This chapter argues that the articulation of identity and belonging for those situated in the tension that is the asylum-migration-community nexus can helpfully be understood within the context of: (a) renewed methodologies for social research that are participatory, relational, interpretive and action-oriented; (b) a deep understanding of the economic and political relations of humiliation, inclusion and exclusion that includes the role of the mass media (print and broadcast); and (c) the related issue of governance at national, European and international levels. There is a need to develop alternative forms of representing and analysing the lived experiences of refugees and asylum seekers living in the UK.

At the centre of this work is the importance of renewing methodologies in the process of re-imagining the asylum-migration-community nexus, especially within the context of globalisation, humiliation, increasing mobility, the emergence of transnational communities, the need for radical democracy that includes a recognitive theory of citizenship (beyond the nation) towards an holistic concept of social justice. Also discussed are the importance of renewing methodologies for the work we do within the area of forced migration, humiliation, ‘egalization’ and human rights (Lindner, 2006); the role of the arts in processes of social inclusion; the importance of the relational and connective aspects of sociality; and the vital importance for creating spaces for dialogue and performative praxis through participatory methodologies.

Forced migration, research and public scholarship

Reflecting on the possibilities for a sociology of forced migration, Castles (2003) reminds readers that the field of migration studies is new, dating back only to the 1980s, and as pointed out by Richard Black (2001), the field has been ‘intimately connected to policy developments’ (Castles, 2003, p 26). However, a narrow concern with policy measures within the framework of what is possible or what government departments can work with is too narrow a remit. The problem of working within government funding and government agendas is that creative and theoretical thinking is bracketed in the interests of practical and pragmatic results and recommendations. A practical orientation dealing with empirical realities is, of course, a strength, but as Castles remarks: