Semi-structured in-depth interview schedule

The semi-structured in-depth interview proved to be a suitable tool for researching migrants’ life experiences (see Sanchez-Ayala L. 2012; Weiss 1994). Additionally, complementary interviews were conducted with identified key community members and governmental authorities. As an initial step, I designed an interview schedule for returnees encompassing open-ended and structured (multiple choice) questions. The questions contained in this schedule inquire about migrants' sociodemographic characteristics and migration movements, focusing on their (re)integration experiences (see Appendix 3). Its sequence was conceived in a way that helps to reconstruct the migration histories of the respondents, and was structured to take the interviewees through their experiences in each integration dimension (structural, social, cultural, civic and political) while in the USA and upon their

return to Mexico, exploring aspects that facilitated or hindered their process, and the impact of experiences in one integration domain upon those in another.

As for the key community members and governmental authorities, I developed an interview guide to be used as a reference which covered issues around i) policies; ii) current programming; as well as iii) perceptions of the current and future situation in relation to returnees. These questions were modified to adapt to the nature of the institution and the position of each interviewee (see Appendix 4).

These three research tools (questionnaire survey, semi-structured in-depth interview schedule and key informant interview guide) were originally designed in English and subsequently translated into Spanish. During the translation, special thought was given not only to the pertinence of the questions and, in some cases, its multiple-choice answers, but also to the specific formulation used in each language. Particular attention was paid to matching concepts and meanings rather than doing a literal translation. Following the translation of the semi-structured in-depth interview schedule, I conducted a total of three interviews with return migrants in Mexico City during the pilot phase of the fieldwork. After this initial phase, the research tool was modified according to the identified needs. Similarly, the key informant interview guide was discussed with an ‘on the ground’ colleague who was familiar with the key informants and was aware of the local politics. As a result, I created a revised version of the guide ready for use.

In a second phase of data collection, a total of 60 return migrants were interviewed, 30 in Mexico City and 30 in Huaquechula. With the exception of three cases, interviews were held in one session. The average time of the interview was two and a half hours, but ranged from one and a half, to up to six hours. All in-depth interviews, except for one, were voice recorded with the consent of the respondents, but notes were taken as well in a printed interview schedule for each case. An average interview with a returnee started with an introduction of the research and its objectives, which were communicated by reading through the information sheet (see Appendix 5), followed by an explanation and signature of the consent form (see Appendix 6). The next step was to gather the bio-data information followed by an overview of the whole migration trajectory. Authors have highlighted the importance of exploring temporal dimensions in migration research as it has an impact on migrants’ settlement experience and return considerations (Erdal and Ezzati 2015). Therefore, utilising a timeline, I asked each participant to share all of her or his migration experiences with me, both national and international. The use of this timeline had a similar

function to the migration history chart proposed by Carling (2012). The procedure was to draw a line on which I placed 2015 at the end, and I requested that the participant share the date on which their migration journey started and their destination. This would be followed by a sequence of dates and destinations of their subsequent migration movements, ending with the date of their return and destination(s). As I allowed space for each participant to narrate freely, sometimes people gave calendar years, others preferred to refer to the age they were when they migrated and others used specific life events to prompt their memories (for an example see Appendix 7). These life events would often be mentioned later in their narrations as important experiences in their life trajectories. Typical references would be made to their arrival to the USA before or after President Bush Senior passed the amnesty in the 1980s, or before or after 9/11. A more personal remark, for example, was made by a participant who mentioned that he and his family left Mexico in 1987, just after the football World Cup, which was one of the best memories of his childhood. The use of this tool was helpful to establish a frame of reference and by the end of this exercise I had an overall picture of the participant’s migration movements, which also helped me to adjust the time and my role as required58_.

Once the returnees’ interviews were finished, I was able to identify relevant actors to be interviewed. Therefore, 19 complementary interviews were conducted with key community members and governmental authorities such as researchers (4), government authorities (8), and non-governmental actors (7)59_{. These interviewees responded to various questions} during semi-formal interviews held in the two research sites. Specifically, the aim of these interviews was to learn more about contextual aspects such as (re)integration policies and practices, as well as the role of state institutions and other actors that influence the (re)integration experience of return migrants to Mexico (see Figure 6). Interview schedules were used with much more flexibility, due to the need to adopt an exploratory, open-ended questioning approach. Some questions also appeared pertinent in some instances, but not necessarily in others, as readiness to respond varied from person to person. I must say that I particularly struggled when interviewing governmental officials as they would generally have an extremely institutional approach, basing their responses on official statements

58 _{Interviewees with just one migration journey would generally require less time than those with}

several ones for which I would also need to have a more directive approach as interviewer.

59 _{It is relevant to mention that these interviews were conducted in addition to those initial ones}

conducted during the process of selecting field sites. This means that a few actors were interviewed twice.

which were often far from reality, and failed to reflect the situation on the ground. For this group, just half of the interviews were recorded with the consent of the respondents either due to their request or because I did not consider it appropriate, but in all cases notes were taken.

Figure 6. Key community members and governmental authorities interviewed

Researchers ● Fundación Banco Bilbao Viscaya Argentaria / Bilbao Viscaya Argentaria Bank Foundation (BBVA)

● Independent researcher ● Independent researcher

● Universidad Iberoamericana Guadalajara / Iberoamerican University Guadalajara

Non-

government

● Alianza para las Migraciones Centroamérica y México / Central American and Mexico Migration Alliance (CAMMINA)

● Asamblea Popular de Familias Migrantes / Popular Assembly of Migrant Families (APOFAM)

● Fundación Mexicanos y Americanos Todos Trabajando / Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together Foundation (MATT)

● Iniciativa Ciudadana para la Promoción de la Cultura del Dialogo / Citizen’s Initiative for the Promotion of a Culture of Dialogue

● Instituto para las Mujeres en la Migración / Institute for Women in Migration (IMUMI)

● International Organisation for Migration – México (IOM Mexico)

● Servicio Jesuita para Migrantes Puebla / Jesuit Service for Migrants Puebla (SJM Puebla)

Government ● Dirección de Apoyo y Protección a Migrantes de Puebla / Puebla State Office for Migrants’ Support and Protection

● Dirección General de Protección al Migrante y Vinculación, Instituto Nacional

de Migración / General Office for Migrant’s Protection and Networking, National Institute for Migration (INM)

● Oficina de Atención al Migrante, Huaquechula / Office for Migrants, Huaquechula

● Dirección General de Políticas de Protección, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores / General Office for Protection Policies, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SRE)

● Dirección General para la Salud del Migrante, Secretaría de Salud / General Office for Migrant’s Health, Ministry of Health (SS)

● Dirección de Movilidad Laboral, Servicio Nacional de Empleo / Office for Labour Mobility, National Service of Labour (SNE)

● Presidencia Municipal Huaquechula / Huaquechula’s Municial President ● Subsecretaría de Planeación y Evaluación de Políticas Educativas,

Secretaría de Educación Pública / Office for Planification and Evaluation of

Education Policies, Ministry of Education (SEP)

Source: Fieldwork with key informants in Huaquechula and Mexico City.

The places where the returnees’ interviews were conducted varied from one location to another. In the urban site, the majority of the interviews (18) were conducted after working

hours in public spaces such as service providers’ offices, restaurants, parks, and in some cases in rather unsuitable locations such as in a subway station, or a beauty salon. All other interviews were conducted at the participants’ homes. In the rural site, the majority of the interviews were conducted at the participants’ homes (16), others were conducted during working hours at the interviewees’ work place (11) and just three of them were conducted in public spaces. The majority of key informants’ interviews were held at their work places. I am aware that interviewees, when talking about their lives, are selective in terms of which events they consider to be relevant and the ways in which they choose to narrate them (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). Moreover, it was important for me to keep in mind that the ways in which interviewees communicate their stories are influenced by their positions as migrants, key community members or policy makers. Their experiences were communicated in diverse ways according to their specific personal, cultural and social contexts. Interviewing a range of actors has enriched this study by capturing their views on the post-return experience and has helped me to understand a diverse and challenging reality (Kvale 1996).

Even if I conducted only the number of interviews on the sample quota as initially planned, I believe that I interviewed participants until reaching a saturation point. While every returnee’s life narrative shared with me was unique, I am confident that when I completed the data collection I was at a point where similar issues were being raised by various participants. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, rather than seeking statistically based generalisability, this study aimed to extract a detailed understanding of migrants’ experiences of return based on their functional and subjective experiences related to their (re)integration processes. I am confident that through the methodology established I have been able to generate that understanding.