Ethnic and Racial Studies vol:35 issue:10 pages:1775-1793
The recent ‘mobilities turn’ in the social sciences suggests that research always fixes mobility somehow in time and space, in order to understand it. Migration, being a form of mobility, has to be fixed on certain times and spaces in order to make it possible to define and research it. Being a
geographer, I build on this insight in the first part of the article to re-read the critiques on post-war methodological nationalism. Reflecting on my own past research practice, I argue in the second part that leaving behind the methodological nationalism paradigm does not mean leaving behind the necessity to fix migration in time and space, on either the ontological or the practical methodological level. New ways of fixing are chosen and, out of recurring ontological and methodological choices, new migration
stereotypes are developing such as what might be called ‘methodological ruralism’ in the case of Romanian migration.