M.-M. (2019). Who goes next? The gendered expansion of Mexican and Senegalese migrant sibling net- works in space and time. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 684(1), 146–164. Ryan, L. (2011). Migrants’ social networks and weak ties: Accessing resources and constructing relationships post-migration. The Sociological Review, 59(4), 707–724. Ryan, L., & D’Angelo, A. (2018). Changing times: Migrants’ social network analysis and the challenges of longitudinal research. Social Networks, 53, 148–158. Ryan, L., Sales, R., Tilki, M., & Siara, B. (2008). Social networks, social support and social capital: The experiences of recent polish migrants in London. Sociology, 42(4), 672–690. Sanchez, G., Hoxhaj, R., Nardin, S., Geddes, A., & Achilli, L. (2018). A study of the communication channels used by migrants and asylum seekers in Italy, with a particular focus on online and social media. Publications Office of the European Union. Sassen, S. (1988). The mobility of labor and capital. Cambridge University Press. 14710374, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/glob.12317 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 852 BILECEN AND LUBBERS Schapendonk, J. (2015). What if networks move? Dynamic social networking in the context of African migration to Europe. Population, Space and Place, 8, 809–819. Schweizer, T., Schnegg, M., & Berzbon, S. (1998). Personal networks and social support in a multiethnic community of southern California. Social Networks, 20, 1–21. Scott, J. (1996). Social network analysis: A handbook, Sage Publications. Scranton, A., Afifi, T., Afifi, W., & Gangi, K. (2016). Networks of passing: experiences of undocumented Latin American immi- grants’ identity negotiation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45(6), 449–469. Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 57–86. Smith, S., McFarland, D. A., van Tubergen, F., & Maas, I. (2016). Ethnic composition and friendship segregation: differential effects for adolescent natives and immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 121(4), 1223–1272. Snel, E., Engbersen, G., & Leerkes, A. (2006). Transnational involvement and social integration. Global Networks, 6(3), 285–308. Sommer, E., & Gamper, M. (2018). Transnational entrepreneurial activities: A qualitative network study of self-employed migrants from the former Soviet Union in Germany. Social Networks, 53, 136–147. Spyratos, S., Vespe, M., Natale, F., Weber, I., Zagheni, E., & Rango, M. (2019). Quantifying international human mobility patterns using facebook network data. PLoS ONE, 14(10), e0224134. Sue, C. A., Riosmena, F., & LePree, J. (2019). The influence of social networks, social capital, and the ethnic community on the U.S. destination choices of Mexican migrant men. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(13), 2468–2488. Teteryatnikova, M. (2013). A model of social networks and migration decisions. University of Vienna. Tilly, C. (2007). Trust networks in transnational migration. Sociological Forum, 22(1), 3–24. Tilly, C. (1990). Transplanted Networks. In V. Yans-McLoughlin (Ed.), Immigration Reconsidered (pp. 79–95). Oxford University Press. Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Addison-Wesley. Toma, S. (2016). The role of migrant networks in the labour market outcomes of Senegalese men: How destination contexts matter. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(4), 593–613. Vacca, R., Solano, G., Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2018). A personal network approach to the study of immigrant structural assimilation and transnationalism. Social Networks, 53, 72–89. Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. Routledge. Waldinger, R., & Fitzgerald, D. (2004). Transnationalism in question. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1177–1195. Waldinger, R. (1995). The other side of embeddedness: A case study of the interplay of economy and ethnicity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 18(3), 555–580. Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system, capitalist agriculture and the origins of the european world economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press. Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (1988). Introduction: Studying social structures. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 1–14). Cambridge University Press. White, H. (2008). Identity and control: How social formations emerge. Princeton University Press. Windzio, M. (2018). The network of global migration 1990–2013: Using ERGMs to test theories of migration between coun- tries. Social Networks, 53, 20–29. Wissink, M., Düvell, F., & Van Eerdewijk, A. (2013). Dynamic migration intentions and the impact of socio-institutional environ- ments: A transit migration hub in Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(7), 1087–1105. Wissink, M., & Mazzucato, V. (2018). In transit: Changing social networks of sub-Saharan African Migrants in Turkey and Greece. Social Networks, 53, 30–41. Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334. Zelizer, V. A. (2012). How I became a relational economic sociologist and what does that mean? Politics and Society, 40(2), 145– 174. Zontini, E. (2006). Italian families and social capital: Care provision in a transnational world. Community, Work and Family, 9(3), 325–345. Zontini, E. (2004). Italian families and social capital: Rituals and the provision of care in British-Italian transnational families. (Working Paper No. 6), Families & Social Capital ESRC Research Group. London South Bank University. How to cite this article: Bilecen B, Lubbers MJ. The networked character of migration and transnationalism. Global Networks. 2021;21:837–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12317